Should fathers have a say in abortion?

[Fresnel]

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.

You seem to be missing a basic fact of card counting: it doesn't become a viable strategy until there are at least three decks in play. Reshuffling does destroy it, however. But I suppose with the right table (10 or so players) and the right hand, card counting could be viable in just a single deal.  

[black_wing_angel]

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.

A lot of casinos have a machine that shuffles the deck, so as not to disrupt the game, and it uses probably 3 decks at a time.

Also, don't they tend to only shuffle a freshly opened deck, put it into play, and when that deck is gone, it's punched through (to mark the cards as "used" and avoid the ability of someone to sneak them back into use), and sold as mementos?

I remember when I was young, my parents came home from a casino trip, and handed me a deck of cards with a hole punched right through it. I kinda assumed this was why.  

[Kats Scratches]

And if I say to you that I wanted to, know that I lied

I thought of another term to put it in, and feel free to tell me I'm wrong, because this is just me bandying about an idea.

Who biologically owns the child? Once the semen has left the body of the father, it has left him, and gone to the woman. If it fertalizes an egg that the woman owns, and begins to create a baby. The sperm once it fertilizes the egg, becomes one with the egg. Since the sperm is inside her body, does that mean she owns the sperm, and therefore owns the fetus?

The eggs don't leave the woman unless she's having her monthly period or giving birth, so does this mean that because it remains in her body, she owns it?

I guess what I'm trying to say is: does the man 'own' his sperm once it's left his body?

I'm not trying to encourage women stealing sperm to get themselves knocked up, this is all theoretics.

You could be right

 

[black_wing_angel]

Kats Scratches

And if I say to you that I wanted to, know that I lied

I thought of another term to put it in, and feel free to tell me I'm wrong, because this is just me bandying about an idea.

Who biologically owns the child? Once the semen has left the body of the father, it has left him, and gone to the woman. If it fertalizes an egg that the woman owns, and begins to create a baby. The sperm once it fertilizes the egg, becomes one with the egg. Since the sperm is inside her body, does that mean she owns the sperm, and therefore owns the fetus?

Well, that's an interesting way to look at it. But then one could argue that "Ok, well, if it's YOURS and not "ours", now, then I'm not obligated to pay child support, since the sperm that fertilized it was, at the time, yours."

And I don't see too many single moms taking a liking to that idea.  

[magmayoshi]

Fresnel

magmayoshi

black_wing_angel

magmayoshi

black_wing_angel

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.

You seem to be missing a basic fact of card counting: it doesn't become a viable strategy until there are at least three decks in play. Reshuffling does destroy it, however. But I suppose with the right table (10 or so players) and the right hand, card counting could be viable in just a single deal.

Actually more decks defeat it, because it is shuffled after X hands.
One deck is best, the strategy begins shorter into the deck and then changes faster and harder, so that changing your strategy is more relevant. For multiple decks you need to be sitting there for a loooong time and even then it's less likely for the odds to change for counting to be relevant because there are simply more cards deadening the effect of what has been played prior. The odds stay relatively the same until the deck is shuffled with multiple decks, while one deck changing your strategy to accommodate happens every hand and is more effective.
1 deck versus 4, 2 hands in, which one is is more relevant that 3 aces went by?

@Wing: Close, they punch or re-cut them as casino cards leaving a casino when the cards start to show any wear or after X amount of shuffles. They are punched or re-cut so that these cards taken out of a casino (or sold in it) can't recirculate.  

[black_wing_angel]

magmayoshi

@Wing: Close, they punch or re-cut them as casino cards leaving a casino when the cards start to show any wear or after X amount of shuffles. They are punched or re-cut so that these cards taken out of a casino (or sold in it) can't recirculate.

Ah, I see.  

[village midget]

MayIHelpYou22102

"This is one of the rare issues I am torn on.

One side of this argument discusses the importance of a woman's control over her own body. A man's desire for a child shouldn't dictate whether a woman has to go through nine months of torture. A man can always spread his seed to another woman.

Another side is the argument for the man. Both the mother and the father have rights to their child. The mother doesn't have the right to take the child away from a potentially good father for any reason.

At this point I believe they should at least discuss the option. But if they still disagree, I don't know what I think. I think it's completely cruel when a woman kills a fetus without the man's permission. However, I also think it's cruel when the courts force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want for the father.

What do you believe?"

point number one: a fetus is not a child, it's a fetus.

point number two: the female has ultimate control because she is in permanent possession of her body, but not neccessarily because 'it is her body' in the sense that she has rights over it. (see points four and five)

point number three: neither person should be forced into parenthood, by the same token it is outright disdained on a (western) societal level for a man to say "no child of mine will be aborted" -whether he intends to maintain a relationship with the mother of his child or not - it should be the same in reverse. women should not be allowed to carry pregnancy to term if the man expressly says otherwise.

point number four:it is impossible to enforce point number three on the woman without violating her...very problematic.

point number five: if the man discovers that pregnancy has occured after he has been informed by the woman that she was taking birth control pills when in fact she was not, he should have the right to force her to terminate the pregnancy. in this instance point four (general anaesthetic of course) is justifiable by the same ethics that relate to criminal behaviour waving the rights of the criminal. and being born out of such a deceit is no way to start life...the woman should be given counselling as to why this behaviour is unacceptable.

point number six: for all other contestations of a pregancy it is clear that the ego is hard at work in which ever party wishes to see the pregnancy through, hence forcing the other into a lifetime of parenthood/financial costs and absenteeism. this can not ever be in the best interests of any child, and the pregnancy should be terminated no quibble as it is clear that the people responsible do not wish to be together, do not care about each other and need to grow the ******** up.

point number seven: what happens to the parent's relationship after the child is born is beyond control. what happens before the child is born is controllable. a fetus is not yet a child it is still a fetus, if either person does not want to be a parent the pregnacy should be terminated.  

[black_wing_angel]

village midget

MayIHelpYou22102

"This is one of the rare issues I am torn on.

One side of this argument discusses the importance of a woman's control over her own body. A man's desire for a child shouldn't dictate whether a woman has to go through nine months of torture. A man can always spread his seed to another woman.

Another side is the argument for the man. Both the mother and the father have rights to their child. The mother doesn't have the right to take the child away from a potentially good father for any reason.

At this point I believe they should at least discuss the option. But if they still disagree, I don't know what I think. I think it's completely cruel when a woman kills a fetus without the man's permission. However, I also think it's cruel when the courts force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want for the father.

What do you believe?"

point number one: a fetus is not a child, it's a fetus.

point number two: the female has ultimate control because she is in permanent possession of her body, but not neccessarily because 'it is her body' in the sense that she has rights over it. (see points four and five)

point number three: neither person should be forced into parenthood, by the same token it is outright disdained on a (western) societal level for a man to say "no child of mine will be aborted" -whether he intends to maintain a relationship with the mother of his child or not - it should be the same in reverse. women should not be allowed to carry pregnancy to term if the man expressly says otherwise.

point number four:it is impossible to enforce point number three on the woman without violating her...very problematic.

point number five: if the man discovers that pregnancy has occured after he has been informed by the woman that she was taking birth control pills when in fact she was not, he should have the right to force her to terminate the pregnancy. in this instance point four (general anaesthetic of course) is justifiable by the same ethics that relate to criminal behaviour waving the rights of the criminal. and being born out of such a deceit is no way to start life...the woman should be given counselling as to why this behaviour is unacceptable.

point number six: for all other contestations of a pregancy it is clear that the ego is hard at work in which ever party wishes to see the pregnancy through, hence forcing the other into a lifetime of parenthood/financial costs and absenteeism. this can not ever be in the best interests of any child, and the pregnancy should be terminated no quibble as it is clear that the people responsible do not wish to be together, do not care about each other and need to grow the ******** up.

point number seven: what happens to the parent's relationship after the child is born is beyond control. what happens before the child is born is controllable. a fetus is not yet a child it is still a fetus, if either person does not want to be a parent the pregnacy should be terminated.

Well, I figure, if the woman wants to keep, and the man does not, then he should have the right to walk away, obligation free. Let the woman have her child, but the man has no obligation to pay child support, or visit the child, or be in the child's life, ever.

However, the decision is permanent, and he has NO RIGHT to EVER try to come back into the child's life, unless the child wishes for it, upon reaching legal age.  

[MayIHelpYou22102]

black_wing_angel

village midget

MayIHelpYou22102

"This is one of the rare issues I am torn on.

One side of this argument discusses the importance of a woman's control over her own body. A man's desire for a child shouldn't dictate whether a woman has to go through nine months of torture. A man can always spread his seed to another woman.

Another side is the argument for the man. Both the mother and the father have rights to their child. The mother doesn't have the right to take the child away from a potentially good father for any reason.

At this point I believe they should at least discuss the option. But if they still disagree, I don't know what I think. I think it's completely cruel when a woman kills a fetus without the man's permission. However, I also think it's cruel when the courts force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want for the father.

What do you believe?"

point number one: a fetus is not a child, it's a fetus.

point number two: the female has ultimate control because she is in permanent possession of her body, but not neccessarily because 'it is her body' in the sense that she has rights over it. (see points four and five)

point number three: neither person should be forced into parenthood, by the same token it is outright disdained on a (western) societal level for a man to say "no child of mine will be aborted" -whether he intends to maintain a relationship with the mother of his child or not - it should be the same in reverse. women should not be allowed to carry pregnancy to term if the man expressly says otherwise.

point number four:it is impossible to enforce point number three on the woman without violating her...very problematic.

point number five: if the man discovers that pregnancy has occured after he has been informed by the woman that she was taking birth control pills when in fact she was not, he should have the right to force her to terminate the pregnancy. in this instance point four (general anaesthetic of course) is justifiable by the same ethics that relate to criminal behaviour waving the rights of the criminal. and being born out of such a deceit is no way to start life...the woman should be given counselling as to why this behaviour is unacceptable.

point number six: for all other contestations of a pregancy it is clear that the ego is hard at work in which ever party wishes to see the pregnancy through, hence forcing the other into a lifetime of parenthood/financial costs and absenteeism. this can not ever be in the best interests of any child, and the pregnancy should be terminated no quibble as it is clear that the people responsible do not wish to be together, do not care about each other and need to grow the ******** up.

point number seven: what happens to the parent's relationship after the child is born is beyond control. what happens before the child is born is controllable. a fetus is not yet a child it is still a fetus, if either person does not want to be a parent the pregnacy should be terminated.

Well, I figure, if the woman wants to keep, and the man does not, then he should have the right to walk away, obligation free. Let the woman have her child, but the man has no obligation to pay child support, or visit the child, or be in the child's life, ever.

However, the decision is permanent, and he has NO RIGHT to EVER try to come back into the child's life, unless the child wishes for it, upon reaching legal age.

"But this argues in favor of another set of "dead beat dads". There are men out there that trick a woman into believing they will take care of the child together while she is pregnant. Then, at the last minute, changes their mind. Should they have the same rights to walking away and leaving the woman and child to fend for themselves as a man who discouraged the pregnancy from the beginning?"

 

[black_wing_angel]

MayIHelpYou22102

black_wing_angel

village midget

MayIHelpYou22102

"This is one of the rare issues I am torn on.

One side of this argument discusses the importance of a woman's control over her own body. A man's desire for a child shouldn't dictate whether a woman has to go through nine months of torture. A man can always spread his seed to another woman.

Another side is the argument for the man. Both the mother and the father have rights to their child. The mother doesn't have the right to take the child away from a potentially good father for any reason.

At this point I believe they should at least discuss the option. But if they still disagree, I don't know what I think. I think it's completely cruel when a woman kills a fetus without the man's permission. However, I also think it's cruel when the courts force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want for the father.

What do you believe?"

point number one: a fetus is not a child, it's a fetus.

point number two: the female has ultimate control because she is in permanent possession of her body, but not neccessarily because 'it is her body' in the sense that she has rights over it. (see points four and five)

point number three: neither person should be forced into parenthood, by the same token it is outright disdained on a (western) societal level for a man to say "no child of mine will be aborted" -whether he intends to maintain a relationship with the mother of his child or not - it should be the same in reverse. women should not be allowed to carry pregnancy to term if the man expressly says otherwise.

point number four:it is impossible to enforce point number three on the woman without violating her...very problematic.

point number five: if the man discovers that pregnancy has occured after he has been informed by the woman that she was taking birth control pills when in fact she was not, he should have the right to force her to terminate the pregnancy. in this instance point four (general anaesthetic of course) is justifiable by the same ethics that relate to criminal behaviour waving the rights of the criminal. and being born out of such a deceit is no way to start life...the woman should be given counselling as to why this behaviour is unacceptable.

point number six: for all other contestations of a pregancy it is clear that the ego is hard at work in which ever party wishes to see the pregnancy through, hence forcing the other into a lifetime of parenthood/financial costs and absenteeism. this can not ever be in the best interests of any child, and the pregnancy should be terminated no quibble as it is clear that the people responsible do not wish to be together, do not care about each other and need to grow the ******** up.

point number seven: what happens to the parent's relationship after the child is born is beyond control. what happens before the child is born is controllable. a fetus is not yet a child it is still a fetus, if either person does not want to be a parent the pregnacy should be terminated.

Well, I figure, if the woman wants to keep, and the man does not, then he should have the right to walk away, obligation free. Let the woman have her child, but the man has no obligation to pay child support, or visit the child, or be in the child's life, ever.

However, the decision is permanent, and he has NO RIGHT to EVER try to come back into the child's life, unless the child wishes for it, upon reaching legal age.

"But this argues in favor of another set of "dead beat dads". There are men out there that trick a woman into believing they will take care of the child together while she is pregnant. Then, at the last minute, changes their mind. Should they have the same rights to walking away and leaving the woman and child to fend for themselves as a man who discouraged the pregnancy from the beginning?"

It's purely intended as the male variant of an abortion. He walks away, and never has to, or gets to know his offspring.

Therefore, if a woman claims that she'll take care of my child, and at the last minute, aborts it, then what?

Yes, there are dead beat dads that will abuse this, but there are dead beat MOM's that do, too.  

[MayIHelpYou22102]

black_wing_angel

MayIHelpYou22102

black_wing_angel

village midget

MayIHelpYou22102

"This is one of the rare issues I am torn on.

One side of this argument discusses the importance of a woman's control over her own body. A man's desire for a child shouldn't dictate whether a woman has to go through nine months of torture. A man can always spread his seed to another woman.

Another side is the argument for the man. Both the mother and the father have rights to their child. The mother doesn't have the right to take the child away from a potentially good father for any reason.

At this point I believe they should at least discuss the option. But if they still disagree, I don't know what I think. I think it's completely cruel when a woman kills a fetus without the man's permission. However, I also think it's cruel when the courts force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want for the father.

What do you believe?"

point number one: a fetus is not a child, it's a fetus.

point number two: the female has ultimate control because she is in permanent possession of her body, but not neccessarily because 'it is her body' in the sense that she has rights over it. (see points four and five)

point number three: neither person should be forced into parenthood, by the same token it is outright disdained on a (western) societal level for a man to say "no child of mine will be aborted" -whether he intends to maintain a relationship with the mother of his child or not - it should be the same in reverse. women should not be allowed to carry pregnancy to term if the man expressly says otherwise.

point number four:it is impossible to enforce point number three on the woman without violating her...very problematic.

point number five: if the man discovers that pregnancy has occured after he has been informed by the woman that she was taking birth control pills when in fact she was not, he should have the right to force her to terminate the pregnancy. in this instance point four (general anaesthetic of course) is justifiable by the same ethics that relate to criminal behaviour waving the rights of the criminal. and being born out of such a deceit is no way to start life...the woman should be given counselling as to why this behaviour is unacceptable.

point number six: for all other contestations of a pregancy it is clear that the ego is hard at work in which ever party wishes to see the pregnancy through, hence forcing the other into a lifetime of parenthood/financial costs and absenteeism. this can not ever be in the best interests of any child, and the pregnancy should be terminated no quibble as it is clear that the people responsible do not wish to be together, do not care about each other and need to grow the ******** up.

point number seven: what happens to the parent's relationship after the child is born is beyond control. what happens before the child is born is controllable. a fetus is not yet a child it is still a fetus, if either person does not want to be a parent the pregnacy should be terminated.

Well, I figure, if the woman wants to keep, and the man does not, then he should have the right to walk away, obligation free. Let the woman have her child, but the man has no obligation to pay child support, or visit the child, or be in the child's life, ever.

However, the decision is permanent, and he has NO RIGHT to EVER try to come back into the child's life, unless the child wishes for it, upon reaching legal age.

"But this argues in favor of another set of "dead beat dads". There are men out there that trick a woman into believing they will take care of the child together while she is pregnant. Then, at the last minute, changes their mind. Should they have the same rights to walking away and leaving the woman and child to fend for themselves as a man who discouraged the pregnancy from the beginning?"

It's purely intended as the male variant of an abortion. He walks away, and never has to, or gets to know his offspring.

Therefore, if a woman claims that she'll take care of my child, and at the last minute, aborts it, then what?

Yes, there are dead beat dads that will abuse this, but there are dead beat MOM's that do, too.

"I agree. What I'm asking is should they be held accountable when this situation happens, or will this lawfully shield them from what they did."

 

[black_wing_angel]

MayIHelpYou22102

black_wing_angel

MayIHelpYou22102

black_wing_angel

village midget

MayIHelpYou22102

"This is one of the rare issues I am torn on.

One side of this argument discusses the importance of a woman's control over her own body. A man's desire for a child shouldn't dictate whether a woman has to go through nine months of torture. A man can always spread his seed to another woman.

Another side is the argument for the man. Both the mother and the father have rights to their child. The mother doesn't have the right to take the child away from a potentially good father for any reason.

At this point I believe they should at least discuss the option. But if they still disagree, I don't know what I think. I think it's completely cruel when a woman kills a fetus without the man's permission. However, I also think it's cruel when the courts force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want for the father.

What do you believe?"

point number one: a fetus is not a child, it's a fetus.

point number two: the female has ultimate control because she is in permanent possession of her body, but not neccessarily because 'it is her body' in the sense that she has rights over it. (see points four and five)

point number three: neither person should be forced into parenthood, by the same token it is outright disdained on a (western) societal level for a man to say "no child of mine will be aborted" -whether he intends to maintain a relationship with the mother of his child or not - it should be the same in reverse. women should not be allowed to carry pregnancy to term if the man expressly says otherwise.

point number four:it is impossible to enforce point number three on the woman without violating her...very problematic.

point number five: if the man discovers that pregnancy has occured after he has been informed by the woman that she was taking birth control pills when in fact she was not, he should have the right to force her to terminate the pregnancy. in this instance point four (general anaesthetic of course) is justifiable by the same ethics that relate to criminal behaviour waving the rights of the criminal. and being born out of such a deceit is no way to start life...the woman should be given counselling as to why this behaviour is unacceptable.

point number six: for all other contestations of a pregancy it is clear that the ego is hard at work in which ever party wishes to see the pregnancy through, hence forcing the other into a lifetime of parenthood/financial costs and absenteeism. this can not ever be in the best interests of any child, and the pregnancy should be terminated no quibble as it is clear that the people responsible do not wish to be together, do not care about each other and need to grow the ******** up.

point number seven: what happens to the parent's relationship after the child is born is beyond control. what happens before the child is born is controllable. a fetus is not yet a child it is still a fetus, if either person does not want to be a parent the pregnacy should be terminated.

Well, I figure, if the woman wants to keep, and the man does not, then he should have the right to walk away, obligation free. Let the woman have her child, but the man has no obligation to pay child support, or visit the child, or be in the child's life, ever.

However, the decision is permanent, and he has NO RIGHT to EVER try to come back into the child's life, unless the child wishes for it, upon reaching legal age.

"But this argues in favor of another set of "dead beat dads". There are men out there that trick a woman into believing they will take care of the child together while she is pregnant. Then, at the last minute, changes their mind. Should they have the same rights to walking away and leaving the woman and child to fend for themselves as a man who discouraged the pregnancy from the beginning?"

It's purely intended as the male variant of an abortion. He walks away, and never has to, or gets to know his offspring.

Therefore, if a woman claims that she'll take care of my child, and at the last minute, aborts it, then what?

Yes, there are dead beat dads that will abuse this, but there are dead beat MOM's that do, too.

"I agree. What I'm asking is should they be held accountable when this situation happens, or will this lawfully shield them from what they did."

It will be as much a shield to the man, as abortion is to the woman. It's a "get out of responsibility free" card.

And it's implimentation would serve to teach both sides of the coin, that the MOST IMPORTANT thing you can do, is really THINK about it, and consider carefully, whether or not you're ready.  

[Myhrie]

I absolutely think it is the decision of the mother.

A woman should most certainly not have to go through the pain of giving birth to a child she doesn't want simply because the father wants it. A woman gives up a lot for the sake of giving birth to a child that a man doesn't.

That would be giving the man control over what a woman does with her body. Complications can occur with birth and if a woman doesn't want a child she should not have to risk her own life and health for the sake of a desire of a man.

 

[MayIHelpYou22102]

Plexiglass Prism

I absolutely think it is the decision of the mother.

A woman should most certainly not have to go through the pain of giving birth to a child she doesn't want simply because the father wants it. A woman gives up a lot for the sake of giving birth to a child that a man doesn't.

That would be giving the man control over what a woman does with her body. Complications can occur with birth and if a woman doesn't want a child she should not have to risk her own life and health for the sake of a desire of a man.

"But you have to take into account the father's position as well. A father hurts just as much as a mother does when a child is lost. The only real difference between a father and a mother is their sex and that the mother has to bear the child. Emotionally, they are the same."

 

[Kats Scratches]

Plexiglass Prism

I absolutely think it is the decision of the mother.

A woman should most certainly not have to go through the pain of giving birth to a child she doesn't want simply because the father wants it. A woman gives up a lot for the sake of giving birth to a child that a man doesn't.

That would be giving the man control over what a woman does with her body. Complications can occur with birth and if a woman doesn't want a child she should not have to risk her own life and health for the sake of a desire of a man.

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

I'm receiving a lot of anger towards men in this post.

I agree with you, though.

She'll burn our horizons, make no mistake.