For decades, the debate has raged over exactly how American society approaches sex and birth.....when should humans be made responsible for their own actions via Over the Counter contraceptives; should a woman of legal age have the right to confer with a doctor and opt for an abortion. Now Americans just LOVE to profess that the cornerstone of this country is your individual freedom....the ability to make your own personal decisions and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, etc., etc. Yet it seems that some people just can't stand the very notion that someone else in this country is using the same state and federal rules and regulations they use to live a happy and productive life while NOT doing what others do. Mind you, even if it is of no harm to anyone, deviance from the group norm is just not tolerable for some. Well, there's an old saying....what's good for the goose is good for the ganders. So here is one creative local politician's answer to the age old question of state/federal control on abortion. This is a classic! https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/alab...201058496.html
Now this is all starting to make sense. An Alabama Democratic congresswoman says mandatory vasectomies paid for by the patient and a Maine woman running for one of her state’s senate seat as a democrat has t-shits made with a guillotine. HB 238, filed by Rep. Rolanda Hollis, would require a man to undergo a vasectomy after the birth of his 3rd biological child or w/in 1 month of his 50th birthday...at his own expense U.S. Senate candidate Bre Kidman selects guillotine as ‘symbol of the work we have to do’
Yep, because if the Alabama conservatives and right to lifers are hell bent on controlling when and how many children a woman must give birth to, we can at least make efforts to control the OTHER part of the equation. If the imagery disturbs you, then maybe folk should stop trying to regulate something as private as deciding to carry a pregnancy to term.
I'm pro-choice so note that I'm not arguing for the anti-abortion side here. BUT....no one on the anti-abortion side is trying to tell women how many babies they can have. They're just saying that if you get pregnant then don't abort it. Have it and if you don't want it then give it up to someone that does.
Kang, you're not making sense....you are STILL telling a woman that she has to take a pregnancy to term. Why? No one is asking YOU a damned thing with regards to that pregnancy. And let's get real....the adoption situation in this country isn't exactly running smoothly, as the foster child institution is subsequent proof. Bottom line: the OP suggested solution hits the nerve...as guys can impregnate all they want and NOT have to worry about the immediate biological consquences. If your going to regulate one, do so for the other. Fair is fair.
I like how you put in the word "immediate" in there. That tells me that you know the long term consequences when the man doesn't want the baby but the woman does. So, I'm sure that you recognize that there is an unfair thing happening there. In any case, taking a pregnancy to term is not the same as telling that woman how many times they're allowed to have kids. Taking a child to term each time you're pregnant does not end your ability to have kids, unless there's a rare occasion where it does but those are relatively rare. A women can get pregnant at least once every 9 months on average. That means that if a woman REALLY wanted to she could have around 40 kids in thier lifetime. But let's just say, for the moment that they are the same. How is this proposal fair? It only targets men....and DOES tell them how many kids they can have in a lifetime. What if the man and woman have three kids and then get a divorce? The man later finds someone else that he loves....only problem, he can no longer have kids but the woman he loves wants kids....that's normally a break up reason. So again....how is this fair?
And a life-threatening burden at that. If all the anti-reproductive freedom types are REALLY so pro-life let them put their money where their mouths are and offer each woman who carries a child to term $10,000 for the kid. Prospective parents travel to Romania and pay twice that much now. Buy American.
Not saying otherwise. Just saying that women are not told how many children they are allowed to have which was the assertion.
Why so lax? Women start becoming responsible for any kids they have by puberty, so do men get to skate? I say give them a choice. Lose the gonads at puberty or sign a legal contract requiring you to pay 1/2 of all costs to raise all children you make for the rest of your life, with mandatory incarceration and seizure of assets if you fail to honor the contract. By the way, the same should apply to women as well. Both sexes can be deadbeat parents.
Sharing the responsibility? How about we share the rights? Funny how in every situation the liberals want to give women all the rights and men all the responsibility.
IMO it's not fair. But looking from an anti-abortion side they would counter your question with "how is it fair to the child being killed?" Or something along those lines. Remember, I'm pro choice, not anti-abortion. Just pointing out that kungfuliberal's assertion about women being told how many children they can have is false.
And you're exactly the type of reason that us real men allowed women to exercise their Right to vote instead of suppressing it from them like people like you used to do.
Prisons are full of guys who didn't pay their child support. How ignorant must one be to not know this? 25% of your gross income is how they determine child support here in Texas. How you figure guys are skating? Sounds like there is a lot you don't know.
And its all been down hill from there. I'm sure you are very proud. Well done. Ah well. It supposedly a self correcting problem. The type of people you would not want having kids are not. So, in a generation or so, adults will take over again, with responsibility and accountability.
He also has no choice if he wants the child and she doesn't. If we are going to make this issue completely 50/50, there are a slew of open ended issues, i.e., child care and support that need to be addressed. This is not a simple nor easy issue. As of now the woman has the final say, I personally don't have too much issue with it, because I have not heard enough of an argument to change the status quo.
I think if men were as self serving and myopic as women, women would have to sexually service strangers in government run brothels so that men would not feel the need to have a woman. That and an IVF draft of women so men could have babies without a woman. (Seriously, I support aggressive ectogenisis research). I mean, if we can draft men to take a life, why not women to provide one?