Should fathers have a say in abortion?

[DioxazinePlum]

Fresnel

This topic brought up another interesting abortion-related thought in my mind:

if a man belts a pregnant woman in the gut with a tire iron and she miscarries, it's murder, but if she instead chose to get an abortion, it's not.

It's an interesting double-standard.

Umm I don't think its murder. More like domestic assault with manslaughter (if anything).  

[DioxazinePlum]

The Curse

Fresnel

The Curse

He should have a decision of his own to make.

Instead of just hoping his pro-life girlfriend will change her mind, he should have the option of aborting his rights to the child.

It's ridiculous that a woman can get pregnant and then practically enslave the man, taking chunks of his income and demaniding his time for the large life period of eighteen years when the woman can walk out by going to an abortion clinic.

She should have to make her decision knowing the man can, for the period after conception until birth, has the right to abort as much as she does.

That, unfortunately, leaves a pro-life woman to fend for herself without the man who impregnated her to help.

Yeah, but this is not the man's problem, really. If she can't look after it, but wont kill it, there is nothing wrong with letting it up for adoption or looking for help elsewhere (e.g. family).

If she is pro-life she should be extra aware of contraception. It's completely her fault she's in the mess if she is left alone. She had the legal right to opt out via abortion or adoption.

Without the mans right to opt out legally, you get a situation where the woman can opt out for both of them, or opt in for both of them, no exceptions.

The problem is that in some cases if you are pro-life, contraception is against your religion.  

[DioxazinePlum]

Fresnel

The Curse

I do recognize the disparity here, I'm just playing devil's advocate because I don't like any of the solutions presented thus far.

There is no solution. Truth of the situation is a girl can go get an abortion without the father, because it is her body. Its up to the girl if she wants to give the guy a say or not because its not HIS body. Yes, its his child, and if I got pregnant I would let the guy weigh in, but it would ultimately be my decision.

Reason why it can't be mandatory to have the father present for abortion (if he is still alive of course).

The mother could possibly not want to be tied to the father for the rest of her life, and got pregnant by accident. (But hes crazy and wants the baby). Granted the situation could be reversed, but he's not the one carrying the baby and at least you cut out half of the possibility of prolonging a bad and perhaps abusive relationship. Men are typically the abusers here, remember.

Also, if you have any kind of a normal relationship with the father, obviously you are going to ask him what he thinks.

Its funny how everyone thinks they are an expert on abortion when they haven't even had one. I say all young unwed mothers should get abortions so they don't ruin their lives, but if I got pregnant, despite what I say, I don't know what I'd actually do.

 

[The Curse]

DioxazinePlum

The Curse

Fresnel

The Curse

He should have a decision of his own to make.

Instead of just hoping his pro-life girlfriend will change her mind, he should have the option of aborting his rights to the child.

It's ridiculous that a woman can get pregnant and then practically enslave the man, taking chunks of his income and demaniding his time for the large life period of eighteen years when the woman can walk out by going to an abortion clinic.

She should have to make her decision knowing the man can, for the period after conception until birth, has the right to abort as much as she does.

That, unfortunately, leaves a pro-life woman to fend for herself without the man who impregnated her to help.

Yeah, but this is not the man's problem, really. If she can't look after it, but wont kill it, there is nothing wrong with letting it up for adoption or looking for help elsewhere (e.g. family).

If she is pro-life she should be extra aware of contraception. It's completely her fault she's in the mess if she is left alone. She had the legal right to opt out via abortion or adoption.

Without the mans right to opt out legally, you get a situation where the woman can opt out for both of them, or opt in for both of them, no exceptions.

The problem is that in some cases if you are pro-life, contraception is against your religion.

In which case she should probably be practising abstinence instead, right?

Even so, religion is a choice not forced on you. Refusal to abstain, to take precautionary measures, and then yet still to abort still leaves the option of putting up for adoption.

And men don't get a single one of these options in their own right, only in terms of what influence they may have over their partner. Except perhaps abstinence.  

[DioxazinePlum]

The Curse

DioxazinePlum

The Curse

Fresnel

The Curse

He should have a decision of his own to make.

Instead of just hoping his pro-life girlfriend will change her mind, he should have the option of aborting his rights to the child.

It's ridiculous that a woman can get pregnant and then practically enslave the man, taking chunks of his income and demaniding his time for the large life period of eighteen years when the woman can walk out by going to an abortion clinic.

She should have to make her decision knowing the man can, for the period after conception until birth, has the right to abort as much as she does.

That, unfortunately, leaves a pro-life woman to fend for herself without the man who impregnated her to help.

Yeah, but this is not the man's problem, really. If she can't look after it, but wont kill it, there is nothing wrong with letting it up for adoption or looking for help elsewhere (e.g. family).

If she is pro-life she should be extra aware of contraception. It's completely her fault she's in the mess if she is left alone. She had the legal right to opt out via abortion or adoption.

Without the mans right to opt out legally, you get a situation where the woman can opt out for both of them, or opt in for both of them, no exceptions.

The problem is that in some cases if you are pro-life, contraception is against your religion.

In which case she should probably be practising abstinence instead, right?

Even so, religion is a choice not forced on you. Refusal to abstain, to take precautionary measures, and then yet still to abort still leaves the option of putting up for adoption.

And men don't get a single one of these options in their own right, only in terms of what influence they may have over their partner. Except perhaps abstinence.

Its true that the only power that men have is that over their partner. Sorry to be cynical, but isn't it true that men rule the world, make more, have influence over their spouses, and generally have control of everything? This is one of the few places where women are in control. Maybe we should leave it at that.  

[The Curse]

DioxazinePlum

The Curse

DioxazinePlum

The Curse

Fresnel

The Curse

He should have a decision of his own to make.

Instead of just hoping his pro-life girlfriend will change her mind, he should have the option of aborting his rights to the child.

It's ridiculous that a woman can get pregnant and then practically enslave the man, taking chunks of his income and demaniding his time for the large life period of eighteen years when the woman can walk out by going to an abortion clinic.

She should have to make her decision knowing the man can, for the period after conception until birth, has the right to abort as much as she does.

That, unfortunately, leaves a pro-life woman to fend for herself without the man who impregnated her to help.

Yeah, but this is not the man's problem, really. If she can't look after it, but wont kill it, there is nothing wrong with letting it up for adoption or looking for help elsewhere (e.g. family).

If she is pro-life she should be extra aware of contraception. It's completely her fault she's in the mess if she is left alone. She had the legal right to opt out via abortion or adoption.

Without the mans right to opt out legally, you get a situation where the woman can opt out for both of them, or opt in for both of them, no exceptions.

The problem is that in some cases if you are pro-life, contraception is against your religion.

In which case she should probably be practising abstinence instead, right?

Even so, religion is a choice not forced on you. Refusal to abstain, to take precautionary measures, and then yet still to abort still leaves the option of putting up for adoption.

And men don't get a single one of these options in their own right, only in terms of what influence they may have over their partner. Except perhaps abstinence.

Its true that the only power that men have is that over their partner. Sorry to be cynical, but isn't it true that men rule the world, make more, have influence over their spouses, and generally have control of everything? This is one of the few places where women are in control. Maybe we should leave it at that.

I think we should leave it at that. That you would assume I endorse such a status quo or support it whatsoever probably means we aren't able to keep our debates on this topic fair. To me, this isn't a numbers game where you try and let people score here because they didn't score there.  

[Kats Scratches]

I'm going to have to say I disagree very much with Angel on the topic that if the father wants to keep the baby, the mother should be made to carry it to term.

While you've made your point clear that you would never date someone who would abort your child, do you think it is fair for a woman whose intention was not to have children and say, the condom broke, or the contraception failed?* Her intention was to protect herself from an unwanted pregnancy, would it be fair for her rights to be violated for the fathers wishes?

*In this situation, the idea of children had not been previously discussed.  

[black_wing_angel]

Kats Scratches

I'm going to have to say I disagree very much with Angel on the topic that if the father wants to keep the baby, the mother should be made to carry it to term.

That is not actually what I'm trying to say.

I'm just trying to say that a mother should at least CONSIDER his opinion, rather than giving the whole "WILL ITZ MUH BODY! SO :p "

I mean, it IS his child, too. So he deserves to at least be CONSULTED on the matter, and have his opinion taken into consideration.

Quote:

While you've made your point clear that you would never date someone who would abort your child, do you think it is fair for a woman whose intention was not to have children and say, the condom broke, or the contraception failed?*

No, I do not think that's fair. That's why I'm politically Pro-Choice. I DO support a woman's right to choose. I simply won't be with anyone who would feel the need TO consider that choice, because I'm still personally pro life. Any woman I stick my d**k in, will be a woman who accepts the risks in their entirety. But I will not ask a woman I have no connection to, to follow my logic.

Quote:

Her intention was to protect herself from an unwanted pregnancy, would it be fair for her rights to be violated for the fathers wishes?

No. It would not.  

[Kats Scratches]

black_wing_angel

Kats Scratches

I'm going to have to say I disagree very much with Angel on the topic that if the father wants to keep the baby, the mother should be made to carry it to term.

That is not actually what I'm trying to say.

I'm just trying to say that a mother should at least CONSIDER his opinion, rather than giving the whole "WILL ITZ MUH BODY! SO :p "

I mean, it IS his child, too. So he deserves to at least be CONSULTED on the matter, and have his opinion taken into consideration.

Quote:

While you've made your point clear that you would never date someone who would abort your child, do you think it is fair for a woman whose intention was not to have children and say, the condom broke, or the contraception failed?*

No, I do not think that's fair. That's why I'm politically Pro-Choice. I DO support a woman's right to choose. I simply won't be with anyone who would feel the need TO consider that choice, because I'm still personally pro life. Any woman I stick my d**k in, will be a woman who accepts the risks in their entirety. But I will not ask a woman I have no connection to, to follow my logic.

Quote:

Her intention was to protect herself from an unwanted pregnancy, would it be fair for her rights to be violated for the fathers wishes?

No. It would not.

She burns like the sun, and I can't look away


I think in a state of half-sleep I mistook your personal morals for general morals. sorry XD

She'll burn our horizons, make no mistakes.

 

[black_wing_angel]

Kats Scratches

black_wing_angel

Kats Scratches

I'm going to have to say I disagree very much with Angel on the topic that if the father wants to keep the baby, the mother should be made to carry it to term.

That is not actually what I'm trying to say.

I'm just trying to say that a mother should at least CONSIDER his opinion, rather than giving the whole "WILL ITZ MUH BODY! SO :p "

I mean, it IS his child, too. So he deserves to at least be CONSULTED on the matter, and have his opinion taken into consideration.

Quote:

While you've made your point clear that you would never date someone who would abort your child, do you think it is fair for a woman whose intention was not to have children and say, the condom broke, or the contraception failed?*

No, I do not think that's fair. That's why I'm politically Pro-Choice. I DO support a woman's right to choose. I simply won't be with anyone who would feel the need TO consider that choice, because I'm still personally pro life. Any woman I stick my d**k in, will be a woman who accepts the risks in their entirety. But I will not ask a woman I have no connection to, to follow my logic.

Quote:

Her intention was to protect herself from an unwanted pregnancy, would it be fair for her rights to be violated for the fathers wishes?

No. It would not.

She burns like the sun, and I can't look away


I think in a state of half-sleep I mistook your personal morals for general morals. sorry XD

She'll burn our horizons, make no mistakes.

It happens. Don't worry about it.

I'm the kind of person who keeps my personal morals separated from my political views. I do not agree with forcing my personal feelings onto others, who may not agree with me. I will do MY thing, and they will do THEIRS, I figure.  

[Fresnel]

The Curse

To me, this isn't a numbers game where you try and let people score here because they didn't score there.

This. Especially since a woman can ruin a man's life simply by giving him a compromised condom and/or lying about being on the pill. It's one thing to let them score here because they didn't score there, it's another to hand over the golden snitch because their keeper sucks.

Forgive the Harry Potter reference, but it's the only game I can think of where things are so horribly unbalanced.  

[black_wing_angel]

Fresnel

The Curse

To me, this isn't a numbers game where you try and let people score here because they didn't score there.

This. Especially since a woman can ruin a man's life simply by giving him a compromised condom and/or lying about being on the pill. It's one thing to let them score here because they didn't score there, it's another to hand over the golden snitch because their keeper sucks.

Forgive the Harry Potter reference, but it's the only game I can think of where things are so horribly unbalanced.

You don't got to casinos, often, do you?

The house ALWAYS has the edge. Except in Black Jack.  

[magmayoshi]

black_wing_angel

Fresnel

The Curse

To me, this isn't a numbers game where you try and let people score here because they didn't score there.

This. Especially since a woman can ruin a man's life simply by giving him a compromised condom and/or lying about being on the pill. It's one thing to let them score here because they didn't score there, it's another to hand over the golden snitch because their keeper sucks.

Forgive the Harry Potter reference, but it's the only game I can think of where things are so horribly unbalanced.

You don't got to casinos, often, do you?

The house ALWAYS has the edge. Except in Black Jack.

They still have the edge actually and are continuously eradicating any possibility of it being otherwise. It's getting to the point they reshuffle after almost every hand of ANYTHING. You need to play on non-house tables for any possibility of an advantage. If the casino is involved you'll get ******** over by the odds over time.  

[black_wing_angel]

magmayoshi

black_wing_angel

Fresnel

The Curse

To me, this isn't a numbers game where you try and let people score here because they didn't score there.

This. Especially since a woman can ruin a man's life simply by giving him a compromised condom and/or lying about being on the pill. It's one thing to let them score here because they didn't score there, it's another to hand over the golden snitch because their keeper sucks.

Forgive the Harry Potter reference, but it's the only game I can think of where things are so horribly unbalanced.

You don't got to casinos, often, do you?

The house ALWAYS has the edge. Except in Black Jack.

They still have the edge actually and are continuously eradicating any possibility of it being otherwise. It's getting to the point they reshuffle after almost every hand of ANYTHING. You need to play on non-house tables for any possibility of an advantage. If the casino is involved you'll get ******** over by the odds over time.

I see. Well, I've never played black jack in a casino, but I was under the impression that you have the advantage, because the house has STRICT standards, as to when they can hold or hit. They can't stay below 16, and they can't hit above 17. Giving them a much higher likelyhood of "busting" than you have, as the matter is out of the dealer's control, on their hand, while you still maintain complete control of your own hand.

The only game other than that, which is EVEN CLOSE to being player edged, is Roulette. A game I play a lot.

In roulette, you control your own odds. You can bet 35-1, 17-1, 11-1, 8-1, 5-1, 2-1, or 1-1.

However, the inclusion of the 0, and in America, the 00 as well, throw the odds off, in favor of the house. Even if you bet 1-1, which is CONSIDERED 50/50 odds ( betting red/black, odd/even. first 18/last 18 ), you still don't TECHNICALLY have a 50/50 shot, since the ball could also land on 0, and in America, the 00 as well.

Black Jack is the ONLY game where the odds are actually in your own favor, in some light. Of course, I think that's also why Black Jack tends to require the highest "minimum bet" of any table game at a given casino, too.  

[magmayoshi]

black_wing_angel

magmayoshi

black_wing_angel

Fresnel

The Curse

To me, this isn't a numbers game where you try and let people score here because they didn't score there.

This. Especially since a woman can ruin a man's life simply by giving him a compromised condom and/or lying about being on the pill. It's one thing to let them score here because they didn't score there, it's another to hand over the golden snitch because their keeper sucks.

Forgive the Harry Potter reference, but it's the only game I can think of where things are so horribly unbalanced.

You don't got to casinos, often, do you?

The house ALWAYS has the edge. Except in Black Jack.

They still have the edge actually and are continuously eradicating any possibility of it being otherwise. It's getting to the point they reshuffle after almost every hand of ANYTHING. You need to play on non-house tables for any possibility of an advantage. If the casino is involved you'll get ******** over by the odds over time.

I see. Well, I've never played black jack in a casino, but I was under the impression that you have the advantage, because the house has STRICT standards, as to when they can hold or hit. They can't stay below 16, and they can't hit above 17. Giving them a much higher likelyhood of "busting" than you have, as the matter is out of the dealer's control, on their hand, while you still maintain complete control of your own hand.

The only game other than that, which is EVEN CLOSE to being player edged, is Roulette. A game I play a lot.

In roulette, you control your own odds. You can bet 35-1, 17-1, 11-1, 8-1, 5-1, 2-1, or 1-1.

However, the inclusion of the 0, and in America, the 00 as well, throw the odds off, in favor of the house. Even if you bet 1-1, which is CONSIDERED 50/50 odds ( betting red/black, odd/even. first 18/last 18 ), you still don't TECHNICALLY have a 50/50 shot, since the ball could also land on 0, and in America, the 00 as well.

Black Jack is the ONLY game where the odds are actually in your own favor, in some light. Of course, I think that's also why Black Jack tends to require the highest "minimum bet" of any table game at a given casino, too.

Actually they still have the advantage. The advantage you can get is from card counting (basic strategy only evens out the odds somewhat) but reshuffles and multiple decks are becoming commonplace defeating it.

The house has around a 1% advantage if it abuses all rules in a way you can't use advanced strategy which they call counting. Not much but one percent is enough for their profit and to get it down to one percent difference you NEED to know what you are doing.