Dear Abby 8-20-12

Toj wrote:

<quoted text>
When men carry the baby nine months and give birth to it, then they can have the final decision.
Men have their fair share of say in adoption.

Just saying, the man has zero say in whether or not to terminate the pregnancy, but have to pay their fair share based on the woman's decision, so let's not act like this is a 50/50 proposition.

Mister Tonka wrote:

<quoted text>Just saying, the man has zero say in whether or not to terminate the pregnancy, but have to pay their fair share based on the woman's decision, so let's not act like this is a 50/50 proposition.

Well, that's a relatively recent development of modern society. Men were off the hook until the last 30 years or so.

Mister Tonka wrote:

<quoted text>Just saying, the man has zero say in whether or not to terminate the pregnancy, but have to pay their fair share based on the woman's decision, so let's not act like this is a 50/50 proposition.

Who said it's a 50/50 proposition. But the thing is men have all the say they want on whether or not they're going to have sex with a woman. If a man doesn't realize sex can lead to a baby, they need more help than what anyone could give on this forum.

Mister Tonka wrote:

<quoted text>Just saying, the man has zero say in whether or not to terminate the pregnancy, but have to pay their fair share based on the woman's decision, so let's not act like this is a 50/50 proposition.

No man has ever died from pregnancy complications. EVER.
When they start dropping dead from them, then they can have a say.

Toj wrote:

Who said it's a 50/50 proposition.

Kuuipo wrote:

Daddies are 50% responsible for making children, so they should be 50% responsible for supporting any children they make.

Who indeed.

Can a man get a court order to force the woman to bed rest if there is a possibility of her dying or injuring his child?

NWmoon wrote:

<quoted text>No man has ever died from pregnancy complications. EVER.
When they start dropping dead from them, then they can have a say.

Mister Tonka wrote:

<quoted text>And they are 0% responsible for the final decision on whether or not a child will be born. Let's not gloss over that.

No, let's not. So if a man has NO desire to be a father, then he should have an actual CONVERSATION with any woman he has sex with to determine a) if she is using birth control, b) how she feels about ending an unplanned pregnancy. And he should use condoms EVERY time regardless. And IF, despite these precautions, he should become a father, he should remember that the child is an innocent who did not choose to be born and not duck his responsibilities with lame excuses and expect TAXPAYERS to pick up the slack.

RACE wrote:

Can a man get a court order to force the woman to bed rest if there is a possibility of her dying or injuring his child?
<quoted text>

There is no child until there has been a birth.
Anyone who is attempting to bring a pregnancy to term is free to romanticize the foetus by calling it a baby if they want, but that doesn't make it one.
What part of it's not YOUR body at risk do you not understand?
My body, my health, my life, my decision.
Not yours, not any man's.

Disagree!
So you are free to willingly endanger a perfectly health unborn child by smoking crack and getting yourself punched in the gut?

See, its all about you and the man has no rights at all to his child, just the responsibility to pay. I dont care if its your body. You are just the vessel carrying my kid.

NWmoon wrote:

<quoted text> There is no child until there has been a birth.
Anyone who is attempting to bring a pregnancy to term is free to romanticize the foetus by calling it a baby if they want, but that doesn't make it one.
What part of it's not YOUR body at risk do you not understand?
My body, my health, my life, my decision.
Not yours, not any man's.

Kuuipo wrote:

<quoted text>
No, let's not. So if a man has NO desire to be a father, then he should have an actual CONVERSATION with any woman he has sex with to determine a) if she is using birth control, b) how she feels about ending an unplanned pregnancy. And he should use condoms EVERY time regardless. And IF, despite these precautions, he should become a father, he should remember that the child is an innocent who did not choose to be born and not duck his responsibilities with lame excuses and expect TAXPAYERS to pick up the slack.

We've had this discussion here more than once. I've no desire to hash it out again. I just want to dispel this 50/50 notion. Its false.

RACE wrote:

Disagree!
So you are free to willingly endanger a perfectly health unborn child by smoking crack and getting yourself punched in the gut?
See, its all about you and the man has no rights at all to his child, just the responsibility to pay. I dont care if its your body. You are just the vessel carrying my kid.
<quoted text>

Not what I said at all. Not even close.
You're conflating two different subjects.
When one decides to attempt to carry to term, then, in my opinion, one is obligated to do EVERYTHING possible to stay healthy, for the sake of both the lives at stake. Many states have laws to back this up.
But, NO man gets to make that initial decision of whether or not to attempt to bring a pregnancy to term.
THAT decision is all up to the woman involved.
And just for the record, I attempted to bring ALL of my pregnancies to term, and it was the father of my elder who wanted me to abort.(along with my mom, but I think she was just pissed that I was doing something she'd never been able to do)

Mister Tonka wrote:

<quoted text>We've had this discussion here more than once. I've no desire to hash it out again. I just want to dispel this 50/50 notion. Its false.

Ooh, good, an abortion debate again. The man is partly responsible for impregnating the woman in the first place. Saying he has zero percent decision making on whether or not the woman carries out the pregnancy is also false. If he didn't want her to have a baby, he shouldn't have had sex with her. ESPECIALLY if it was unprotected.

And isn't it ironic? You kill a pregnant woman and you can be charged with double homicide. But abortion is legal because a baby isn't considered a person until it's born. So which is it?

Mister Tonka wrote:

<quoted text>We've had this discussion here more than once. I've no desire to hash it out again. I just want to dispel this 50/50 notion. Its false.

What I meant by 50/50 is that it takes one man and one woman to make a baby. One sperm and one egg. That is TRUE.

There is no excuse, IMHO, for the number of "accidental" or unplanned pregnancies that occur in the 21st century. Both men and women need to use birth control responsibly. Taxpayers are footing the bill, via welfare, for all of the unfortunate children of these irresponsible parents, men and women. Men don't get a free pass just because they don't have a say in carrying the child. They had a say in the act, they know where babies come from, and condoms are cheap and easily available.

Kuuipo wrote:

<quoted text>
What I meant by 50/50 is that it takes one man and one woman to make a baby. One sperm and one egg. That is TRUE.
There is no excuse, IMHO, for the number of "accidental" or unplanned pregnancies that occur in the 21st century. Both men and women need to use birth control responsibly. Taxpayers are footing the bill, via welfare, for all of the unfortunate children of these irresponsible parents, men and women. Men don't get a free pass just because they don't have a say in carrying the child. They had a say in the act, they know where babies come from, and condoms are cheap and easily available.

AND if they're afraid they are not 100% preventative (which they aren't) there are spermicides available to use in conjunction. Also, if a man is not willing to take the necessary precautions and have the right conversations, they can always get snipped. You can have some sperm frozen before you do it so then you have more control.

Kuuipo wrote:

<quoted text>
What I meant by 50/50 is that it takes one man and one woman to make a baby. One sperm and one egg. That is TRUE.
There is no excuse, IMHO, for the number of "accidental" or unplanned pregnancies that occur in the 21st century. Both men and women need to use birth control responsibly. Taxpayers are footing the bill, via welfare, for all of the unfortunate children of these irresponsible parents, men and women. Men don't get a free pass just because they don't have a say in carrying the child. They had a say in the act, they know where babies come from, and condoms are cheap and easily available.

Nevermind the 21st century. We had very high pregnant-before-wedding rates in the 1800s. it's estimated to be 75%, based on research into marriage and birth records.

RedheadwGlasses wrote:

<quoted text>
Nevermind the 21st century. We had very high pregnant-before-wedding rates in the 1800s. it's estimated to be 75%, based on research into marriage and birth records.

\

The difference between now and then is that they sucked it up, got married, and raised their own children.

Kuuipo wrote:

Men don't get a free pass just because they don't have a say in carrying the child. They had a say in the act, they know where babies come from

They also know how to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. But you all keep glossing over HIS lack of choice as if it is a non issue.

Both have a say in whether or not they have sex.
Both have the opportunity to discuss before hand their thoughts on how to handle an unplanned pregnancy.

But that's where 50/50 ends, regardless of what her decision is.

She wants to keep the baby, he does not. His opinion is meaningless.

He wants to keep the baby, she does not. His opinion is meaningless.

Whether he is bound to 18 years of child support for a child he did not want is entirely up to her.

I'm not arguing for men to be in the driver's seat, just an acknowledgement that there is an inherent unfairness toward men. If men were in the driver's seat, it would be unfair toward the women.

Kuuipo wrote:

<quoted text>\
The difference between now and then is that they sucked it up, got married, and raised their own children.

Right. Cause illegitmate children are a new sensation. And back alley abortions never happened before abortion became legal. Pregnant teens were not pulled from school and sent away to live with distant relatives cause the boy who knocked her up always married her. No, none of that ever happened. Real life was like Leave it to Beaver and they always lived happily ever after.

edogxxx wrote:

But abortion is legal because a baby isn't considered a person until it's born.

By George he's got it. And people think you don't understand things.

Kuuipo wrote:

<quoted text>\
The difference between now and then is that they sucked it up, got married, and raised their own children.

And died young leaving children without their mothers.