re: Reproductive Rights Discussion - Men get a raw deal

FWIW My take: Mothers have a responsibility to the baby upon conception. Fathers have a responsibility to the mothers upon conception. Both have a responsibility to the child after birth. Parents have a responsibility to each other.

Being a hetero man automatically means you aren't good for anything but being a political punching bag.

You must know that you are responsible for all bad things in the world.

I worded it very specifically. This thread is about legal issues not moral. So I addressed it on those grounds. Legally, it is only a "child" after it is born. Thus, there is no contridiction. It is a mass in utero. It is a child after born..

The issue of the thread relates to that

quote:

---

You are trying to bully

---

You actually sort of did it.

quote:

---

You aren't man enough, you know?

---

You are correct. I do not have what it takes to be a bully.

Let me know how your campaign turns out.

quote:

---

ballscaster

---

You haven't made a legit defense of the current rule system yet.

Please admit you can't logically or rationally defend men having far fewer rights.

I get your argument.

I also understand that "reproductive rights" are a big gray area in the eyes of the law. It always confused me when libs say a child isn't a person until they are born, yet when something happens to a pregnant woman and the child dies, they want to charge the offender with feticide.

quote:

---

MagicCityBlazer

---

Well said.

As a mother, I can agree that women have too much control over the life of the unborn child when it comes to whether or not to keep it. My children are just as much the father's child as mine. He has rights too.

quote:

---

I worded it very specifically. This thread is about legal issues not moral. So I addressed it on those grounds. Legally, it is only a "child" after it is born. Thus, there is no contridiction. It is a mass in utero. It is a child after born..

---

While I disagree with your interpretation, for purposes of this thread I will move on.


What about this suggestion (and I did not come up with this, but it has me intrigued)?

A law is passed that requires that a woman notify all potential fathers of her pregnancy. DNA testing is done and the father is confronted with this reality. If the couple is unmarried, if he wants the child aborted, and is willing to pay for it, the mother has 2 choices:

1. Get the abortion funded by the father.

2. Waive rights to child support

If he does not want an abortion, then he has to tender an offer of marriage to the mother or sign an agreement to pay child support.

I don't know how to make it any more fair under Roe v. Wade.

quote:

---

After some thoughts I began to realize that men get a raw deal about reproductive rights and I want it to change.

Consider that a couple with a physical relationship who are unexpectedly pregnant, the woman is the only one with power.

She can decide to have an abortion or sign up for an adoptive service without even a thought to what the father wants.

The man has no rights, he is obligated to honor her decision no matter what.

If she doesn't want to be a mother she has many options, an unwilling father has basically no ability to discharge his parental responsibilities the way he could if he had just been born a woman.

Therefore this system should change, men should have the right to discharge parental rights to the same extent that women can.

---

Or maybe they shouldnt put their dick in someone if they aren't prepared to give the power to her.

You know that I am not so full of myself as to not respect disagreement.

But, as far as I am co cerned, there is no I equality. You can't tell her to abort and she can't get support until born. Remember, you are supporting the child. Not the mom.

I would not be in favor of your suggestion.

And, I've found it just as easy to avoid child support issues as to avoid prison.