Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Pro-choice. While I think the whole "lets get rid of a baby every other month" mentality is shameful and should be discouraged, I don't have a problem with the abortions themselves.

Also, agree with metalOxide that the father should have more of a say on the matter.

And to what someone posted in page one. Yes, I'm also pro prostitution (As long as it's kept from going completely criminal), pro euthanasia if people really want it. I would be pro selling body parts if it didn't invite a gak ton of problems. I'm also pro legalization for most drugs if you want to add that to the list.

Mind you, I live in a country which already has almost all of that (drug laws are a lot more complicated here then most people know, weed is in fact not officialy legal).

 MetalOxide wrote:
Pro choice, but the father should get a say in the matter as well because not all women have abortions for selfless/reasonable reasons, some use it as another for of contraception, failing to realise that it should only be utilised in the most extreme of situations such as rape or if the mothers life was at risk.

The father already gets a say in the matter, it's the mother who gets to decide you're not the one who's pregnant and she may not have the same values or goals as you so deal with it.

Pro-KILL!

Abortion is probably one of the most significant advancements in the history of mankind. i

You know what really bugs me? Men who say, "We're pregnant!"

No. No you are not.

Well, I like life...and I like choice.

I'll never make that choice. However, in dealing with others, so far I've supported the route I think will work out best for the person in question.(Which so far has been pro-choice. I don't know many religious folks, probably because I went to a Catholic school).

Pro-abortion. There is too many filthy, unwanted mouth-breathers already. We should work to improve our quality of life, not quantity.

feeder wrote:
Pro-abortion. There is too many filthy, unwanted mouth-breathers already. We should work to improve our quality of life, not quantity.

You first.

 Monster Rain wrote:

feeder wrote:
Pro-abortion. There is too many filthy, unwanted mouth-breathers already. We should work to improve our quality of life, not quantity.

You first.

I am not calling for a cull on humanity, smart guy.

Pro-choice on all fronts!

abortion (although using it as an alternative form of birth control like some people I know do is rather hartless)
prostitution (why allow porn but not prostitution, it makes no sence)
euthenasia (and not just in case of physical sickness either, if you really want to die for whatever reason you should be allowed to do so)
selling organs (but only under the strictest of regulations)
legalised drugs (just think of the Western deficits and the tax money we could collect on legal drugs)

There's one thing that's always bugged me though:

When a woman is pregnant and the man wants the baby but the woman doesn't she can get an abortion and that the end of it.
But when a man doesn't want the baby and the woman does we can still get stuck having to financially support it?

Where's our freedom of choice!

 Frank&Stein wrote:
There's one thing that's always bugged me though:

When a woman is pregnant and the man wants the baby but the woman doesn't she can get an abortion and that the end of it.
But when a man doesn't want the baby and the woman does we can still get stuck having to financially support it?

Where's our freedom of choice!

As long as the ''it's her right to do what she wants with her body'' argument will prevail, there will be no place for a man's choice.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Pro choice. If a lady is pregnant and dosnt wish for the child then i see no reason as to stop her having an abortion. It is her body after all.

I agree with your statement mostly while I agree that its a woman's choice to get an abortion it is also her choice to make sure proper precautions are taken as well . This is not to say that it also not the men's choice to take proper precautions, but if a woman doesn't want an unwanted pregnancy then she should tell the guy to wrap it before he can tap it...

Edited due to PMs

and what if birth control fails?

I said nothing about birth control (assuming you're talking about the pill). I'm talking about wearing a condom while engaging in relations. I have several friends from high school with children because of that reason. Not because birth control failed, but because the man and the woman involved were both too dumb to take the 30 seconds to put on a condom or other such for of prophylactic. In the short quarter century I've been on this earth, I've yet to date a girl that is on birth control while I was dating her (an ex got on to it to help smooth her moods out... it didn't work)... And look! Alf is still without child (until the Lord blesses me and what not).

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frank&Stein wrote:
There's one thing that's always bugged me though:

When a woman is pregnant and the man wants the baby but the woman doesn't she can get an abortion and that the end of it.
But when a man doesn't want the baby and the woman does we can still get stuck having to financially support it?

Where's our freedom of choice!

As long as the ''it's her right to do what she wants with her body'' argument will prevail, there will be no place for a man's choice.

Oh, I fully agree with ''it's her right to do what she wants with her body'' premise.

All I'm saying is that if the choice to abort or keep the child is solely hers then so should be the responsibilty of raising and supporting said child.

 Frank&Stein wrote:
All I'm saying is that if the choice to abort or keep the child is solely hers then so should be the responsibilty of raising and supporting said child.

It takes two to tango. A man shouldn't just be able to abandon all responsibility simply because he doesn't want something.

"Well your honour, you see it wasn't my fault I crashed the car into a bus full of children - it was my wife's idea to go to the shops... I didn't even want to go!"

 Frank&Stein wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frank&Stein wrote:
There's one thing that's always bugged me though:

When a woman is pregnant and the man wants the baby but the woman doesn't she can get an abortion and that the end of it.
But when a man doesn't want the baby and the woman does we can still get stuck having to financially support it?

Where's our freedom of choice!

As long as the ''it's her right to do what she wants with her body'' argument will prevail, there will be no place for a man's choice.

Oh, I fully agree with ''it's her right to do what she wants with her body'' premise.

All I'm saying is that if the choice to abort or keep the child is solely hers then so should be the responsibilty of raising and supporting said child.

Really? You don't think the father should be responsible for the child as well? He did after all just cum into some women's witch and out popped a baby you don't think he was somewhat responsible for what happened? That even though the child has some of his DNA he doesn't need to

take any responsibility because he's not the one who decides on birth or abortion, what kind of argument is that? Raising children is a difficult task and the burden should be shared among both parents.

I refuse to associate myself with either camp.

Pro choice is more pro abortion than pro choice. Can 11 and 12year old children really make an educated choice? Most pro choice politicians would also oppose any speed bumps in the abortion process to ensure the choice is right for the individual. If the woman/girl in question views abortions as wrong and/or comes from a religious family there is often huge amounts of pressure to have an abortion which she may see as wrong to avoid the public/family shame of having the child. It's often a complicated and difficult choice, and the pro choice movement puts a lot more effort into protecting the rights of 12 year old girls to keep the pregnancy hidden from their parents than they do in making sure a girl makes the least psycholgically damaging choice which varies greatly in a case to case basis.

It takes a lot less time to explain why pro life is full of crap, they don't give a damn about the baby's life after it's born as evidenced by cutting social programs for the poor which most teen moms tend to be, and they take crappy gak for brains steps to increase the number of pregnancies and abortions. Abstenence only education doesn't work as evidenced by conservative states have the highest teen pregnancy rates. Increasing teen pregnancies and economic pressures on pregnant girls and women is what the pro life movement is good at.

The camps should just be relabeled pro abortion or anti choice.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Frank&Stein wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Frank&Stein wrote:
There's one thing that's always bugged me though:

When a woman is pregnant and the man wants the baby but the woman doesn't she can get an abortion and that the end of it.
But when a man doesn't want the baby and the woman does we can still get stuck having to financially support it?

Where's our freedom of choice!

As long as the ''it's her right to do what she wants with her body'' argument will prevail, there will be no place for a man's choice.

Oh, I fully agree with ''it's her right to do what she wants with her body'' premise.

All I'm saying is that if the choice to abort or keep the child is solely hers then so should be the responsibilty of raising and supporting said child.

Really? You don't think the father should be responsible for the child as well? He did after all just .... into some women's .... and out popped a baby you don't think he was somewhat responsible for what happened? That even though the child has some of his DNA he doesn't need to

take any responsibility because he's not the one who decides on birth or abortion, what kind of argument is that? Raising children is a difficult task and the burden should be shared among both parents.

I know raising children is a difficult task, I have two of them.

And yes, despite myself having been raised by a single moIther on welfare, I truly do believe that either they both have a say in whether to keep or abort the child and therefore both share the burdens of that choice, or its solely the woman's choice and therefore she alone should bear the burden of that choice.

 Frank&Stein wrote:
And yes, despite myself having been raised by a single moIther on welfare, I truly do believe that either they both have a say in whether to keep or abort the child and therefore both share the burdens of that choice, or its solely the woman's choice and therefore she alone should bear the burden of that choice.

The father already has a say in the matter, it's the woman who get's to make the choice.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Frank&Stein wrote:
And yes, despite myself having been raised by a single moIther on welfare, I truly do believe that either they both have a say in whether to keep or abort the child and therefore both share the burdens of that choice, or its solely the woman's choice and therefore she alone should bear the burden of that choice.

The father already has a say in the matter.

How do you figure that?

 Frank&Stein wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Frank&Stein wrote:
And yes, despite myself having been raised by a single moIther on welfare, I truly do believe that either they both have a say in whether to keep or abort the child and therefore both share the burdens of that choice, or its solely the woman's choice and therefore she alone should bear the burden of that choice.

The father already has a say in the matter.

How do you figure that?

Father: Honey, I don't want you to have an abortion.

Mother: Well, I don't want kids so I'm getting one.

Father:...

In the example the father got to have his say on the matter, so he can't really do anything about the mother's decision unless a new law comes where father's get to override the decision of the mother or he forces her into or out of an abortion. Just because you have a say in the matter

doesn't mean your opinion will be the one that is agreed upon or even respected.

 Frank&Stein wrote:
When a woman is pregnant and the man wants the baby but the woman doesn't she can get an abortion and that the end of it.
But when a man doesn't want the baby and the woman does we can still get stuck having to financially support it?

Where's our freedom of choice?

Where's your freedom to swing your fist around in the street? It stops when it meets someone's face. You don't get to impose things on people that suit you at the expense of their well being.

A man can't have equal control over whether an abortion is performed. What's the suggestion here, that the man should be able to impose an abortion on a woman and force her to go through a medical procedure against her will? There are very few occasions when people can be forced to undergo operations against their wishes, usually they'd have to be at high risk and still be ruled incapable of making the decision for themselves.

Allowing men to say 'if I don't want the baby and you won't abort, then I shouldn't have to support it' is just a douchbags charter to evade all their financial responsibilities to their children. It's hard enough getting some men to pay support after they decide to dump their pregnant girlfriend without enshrining it in law.

Because of basic biology, we are limited in how we can make and enforce our laws. Ultimately it is the woman's body that always carries the baby. It's ridiculous to see some men complaining about their lack of equality in a matter that really can't be altered biologically, considering that women face wider inequality on a much more frequent and needless basis such as equal pay in the workplace.

Well said, Howard.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Frank&Stein wrote:
When a woman is pregnant and the man wants the baby but the woman doesn't she can get an abortion and that the end of it.
But when a man doesn't want the baby and the woman does we can still get stuck having to financially support it?

Where's our freedom of choice?

Where's your freedom to swing your fist around in the street? It stops when it meets someone's face. You don't get to impose things on people that suit you at the expense of their well being.

A man can't have equal control over whether an abortion is performed. What's the suggestion here, that the man should be able to impose an abortion on a woman and force her to go through a medical procedure against her will? There are very few occasions when people can be forced to undergo operations against their wishes, usually they'd have to be at high risk and still be ruled incapable of making the decision for themselves.

Allowing men to say 'if I don't want the baby and you won't abort, then I shouldn't have to support it' is just a douchbags charter to evade all their financial responsibilities to their children. It's hard enough getting some men to pay support after they decide to dump their pregnant girlfriend without enshrining it in law.

Because of basic biology, we are limited in how we can make and enforce our laws. Ultimately it is the woman's body that always carries the baby. It's ridiculous to see some men complaining about their lack of equality in a matter that really can't be altered biologically, considering that women face wider inequality on a much more frequent and needless basis such as equal pay in the workplace.

I'm not claiming men should be able to force women to have an abortion, and I never said it wasn't a douchbag move not to support your child, cause it is, but freedom of choice is freedom of choice, which includes the choice to be a douchebag unfortunately.

Now child support once you've both made the decision to have the child but you want out after its been born is a different matter altogether.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Allowing men to say 'if I don't want the baby and you won't abort, then I shouldn't have to support it' is just a douchbags charter to evade all their financial responsibilities to their children. It's hard enough getting some men to pay support after they decide to dump their pregnant girlfriend without enshrining it in law.

Which is only a problem if you have a country where the dominant belief is that welfare is satan's attempt to destroy the sacred and holy social darwinist utopia and being a single mother is an easy way to find yourself living in horrible poverty. If, instead, you have proper social services instead of the world's largest military then allowing a man to "abort" his part of the child at any time the woman can have an actual abortion is much less of a problem.

Not sure if I misunderstood you P, but I don't think social services should pick up the bill because the man decides he doesn't want the child so doesn't have to ever pay for it. If he can't pay for it that's a different thing, but a refusal to do so, I don't think so. It's a basic responsibility that should fall to the parent before the state.

 Frank&Stein wrote:
I'm not claiming men should be able to force women to have an abortion, and I never said it wasn't a douchbag move not to support your child, cause it is, but freedom of choice is freedom of choice, which includes the choice to be a douchebag unfortunately.

In this case asking for the freedom to push your own child into poverty. I don't think so. Freedom shouldn't extend to being free to be greedy and stopping your own child having proper food and clothes. It's ok if your mum is rich, but for many single parents money is very tight. Freedoms in society are limited where they harm others. It's not reasonable to harm the wellbeing of your own child because you want a right to be a douchbag and spend all your money on yourself.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Not sure if I misunderstood you P, but I don't think social services should pick up the bill because the man decides he doesn't want the child so doesn't have to ever pay for it. If he can't pay for it that's a different thing, but a refusal to do so, I don't think so. It's a basic responsibility that should fall to the parent before the state.

 Frank&Stein wrote:
I'm not claiming men should be able to force women to have an abortion, and I never said it wasn't a douchbag move not to support your child, cause it is, but freedom of choice is freedom of choice, which includes the choice to be a douchebag unfortunately.

In this case asking for the freedom to push your own child into poverty. I don't think so. Freedom shouldn't extend to being free to be greedy and stopping your own child having proper food and clothes. It's ok if your mum is rich, but for many single parents money is very tight. Freedoms in society are limited where they harm others. It's not reasonable to harm the wellbeing of your own child because you want a right to be a douchbag and spend all your money on yourself.

As I have said in my other posts, I grew in a single parent home (mother), and we certainly weren't rich.
In my case they were married decided to have children and he left after I was born because he couldn't cope, which is a different set of circumstances.
Regardless I know how hard life was for my mother as a single parent on wellfare.
Despite my background I still feel you should either implement freedom of choice to the full extent or not at all ( the latter not being an option IMO).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Frank&Stein wrote:
When a woman is pregnant and the man wants the baby but the woman doesn't she can get an abortion and that the end of it.
But when a man doesn't want the baby and the woman does we can still get stuck having to financially support it?

Where's our freedom of choice?

Where's your freedom to swing your fist around in the street? It stops when it meets someone's face. You don't get to impose things on people that suit you at the expense of their well being.

A man can't have equal control over whether an abortion is performed. What's the suggestion here, that the man should be able to impose an abortion on a woman and force her to go through a medical procedure against her will? There are very few occasions when people can be forced to undergo operations against their wishes, usually they'd have to be at high risk and still be ruled incapable of making the decision for themselves.

Allowing men to say 'if I don't want the baby and you won't abort, then I shouldn't have to support it' is just a douchbags charter to evade all their financial responsibilities to their children. It's hard enough getting some men to pay support after they decide to dump their pregnant girlfriend without enshrining it in law.

Because of basic biology, we are limited in how we can make and enforce our laws. Ultimately it is the woman's body that always carries the baby. It's ridiculous to see some men complaining about their lack of equality in a matter that really can't be altered biologically, considering that women face wider inequality on a much more frequent and needless basis such as equal pay in the workplace.

Hypothetical for you:
Two people, committed and loving relationship (but not necessarily married) and deciding that they aren't ready for a child use birth control. Now as we know that nothing is perfect, the birth control fails and the woman gets pregnant. Up until this point they have both had and equal say in the matters and reached some consensus.

Now the man doesn't want the child but the woman is unsure, but puts off an abortion until she makes a decision. Now putting aside medical conditions and late - term abortions, that is, assuming all goes well with the actual pregnancy, the woman get ~6 - 9 months to make a decision, does she want to keep it, not keep it, bring it to term and put it up for adoption, the man having no definative say other than "I think we shouldn't have it because of..." (and fair enough I can't control your body, only make suggestions on what you do with it.)

We will now say that ultimatley, the woman decides to keep the child and the pressure of something he is not ready for causes him to break off the relationship.

What is your opinion on the man having a "financial abortion" (for want of a better term) i.e. he signs some agreement that states broadly along the lines of not having to support the child in anyway, but recinds any and all legal rights of parentage to the child, although, when older, the child may of course seek out its father, should its mother tell it about its father. Perhaps a clause is added that if the father does change his mind after a while, he can regain his parental rights, on the condition that he starts supporting the child again?

P.S. This likely has not come out as clearly as I would like, but I hope it gets my general point across.

I imagine that there are already cases that have occurred where if the man and the woman agree he won't make any contact he won't have to pay any support. The man doesn't always pay support, I've seen cases where the woman has enough money to turn it down. If both parents agree to it then that's pretty much their business. But this idea that the man doesn't have to pay if he doesn't want to, doesn't wash with me.

I wish that was the way it worked here. I have a cousin that got divorced about 4 years ago due to infidelity on both parts ... it was in the divorce decree that he would not have to pay child support and she would not have to split her 401k. I told him that he was a fool because he WILL have to pay child support. about 3 years later Child Services finds out that there was no child support and slaps him with fines and he is forced to pay child support.

OT:

I am pro-choice ... we are overpopulated as it is.

Does anyone remember that case where a guy donated sperm that was used to artificially inseminate a women (She was gay and had a partner) and when she broke up with her partner she sued to get child support and the guy was funked...
Seems like some people get a really raw deal out of that...

I vaguely remember the thread you are talking about, iirc the people didn't even want his money.