abortion or no abortion?

[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.

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.

So if he fails to sign and she still has the baby?

[akdiver 3]

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.

I definitely think the government should be passing out condoms to anyone who wants one. As a tax payer, I surely recognize the cost savings of condoms over babies.

[Emancipation 2]

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.

so it's up to the woman again.. to make sure she protects her child's future?

I think an increase of abortions would result.. all these women who couldn't find men to support their children.

Would you have to sign this paper if you were married?

Edited September 25, 2008 by Emancipation

[Marilyn. 340]

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.

yes, I know it works both ways..

[Sister Fracas 5]

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.

looks like there is another socialist in the room... LOL

[akdiver 3]

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

Again - using that logic to deny the male choice can also be used to deny the female choice. Using this logic - no abortions for anyone, and lots of unplanned and often unwanted babies.

[Marilyn. 340]

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.

yes... but you were talking about men and their not wanting to pay for the baby....

[akdiver 3]

So if he fails to sign and she still has the baby?

Then by choosing to have the baby, she has chosen to absorb the costs of that choice without being subsidized by anyone else.

[Emancipation 2]

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.

looks like there is another socialist in the room... LOL

yeah we tend to be groupies.. ya know.. all social like

[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.

yes, I know it works both ways..

Jeezus H. Cristos... look at my spelling in that post...

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.

looks like there is another socialist in the room... LOL

yeah we tend to be groupies.. ya know.. all social like

heehee

[akdiver 3]

so it's up to the woman again.. to make sure she protects her child's future?

Most women are interested in protecting their child's future....

I think an increase of abortions would result.. all these women who couldn't find men to support their children.

I agree. Since Roe v. Wade, some 16 million abortions have been performed in this country. In depth studies have shown that this has been directly responsible for a substantial portion of the crime drop since the early 90s.

Would you have to sign this paper if you were married?

Not necessarily. Certainly a standard "if we have a child, you will pay" type contract could be offered from the woman to the male to sign before marriage. If he fails to sign, she may choose to marry someone else if the issue is important to her.

[Oosie 1]

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

Again - using that logic to deny the male choice can also be used to deny the female choice. Using this logic - no abortions for anyone, and lots of unplanned and often unwanted babies.

I don't see this reducing abortions but cutting down on unwanted pregnancies. If you don't know for sure that you have taken steps to prevent pregnancy then don't have sex. If you agree to the risk of a pregnancy then fine but you make your mind up first. If couples agreed this in advance then maybe they would both be in agreement about what to do when a pregnancy happens. If a man uses condoms and a woman also uses contraception the number of accidental pregancies will decline. If you don't see her using contraception then you know you are taking a chance. That's when it's time to walk away.

[akdiver 3]

I don't see this reducing abortions but cutting down on unwanted pregnancies. If you don't know for sure that you have taken steps to prevent pregnancy then don't have sex. If you agree to the risk of a pregnancy then fine but you make your mind up first. If couples agreed this in advance then maybe they would both be in agreement about what to do when a pregnancy happens. If a man uses condoms and a woman also uses contraception the number of accidental pregancies will decline. If you don't see her using contraception then you know you are taking a chance. That's when it's time to walk away.

This head in the sand issue is ignoring the central argument here.

Fact: In the U.S., women have been granted the right to choose an abortion.

Now, GIVEN this fact, not trying to CHANGE this fact, what we are now discussing is providing an equitable and parallel choice for men.

In this case, as women have the option to abort the baby, men should have the option to abort having to pay for her decision.

Both parties involved have an "out":

a]. Women have a chance to get out from having a baby

b]. Men have a chance to get out from the cost of the woman's choice to have a baby

Edited September 25, 2008 by akdiver

[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.

looks like there is another socialist in the room... LOL

Free contraception needn't be a socialist policy. If targeted to lower income groups as it was in America in the late 80's it can be a tool for right wing eugenicists. At least that's the only reason I can come up with for the overuse of contraceptive implants in teenage black girls in some US cities. From a conservative viewpoint cutting the birth rate in lower income groups can lead to a cut in taxes with fewer children to support on welfare.

[akdiver 3]

From a conservative viewpoint cutting the birth rate in lower income groups can lead to a cut in taxes with fewer children to support on welfare.

As unpalatable as it may seem, an increase in abortions has also been proven to lead to a decrease in crime rates - another "conservative" agenda.

On that note - not only should condoms be made freely accessible to anyone who wants one, I think that birth control pills and abortions should be made freely available to anyone who wants them. Why I deplore socialism, I do have the sense to recognize the low cost option when I see it. Birth prevention is a lot cheaper than the social costs of armies of unplanned babies.

Edited September 25, 2008 by akdiver