A man's right to choose.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

Except it doesn't, if she doesn't like the consequences then she can have an abortion. There are risks of it ending bad, but both parties took risks of getting diseases by sleeping with each other. The world is nothing but a risk. Hell there are much more risks having the kid.

Condoms aren't always effective as well.

You should be able to relinquish your rights as a parent/provider without the woman's consent if you are going to allow a woman to do the same without your consent. It definitely needs to be restricted to where you can only do it in a certain early time window where the woman can abort if she feels she cannot keep the child without the financial support of the father. Well that is unless the woman keeps it hidden from the man during this window, then the man gets another opportunity to opt out due to her attempt to hide it from him and collect.

I just can't agree, based on the number of men who just walk away from their responsibilities.

For example while it didn't happen until I was a teenager my own father walked out on my mother and three kids, without sending any support whatsoever. My mother was a stay-at-homer because that was what he wanted, so there was no income until she managed to get a part time job. I started working full time, while also going to work full time. Guess which one I ultimately had to give up.

Where there is a decided inequity, there cannot be equal treatment under the law. Sometimes legal unequal treatment is actually the more fair alternative.

[Trip]

Maybe more women should have abortions then, less population and less unwanted children that grow up in shitty situations.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

Maybe more women should have abortions then, less population and less unwanted children that grow up in shitty situations.

And more men shouldn't be getting their rocks off and just walking away, ignoring the obvious possible repercussions.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

And more men shouldn't be getting their rocks off and just walking away, ignoring the obvious possible repercussions.

Women are just as guilty of one night stands.

People should fuck when they can deal with that consequences, but people aren't responsible.

[Particle Man]

Originally Posted by Trip

Women are just as guilty of one night stands.

People should fuck when they can deal with that consequences, but people aren't responsible.

Indeed. Takes two to tango.

Obviously, there are other situations where things are not voluntary - that's another topic...

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I just can't agree, based on the number of men who just walk away from their responsibilities.

For example while it didn't happen until I was a teenager my own father walked out on my mother and three kids, without sending any support whatsoever. My mother was a stay-at-homer because that was what he wanted, so there was no income until she managed to get a part time job. I started working full time, while also going to work full time. Guess which one I ultimately had to give up.

Where there is a decided inequity, there cannot be equal treatment under the law. Sometimes legal unequal treatment is actually the more fair alternative.

I know the laws were different back then, and maybe the laws in Canada are still different, but any parent today in a similar situation to the one you described who does what your father did can be compelled to at least pay child support. I haven't seen too many people arguing against child support for children they already have. This article only talks about waiving responsibilities long before a child is born.

In my view if losing the possibility of receiving child support motivates a woman to either abort or put a child up for adoption they probably shouldn't be having a child anyway. On the whole I believe this type of change would result in less children raised in shitty situations.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

I know the laws were different back then, and maybe the laws in Canada are still different, but any parent today in a similar situation to the one you described who does what your father did can be compelled to at least pay child support. I haven't seen too many people arguing against child support for children they already have. This article only talks about waiving responsibilities long before a child is born.

In my view if losing the possibility of receiving child support motivates a woman to either abort or put a child up for adoption they probably shouldn't be having a child anyway. On the whole I believe this type of change would result in less children raised in shitty situations.

In my case my father refused to pay, which meant that a court order for payment would be required. When your total home income is something like $6K a year, a month without money can put you on the street. I ended up skipping school, most days, so that I could work full time and try to keep everything from falling apart, at age 16. It was something like 6 months before there was an order to pay in place, and they weren't divorced until a year and a half after that.

There are an awful lot of men who knock up a woman and then just disappear, once they find out. Abortion isn't a trivial operating. You aren't going in to have a wart removed. I know a little about this, as a friend was the assistant to the doctor who went to jail, multiple times, while trying to make abortion safe and legal in Canada. Leave aside the personal or religious reasons for not having an abortion; it's still a serious medical procedure, with serious possible negative outcomes. Forcing anyone into a position where they have to undergo a substantial medical procedure is just wrong, on oh so many levels.

Imagine the flip-side. You've fathered a child out of wedlock so you must now get a vasectomy, whether you want one or not.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

Women are just as guilty of one night stands.

People should fuck when they can deal with that consequences, but people aren't responsible.

And yet the repercussions of that decision aren't equal. That's why being inequitable, where the man is concerned, helps to equalize the situation. Being unable to keep it in your pants can result in a 'life sentence.'

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

And yet the repercussions of that decision aren't equal. That's why being inequitable, where the man is concerned, helps to equalize the situation. Being unable to keep it in your pants can result in a 'life sentence.'

And yet being able to keep things out of your pants isn't a life sentence, you can get it terminated via abortion. You aren't equalizing the situation, you just wanting to keep it completely inequal. This is giving this same option to men.

Are you against abortion? Do you not consider it a valid option? If this is the case, I can see your point and concede it shouldn't be allowed if abortion isn't allowed. However, if abortion is allowed, it's perfectly fair for the man to divorce himself from the situation exactly like a woman can do as well.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

In my case my father refused to pay, which meant that a court order for payment would be required. When your total home income is something like $6K a year, a month without money can put you on the street. I ended up skipping school, most days, so that I could work full time and try to keep everything from falling apart, at age 16. It was something like 6 months before there was an order to pay in place, and they weren't divorced until a year and a half after that.

There are an awful lot of men who knock up a woman and then just disappear, once they find out. Abortion isn't a trivial operating. You aren't going in to have a wart removed. I know a little about this, as a friend was the assistant to the doctor who went to jail, multiple times, while trying to make abortion safe and legal in Canada. Leave aside the personal or religious reasons for not having an abortion; it's still a serious medical procedure, with serious possible negative outcomes. Forcing anyone into a position where they have to undergo a substantial medical procedure is just wrong, on oh so many levels.

Imagine the flip-side. You've fathered a child out of wedlock so you must now get a vasectomy, whether you want one or not.

So basically you are against this because you might have been aborted if your situation happened today? Why should other kids go through this route? Fathers who don't want their children are going to happen, maybe this would help that situation.

No one is forcing anyone to have a medical procedure. It is just an option a woman has if she cannot financially support the child. She can still put it up for adoption. Plus pregnancy is a far more dangerous procedure than an abortion procedure today.