I don’t think men should have a say in whether a woman gets an abortion or not. However, I do think the man should have the option of opting out of fatherly responsibilities if given proper notice. How would this work? A woman, upon learning she is pregnant, would be legally required to notify the prospective father. The man would then make a legally binding statement as to whether or not he will claim fatherly rights or abdicate them. If he abdicates them he isn’t on the birth certificate, doesn’t have to pay child support, and has no visitation rights. If he chooses to claim his rights then he gets all the responsibilities that go along with it as well. The woman can then use this information in deciding whether or not she wants to have an abortion or carry the pregnancy to term.
The obvious problem is that women get two choices. Like men, they can choose not to be parents by abstaining from sex. Unlike men, they can choose to shed their parental responsibilities during the pregnancy. If men get no say in the matter of abortion (or "a day" but zero actual choice), then they should be able to absolve themselves of the responsibilities up until they sign the birth certificate. I'd never do that and would frown on any man doing that, but if our goal is actual legal equality than that's a measure we have to take.
I didn't think that men who get women pregnant and having to support the children would be the least bit controversial. Put on the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing condom for cheese sake. In this day and age with all the contraceptives from patches to pills to condoms etc. I have zero sympathy for anyone that gets pregnant or in the case of guys gets a girl pregnant. It's your own damn fault so pay up.
Sounds fair, so long as the father doesn't have any fixed obligations until he's given notice. If, for whatever reason, a woman gets pregnant and cuts off ties and then, after the birth, decides to notify the father (seemingly illegal under your proposal) then the father should still get the same option as he would before the child was born. You know it's pretty sexist to portray men as the actors and women as only the ones being acted upon. Most of the time when young people don't use a condom it isn't because they're stupid (though that happens), it's because the woman says she's on birth control (and sex without a condom is way better).
And any guy that picks up some chick at a bar (or any girl he has random sex with) and beleives her when she says that is an idiot. Her fault for lying to him...and his fault for not saying "ya, well, gonna put a condom on anyway"
Unless you have seen her take the actual pills on a consistent basis then it is your own damn fault for getting a chick pregnant. The only time in a relationship that you can stop using condoms is if you know for a fact that she is using them as prescribed and also after an STD test which I have made every girlfriend go through that I decided to have a longer term relationship with. You cannot be paranoid enough in this day and age and I have lots of acquaitances who have paid the price by either getting an STD or getting some chick pregnant and then end up paying thousands a month in child support. A guy that believes a girl who is lying about taking birth control is just as legally culpable for the care of that kid as if they had planned it all along. There is no legal distinction. The people I know who are smart about this kind of stuff NEVER run into these situations......ever. It always ends up being the cavalier morons who end up social pariahs because everyone finds out they caught herpes from someone or they are working an extra job to cover the child care payments of kids that they get to see twice a month. I have zero sympathy for any guy or girl who gets themselves into that kind of situation.
Yeah, you really seemed to have missed the point. So if a guy has sex with a girl who says she's on BC, his own damn fault. Now if a guy pokes a hole in his condom and has sex with a girl, its her own damned fault in your opinion, right? Because the fact that someone was deceived, according to you, doesn't change the fact that "its their own damned fault." That'd be fine, since that standard can be applied fairly and consistently, except for this: if a guy is deceitful to a girl, she can have an abortion, he doesn't have the option when he is deceived. If you don't find some way to make the situation fair and equitable, you're in favor of inequality.
That's all well and good, but that same guy could be the deceiver and poke a hole in his condom. So what then, her own damned fault for being deceived? You can believe that, and that's all well and good (since you'd be applying a consistent standard to both sexes), but then there's a gap: if she deceives him, it's his own damned fault and he has no further say in the matter. But if he deceives her, you can say, "it's her own damned fault", but she still has all the say in the matter from there and can have an abortion. It's not equitable. What you're advocating here is inequality.
Yes it is their fault. Unless you know the other person well and know for a fact that they are wearing condoms that they haven't poked holes in to use your analogy or in the case of guys a girl that claims she is on BC but is lying. If the guy is wearing a condom and the girl is on BC and if one of them is lying about it they are still covered because the other one is still using contraceptives. If BOTH of them are lying then they deserve each other and I hope that they both die in a horrible accident very quickly before they are allowed to add their genes to the pool. Call me paranoid but I don't care what a girl says about her taking BC or not. Even if she thinks she is some of them are very very finicky, you have to take them at roughly the same time every day and what if she forgets to take some here and there? Believe it or not, most people that you pick up at bars or clubs are not particularly smart. I just assume that the girl is at best taking the pill but maybe not using it correctly and at worst lying about it and not on the pill at all and wants to make babies with me because I am so awesome. So far that paranoia has paid off for me and also for the other people I know who think the same way. Remember kids, honesty and integrity are not primary attributes that you look for in girls that you are looking to hook up with.
What's your response to people who argue that since pregnancy is a serious injury that damages a woman's body, she has the right to an abortion?
Basically, any other view but the OP's is based on the conservative's pathological view that sex is a necessary evil, meant not to enjoyed in any way but entirely to procreate the species. If most conservatives could somehow make women pregnant without sex they would. Then it would be a totally joyless process, mainly very painful to the woman at first, annoying, expensive and painful to the couple for several years and nothing else. This would make it perfect with their view of how life in general ought to be.
Then we should be consistent and help out every pregnant animal on the plant, to help heal this serious injury. See how long that logic holds up after mass extinction.
Has nothing to do with that at all. Has to do with murder. Many murderers actually enjoyed murdering someone. Is opposing murder merely a conservative's pathological view that murder is a necessary evil, meant not to enjoyed in any way? What a dumb statement. And quite frankly, more conservatives enjoy sex, than left-wingers according to the research.
What if they drive while intoxicated? Do you think they are of sound mind to be making such decisions?
The intoxication factor is an interesting point. For driving, if you drive intoxicated it is always assumed that doing so was voluntary - you consented to driving intoxicated. The thought that you were too drunk to make the decision to drive and therefore couldn't be responsible for driving drunk is never considered. The opposite is true for sexual activity. In many cases it is assumed that if you were drunk you couldn't consent to sex. Therefore if you were drunk when you had sex, it is assumed to be non-consensual. This inconsistency in the law really should be addressed.
It is interesting. In fact I looked up that question, "How come you can consent to drive while drunk but not consent to sex while drunk?" There is a thread having a conversation about it here > http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1kx20y/how_come_being_drunk_means_you_cant_give_consent/ and one of the user's gave this response.
No. But if two people have sex while drunk, and then the woman regrets it afterward, then it's not rape.
So if they are intoxicated, we should not force them to deal with the consequences of their actions? Because they are not of sound mind to make the decision to drive, even though they did? Do you see what you are saying? Everyone should face the consequences of their own choices. That includes people who have sex.
Don't see it that way. Driving while drunk does not involve another person putting you into the car and making you drive. Sex while drunk involves another person taking advantage of you while in a state of being unable to resist, or of unsound mind in order to make a consensual decision. There is not violation of the drunk drives autonomy by another, while in sex there is.
