abortion or no abortion?

[Sister Fracas 5]

hmmm... I'm contemplating this.... I'll get back to you on this...

Think equity. What is equitable here. Forget about life and death and the bible and god and all this other nonsense, for purpose of examining this particular concept. In the face of one person getting all the choice, what is equitable for the other party involved.

Believe me...bible and God never come into this dicussion for me....

[akdiver 3]

I would hold both parties responsible for the upkeep of the child. That might make a few more people take contraception seriously.

That's only reasonable if both parties make the decision to KEEP the child. If one person has the opportunity to escape the costs, it's only reasonable to give the other person the same opportunity.

[Marilyn. 340]

I would hold both parties responsible for the upkeep of the child. That might make a few more people take contraception seriously.

That's only reasonable if both parties make the decision to KEEP the child. If one person has the opportunity to escape the costs, it's only reasonable to give the other person the same opportunity.

who is escaping costs?? yes the man should pay for part of the expenses, if the woman wants the help but who is saying he automatically is going to pay for all of the costs??

[SteveLaura 0]

Whilst AKDiver's proposal sounds reasonable in theory, I'm not sure it can be used in a practical sense. The issue of child support (for those mother's who want it) could be overturned, I suppose, based on the man saying that he wanted her to have an abortion.

Both parties take a risk where unprotected sex is concerned. To assume that she should take responsibility for it solely doesn't, to my mind, seem 'equitable' either.

[Emancipation 2]

That's what Hubby & I were saying... who CARES if people steal condoms.. steal away.. it might actually HELP matters

Condom manufacturers and resellers are in the business to make money, not provide a public service.

I have a response to that ... but it will be labeled as socialist or communistic and thus dismissed so why waste the breath.

[LoriLawless 0]

Whilst AKDiver's proposal sounds reasonable in theory, I'm not sure it can be used in a practical sense. The issue of child support (for those mother's who want it) could be overturned, I suppose, based on the man saying that he wanted her to have an abortion.

Both parties take a risk where unprotected sex is concerned. To assume that she should take responsibility for it solely doesn't, to my mind, seem 'equitable' either.

Well they can always sign some sort of contract. That's if the woman agrees, which I doubt she would.

So in essence, you're right.

[Sister Fracas 5]

That's what Hubby & I were saying... who CARES if people steal condoms.. steal away.. it might actually HELP matters

Condom manufacturers and resellers are in the business to make money, not provide a public service.

I have a response to that ... but it will be labeled as socialist or communistic and thus dismissed so why waste the breath.

COMMIE!!!!

[akdiver 3]

who is escaping costs??

If a woman choose an abortion, she is escaping the costs of having a baby. The only equitable thing to do is give a man the same choice - the option to escape the costs of having a baby.

[Marilyn. 340]

who is escaping costs??

If a woman choose an abortion, she is escaping the costs of having a baby. The only equitable thing to do is give a man the same choice - the option to escape the costs of having a baby.

if he wants that option he should keep his thing in his pants

[SteveLaura 0]

Whilst AKDiver's proposal sounds reasonable in theory, I'm not sure it can be used in a practical sense. The issue of child support (for those mother's who want it) could be overturned, I suppose, based on the man saying that he wanted her to have an abortion.

Both parties take a risk where unprotected sex is concerned. To assume that she should take responsibility for it solely doesn't, to my mind, seem 'equitable' either.

Well they can always sign some sort of contract. That's if the woman agrees, which I doubt she would.

So in essence, you're right.

Sure, but then we're back to where we are now. If the woman presses for child support, the law sides with her. Which, I have to say, I agree with.

[Oosie 1]

Condom manufacturers and resellers are in the business to make money, not provide a public service.

Maybe if contraception was provided as a public service there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies after all if you can't afford contrception you certainly can't afford to raise a child.

Abstience doesn't work, you can't ask people to give up a natural biological function, it would be no easier than giving up eating or sleeping.

[akdiver 3]

Whilst AKDiver's proposal sounds reasonable in theory, I'm not sure it can be used in a practical sense. The issue of child support (for those mother's who want it) could be overturned, I suppose, based on the man saying that he wanted her to have an abortion.

Well, it's a simple matter really. If a woman finds out she is pregnant, goes to the potential father and reveals this information. At this time, he can either sign a standardized contract indicating that he will receive parental rights in exchange for assuming 18 years of financial servitude. This document must be properly notarized to avoid any opportunity for forgeries, etc. Now, should the woman fail to secure this contract, then she will know that she will be absorbing the full costs of parenthood and can make her choice whether to have the baby accordingly.

This way - both parties get an equitable choice.

Man cannot later say, "oh, nevermind" - the contract is enforceable by the courts.

Edited September 25, 2008 by akdiver

[Sister Fracas 5]

I do think it's a bit simple to keep saying "if he didn't want it he shouldn't have sex", etc....

Well, the woman shouldn't either. If she can't be assured, to the absolute higest degree, that she won't become pregnant, and she doesn't want to have a baby, then she shoudl keep her pants on as well.

Also, this doesn't account for things like condoms breaking, etc, where protection WAS in place.

[akdiver 3]

if he wants that option he should keep his thing in his pants

By that logic, you can also deny women a choice. If they didn't want to be pregnant, then they should have kept their legs closed.

[Oosie 1]

Whilst AKDiver's proposal sounds reasonable in theory, I'm not sure it can be used in a practical sense. The issue of child support (for those mother's who want it) could be overturned, I suppose, based on the man saying that he wanted her to have an abortion.

Well, it's a simple matter really. If a woman finds out she is pregnant, goes to the potential father and reveals this information. At this time, he can either sign a standardized contract indicating that he will receive parental rights in exchange for assuming 18 years of financial servitude. This document must be properly notarized to avoid any opportunity for forgeries, etc. Now, should the woman fail to secure this contract, then she will know that she will be absorbing the full costs of parenthood and can make her choice whether to have the baby accordingly.

This way - both parties get an equitable choice.

Man cannot later say, "oh, nevermind" - the contract is enforceable by the courts.

The time for an equitable choice is before having unprotected sex.