Men don't have the right to choice!

[Triggerfish]

You hear a lot about women having abortions because their boyfriends told them to, but never about men wanting the woman to carry and birth a child, then hand it over to them.

That's not true, a few years ago some guy raped and impregnated a woman. She wanted to go to some other state since where she was it was illegal for a late term abortion. He actually took her to court and court ordered her to stay put.

Then again I think that was a TV movie. However I've heard stories about similar situations.

 

[Bruzilla]

For me I see it this way. An unmarried man having any say over what a woman does with a pregnancy is like me giving you a ride in my car and then you claiming ownership of it. It ain't happening.

I think that's a pretty sorry attitude. We're not talking about rides in cars, we're talking about children. So I ask, why is it that there are two distinct standards when it comes to parents and children? When we discuss a mother and a child, the bond is sacred, intense, nurturing, indespensible, and unbreakable by most any law of the land. But when it comes to a father and a child the bond can best be summed by by saying "tough sh1t Dad... your relationship only needs to be part time 'cause you don't really care about the kid." Despite all the caterwalling I've heard since the 60's about equality between men and women, I never hear women caterwalling about this inequity. And then women are all miffed that over the same time period, men have become increasingly non-supportive of their kids... anyone else seeing the cart being put before the horse... the ball driving the club? Maybe if we started treating fathers as equals in our society then future fathers would become more caring and responsible.

I worked with a young black man last year, he had just turned 21, and was on his third job. He had never quit a job, just changed jobs to get better pay and experience, and he's a very commendable kid. He hooks up with a girl, nothing serious for either of them, but then she gets pregnant. She wants to get an abortion because she doesn't want to marry him, and he wants the kid but doesn't want to marry her. She sees an opportunity and now this guy becomes her meal ticket... he starts paying her rent and car payments, and every time he balks she starts threatening to get an abortion. In the end she drains his wallet every month for six months and then gets an abortion. So how do you think he's going to act the next time a woman conceives, or, if he does have a son... what life's lessons do you think he'll be passing along to the kid?

The way I see it, married or not, once a child is conceived it immediately becomes joint property, and whatever is to become of that child needs to be jointly agreed to. If the parents decide to abort, fine. If they agree to marry and raise the child, fine. If the father wants to abort and the mother wants to carry to term and raise the child herself, fine... BUT... if that's fine (and in this country it's viewed as a god-given, Murphy Brown-approved right) then it should also be fine for the man to compel the birth of the child so that he can raise it by himself. That's called equality.

As for Ken's outlook, if we're to ascribe the outlook that getting pregnant with child is as casual a moment as giving someone a ride in a car, then I think the same outlook should be given to men's retirement packages and money when they divorice... the woman should get nada as she was just along for the ride.

 

[Ken King]

I think that's a pretty sorry attitude. We're not talking about rides in cars, we're talking about children. So I ask, why is it that there are two distinct standards when it comes to parents and children? When we discuss a mother and a child, the bond is sacred, intense, nurturing, indespensible, and unbreakable by most any law of the land. But when it comes to a father and a child the bond can best be summed by by saying "tough sh1t Dad... your relationship only needs to be part time 'cause you don't really care about the kid." Despite all the caterwalling I've heard since the 60's about equality between men and women, I never hear women caterwalling about this inequity. And then women are all miffed that over the same time period, men have become increasingly non-supportive of their kids... anyone else seeing the cart being put before the horse... the ball driving the club? Maybe if we started treating fathers as equals in our society then future fathers would become more caring and responsible.

I worked with a young black man last year, he had just turned 21, and was on his third job. He had never quit a job, just changed jobs to get better pay and experience, and he's a very commendable kid. He hooks up with a girl, nothing serious for either of them, but then she gets pregnant. She wants to get an abortion because she doesn't want to marry him, and he wants the kid but doesn't want to marry her. She sees an opportunity and now this guy becomes her meal ticket... he starts paying her rent and car payments, and every time he balks she starts threatening to get an abortion. In the end she drains his wallet every month for six months and then gets an abortion. So how do you think he's going to act the next time a woman conceives, or, if he does have a son... what life's lessons do you think he'll be passing along to the kid?

The way I see it, married or not, once a child is conceived it immediately becomes joint property, and whatever is to become of that child needs to be jointly agreed to. If the parents decide to abort, fine. If they agree to marry and raise the child, fine. If the father wants to abort and the mother wants to carry to term and raise the child herself, fine... BUT... if that's fine (and in this country it's viewed as a god-given, Murphy Brown-approved right) then it should also be fine for the man to compel the birth of the child so that he can raise it by himself. That's called equality.

As for Ken's outlook, if we're to ascribe the outlook that getting pregnant with child is as casual a moment as giving someone a ride in a car, then I think the same outlook should be given to men's retirement packages and money when they divorice... the woman should get nada as she was just along for the ride.

No dillweed, my point was that if a guy knocks up a woman that they aren't caring enough to be married to then they have no say as to how she handles it even if it results in their sorry ass paying for it for the next 18 to 21 years.

They went for a joy ride, but they don't own the car.

 

[Ken King]

As for Ken's outlook, if we're to ascribe the outlook that getting pregnant with child is as casual a moment as giving someone a ride in a car, then I think the same outlook should be given to men's retirement packages and money when they divorice... the woman should get nada as she was just along for the ride.

And you know this is pure BS as that woman that is married to your sorry ass is one of the reasons that made you get up and go to work every day. You were doing it as a family unit and not as a casual fling.

 

[Bruzilla]

No dillweed, my point was that if a guy knocks up a woman that they aren't caring enough to be married to then they have no say as to how she handles it even if it results in their sorry ass paying for it for the next 18 to 21 years.

They went for a joy ride, but they don't own the car.

"Dillweed?" from you Ken? Resorting to insults already... that's pretty weak. Frankly I expect better from you Sir.

Your original comment didn't mention if the guy was caring or not, only that they were unmarried. Also, your previous post refers to pregnancy, now it's a more callous "knocks up a woman." Trying to cover your ass a bit aren't you?

Now let's look at your new "my point is" statement. What I read from that is that you're big concern here is marriage, not pregnency. I take that from your "they (fathers) aren't caring enough to be married to then they have no say as to how she handles it even if it results in their sorry ass paying for it for the next 18 to 21 years" statement. So what principle of American justice do you base your point on? Are you saying that a father only has a say IF the couple is married, but the woman has a say whether they are married or not? That sir is Why should a woman have more say than the father UNLESS your intent is nothing more than furthering the unfair stereotype of fathers as uncaring bums without a conscience?

Also, back to your poorly-chosen closing analogy, you are again missing the key point. He took a joy ride in the car, which translates to the mother, so she maintains sole ownership of herself does she not? But, now we're talking about something they both share in. Suppose they go joyriding and stop at Circuit City and buy a $500 television together, each paying $250. Is the television the sole property of the woman because it was her car that was used for the trip? I don't think so. So if she wouldn't be allowed to claim sole ownership of something as petty as a TV, why does she get to claim sole ownership of something as priceless as a child?

 

[Bruzilla]

And you know this is pure BS as that woman that is married to your sorry ass is one of the reasons that made you get up and go to work every day. You were doing it as a family unit and not as a casual fling.

No sir, it is not a causal factor of why I got up and went to work every morning and I find your ill-informed remarks quite condescending. A wife is not indespensible, nor is she a requirement for a man to function. I achieved a considerable amount of success during my life long before I met my wife, and I've achieved a considerable amount since. But make no mistake... I would have achieved the same level with or without her. My wife has never been involved in my work as 99% of it has been classified and I couldn't share with her what I was doing. When it came to managing the home I've always performed 50 to 60 percent of the tasks, and if my wife hadn't been there my life would have been a bit more difficult, but I would have managed just as I did before I got married.

Contrary to your use of the stereotype, most men don't just lose their brains the minute they get married and become 100% dependent on a woman.

 

[vraiblonde]

This is better than Clash of the Titans. But we must deduct points from Ken for throwing out insults and name-calling.

 

[mAlice]

But we must deduct points from Ken for throwing out insults and name-calling.

I didn't know we were keeping score....what is it?

 

[vraiblonde]

I didn't know we were keeping score....what is it?

Both have valid points but I think Bru is ahead because he doesn't use insults to make his case.

Let's call it 50-40 Bru at this point.

 

[mAlice]

Both have valid points but I think Bru is ahead because he doesn't use insults to make his case.

Let's call it 50-40 Bru at this point.

Now see, if I were keeping score, Ken would get extra credit. He always comes up with the funniest insults.

 

[Bruzilla]

Now see, if I were keeping score, Ken would get extra credit. He always comes up with the funniest insults.

You find "dillweed" to be a funny insult? You really need to get out more.

 

[mAlice]

You find "dillweed" to be a funny insult? You really need to get out more.

Hey, it's no worse than that stupid commercial you thought was funny. And yes, I do think dillweed is funny. So there.

 

[Christy]

Quick, name for me 1 woman who "let" the father have custody. Beebee Momma Gude is the ONLY one I have heard of EVER and I don't know any details of that matter.

.

I did. Initially anyway, I took primary custody back when my ex wanted to join the military. :shrug:

 

[Ken King]

"Dillweed?" from you Ken? Resorting to insults already... that's pretty weak. Frankly I expect better from you Sir.

Your original comment didn't mention if the guy was caring or not, only that they were unmarried. Also, your previous post refers to pregnancy, now it's a more callous "knocks up a woman." Trying to cover your ass a bit aren't you?

"dillweed" small letters is a term of endearment, like butthead, you'll get over it. I didn't call you a "vraiblonde" or anything really nasty.

Why should I have to regurgitate the scenario that had initially and clearly been laid out for every one to read in the opening post? It wasn't about a loving couple that finds that they are now possibly going to be parents, at least to my understanding it wasn’t.

Now let's look at your new "my point is" statement. What I read from that is that you're big concern here is marriage, not pregnency. I take that from your "they (fathers) aren't caring enough to be married to then they have no say as to how she handles it even if it results in their sorry ass paying for it for the next 18 to 21 years" statement. So what principle of American justice do you base your point on? Are you saying that a father only has a say IF the couple is married, but the woman has a say whether they are married or not? That sir is Why should a woman have more say than the father UNLESS your intent is nothing more than furthering the unfair stereotype of fathers as uncaring bums without a conscience?

My point was and still is that just because two unloving folk "bump ugly" resulting in a pregnancy the male does not hold any right to dictate what the woman will do, though we know he might become financially responsible at a later time if carried full term, but his wishes don't really matter yet. Read the Roe v. Wade decision and they only talk about the mothers’ right to obtain an abortion with her doctors input, the father is not mentioned at all. Father’s rights prior to birth are non-existent as far as I can tell. The facts are that until the child is born paternity is an unanswered question on the male’s part (unless expensive testing is conducted prior to a birth). And until such birth the financial responsibility doesn’t yet impact the fatherly biological unit. With a married couple the implied concept is that any child the woman might be carrying should be the husbands and as such they together should share in any decision towards the fate of the fetus. This still might not be the case if we view only Roe v. Wade and I am unknowing of any court ruling where the woman wanted an abortion and the man didn’t that they forced the woman to carry the child.

Also, back to your poorly-chosen closing analogy, you are again missing the key point. He took a joy ride in the car, which translates to the mother, so she maintains sole ownership of herself does she not? But, now we're talking about something they both share in. Suppose they go joyriding and stop at Circuit City and buy a $500 television together, each paying $250. Is the television the sole property of the woman because it was her car that was used for the trip? I don't think so. So if she wouldn't be allowed to claim sole ownership of something as petty as a TV, why does she get to claim sole ownership of something as priceless as a child?

This one is easy, what you speak to is a joint-purchase, so shared possession is expected. But we are not talking about a shared expectation but the result of a shared act where only one of the parties will be subjected to the physiological changes that were not anticipated. For all we know the likelihood of the two crossing paths again is slim, and as there was no expectation other then the moments gratification that started it all, what right does the male have to the prolonging of an event that probably neither of them would have done had they known what the outcome would have been?

 

[vraiblonde]

I didn't call you a "vraiblonde" or anything really nasty.

- another 10

50-30 Bru

 

[mAlice]

- another 10

50-30 Bru

 

[cattitude]

and to think I was gonna fill out my application for the Fight Club.

 

[Ken King]

No sir, it is not a causal factor of why I got up and went to work every morning and I find your ill-informed remarks quite condescending. A wife is not indespensible, nor is she a requirement for a man to function. I achieved a considerable amount of success during my life long before I met my wife, and I've achieved a considerable amount since. But make no mistake... I would have achieved the same level with or without her. My wife has never been involved in my work as 99% of it has been classified and I couldn't share with her what I was doing. When it came to managing the home I've always performed 50 to 60 percent of the tasks, and if my wife hadn't been there my life would have been a bit more difficult, but I would have managed just as I did before I got married.

Contrary to your use of the stereotype, most men don't just lose their brains the minute they get married and become 100% dependent on a woman.

I never said one was indispensable or a requirement but since you chose to acquire one she has been given entitlement to your earnings that were once solely yours and are now your families. She participates in your life (maybe she doesn’t but for argument sake we’ll say she does) and enhances your life by whatever arrangement the two of you have worked out. If she takes care of 40 to 50 percent of the household/family workload (based on your figures) then isn’t she rightfully due an equal percentage of your retirement for the years you spend together should you ever decide to part ways?

 

[Ken King]

- another 10

50-30 Bru

And that is why they won't let you be a judge in the fight club, zero impartiality.

 

[vraiblonde]

zero impartiality.

Gumbo likes that about me. He'd let me judge.