Let's all avoid responsibility!

[Bing_Oh]

"Row v. Wade for Men" lawsuit wants to let fathers of unwanted children to "opt out" or financial support for the kids. They claim that men don't have the reproductive freedom that women do when it comes to options regarding unwanted pregnancies. They claim it's a violation of the Constitution's equal protection clause to not give fathers this option.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11731580/

Not to start an abortion debate on her (I've learned there are some unwinnable arguments...politics, religion, and abortion are the big three), but what the heck is up with nobody in this country wanting to take any freakin' responsibility for their kids anymore? I don't suppose I should be surprised...alot of people don't take responsibility for any of their other actions is life, so why should they take responsibility for their actions in the bedroom?

[t_law21]

That's the craziest thing I've heard of; men not having that choice of reproductive freedom. They've got just as much imput in the matter as the woman does.
It takes two to tango; & they know what their little soldiers are capable of.

[21blue28]

This whole subject is sooooo full of lame logic that I see nothing wrong with letting men opt out. Women have had the benefit for years. It is just one more way that the US is going down the toilet. In the US, responsiblity for YOUR actions rests with those that you can sue.

[Mitchell_in_CT]

I'm torn between both sides.

It does take two to tango, so each person has responsibility for the consequences of sex...however, at this point in time, only the mother can chose to have an abortion if SHE choses to. Prospective father have no say as to keeping their unborn child alive if the mother choses to kill it.

If women want to have the sole option of keeping or killing the unborn children, then why shouldn't men have the option of giving up parental rights to the baby if they don't want it.

Perhaps when women realize "Hey, I can't just slut around, get knocked up and then sue some poor shmuch for child support..."they will start taking more care as to whom they screw.

Another issue to consider is not the mother v father thing, but the right of the child to support from both his parrents, married or not. It does take two after all, and he didn't have a choice...and parrents should be responsible for actions taken.

[gotthblues]

this is an easy one, it is chicken **** for a man to not own up to his actions just like it is chicken **** for a woman not to own up to her actions. and in the name of all that its good and pure *whats left* if this crap does go over, then homicide, sorry, abortion, rates will go way up, for one, many men, sorry again, little **** ant boys, will go off humpin anything and everthing knowing that they are in the free and clear and only have to worry about something unwanted growing on their tad pole,

[21blue28]

The easy way around this problem is ban all except rape/incest. If you want welfare, some type of sterilization comes into play. Simple.

[pvtbuddie]

You have to take your logic to the fullest extent to know how flawed it is.
If this is the only way to get our society to see how bad things really are,
Take it all the way!

[HeineyGirl]

We are seriously testing our limits with civilization. I'm no tree hugger, but this s**t is out of control!! Is anyone EVER going to step up and just say enough? People should be held accountable for their actions. To the fullest extent. No more of this hand holding, love everyone crap.

Stay safe today and everyday!!!

[Centurion44]

Personally, I think there should be a law saying that consensual sex between two members of the opposite sex give "implied consent" that they will be willing to care for whatever fruits are grown from that coupling.

Of course, that's just common sense, but those of us that have that really don't need laws written down anyway, do we?

[pvtbuddie]

The problem with implied consent is that in this case the man had made his lack of consent clear, and he was lied to about the possibility of a conception.
And the only problems with his logic are:

1. A woman like that had more than likely already proven herself a liar.

or 2. he didn't know her well, and assumed all risk by believing a stranger in something so important.

and 3. His child is not a "thing".

[Centurion44]

The problem with implied consent is that in this case the man had made his lack of consent clear, and he was lied to about the possibility of a conception.

And he was dumb enough to believe her. This only enforces my point. If you don't want to risk having a child, you don't have sex.

Yes, it's that simple.

[21blue28]

And he was dumb enough to believe her. This only enforces my point. If you don't want to risk having a child, you don't have sex.

Yes, it's that simple.

I believe in choice ....... choice to risk having sex and ending up with a baby. All the "choices" after a woman becomes prego are moot in my opinion.

[That Guy]

I believe in choice ....... choice to risk having sex and ending up with a baby. All the "choices" after a woman becomes prego are moot in my opinion.


I agree. When this story first came out I said he was dumb but I say that to all women who get pregnant (excpet a few circumstances).
I do howevere see his point. As it stands now the woman gets the choice wither to the keep the child or not no matter what the "father" says.
So if my girlfriend gets pregnant and I want to keep the child and she doesn't she is the only one who gets the choice.
So why can't it work both ways? Say she wants to keep the child and I don't and be forced to pay child support for the duration.


TGY

[willowdared]

Hmmmm....it's called a condom. ;)

[AZTRUBLE]

The problem with implied consent is that in this case the man had made his lack of consent clear, and he was lied to about the possibility of a conception.
And the only problems with his logic are:

1. A woman like that had more than likely already proven herself a liar.

or 2. he didn't know her well, and assumed all risk by believing a stranger in something so important.

and 3. His child is not a "thing".

If he made his "lack of consent" clear he would have said NO to random sex with someone he does not know and therefore cannot trust.....there is ALWAYS a possibility of conception, regardless of what precautions are taken. You don't want to be Daddy (or mommy) then stay off your back.
that is all

[SIG-fan]

That's the craziest thing I've heard of; men not having that choice of reproductive freedom. They've got just as much imput in the matter as the woman does.
It takes two to tango; & they know what their little soldiers are capable of.


Thats true. however, after conception, only the woman can decide to terminate the pregnancy. The father should be able to say, just like the woman, "hey, I want nothing to do with this".

I"m actually against abortion, in most cases, but it's not fair that a woman can opt out and a guy can't.

[medic_9]

People need to realize that any intimate sexual encounter can lead to a baby. That's just how our bodies work. Yes there may be a few times that you don't get pregnant but if you continue without protection you WILL get pregnant (exception of some medical condition, but miracles do happen). Women can lie about being on birth control but if the guy really doesn't want to take that chance use a condom anyways.

Out of 100 women 3 still got pregnant using depo-provera (shot), 8 using the pill, and 15 using condoms. Even male or female sterilization isn't perfect (0.15 and 0.5 respectively). So other than complete abstinence there is not sure way to not get pregnant.

Both parties are responsible if the women gets pregnant, after all you needed both to create the life. I know that ultimately the choice of abortion belongs to the female and I agree. It's her body and after the child is born the guy can still disappear leaving her with this child alone.

I'm completely against the man having the right to "opt out" of the child care (but completely pro-choice).

Source (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-birth-control-02.xml)

[Jack Price]

You gentlemen obviously don't understand. A kindler, gentler nation, which wants to protect each person, whether citizen or not, does not find fault with the individual. If the individual does something of which you do not approve, it is probably your fault for being so intolerant as to not approve that activity. If sweetheart gets prego and sonny doesn't want to pay for the child's expenses, it is obviously the duty of the government to take on those expenses. After all, it isn't sonny's fault that the society has caused him, through agressive advertising by worker-exploitive capitalists, probably, to want bling so much he can't pay for his offspring! I would say that you need mental treatment (provided by the government, of course) to educate you on diversity and compassion and posey-sniffing, but you guys are obviously Triple Rs (Reactionary Republican Retards), and should be thrown out of the country to make room for more illegal (OOPS! undocumented) aliens who have a god-given right to come here and collect welfare, unemployment and food stamps while shipping the $$ to another country.
WHEW! That should take care of my posey-sniffing crap for 2006. Now I can go back to holding scumbags indivually responsable for their sins against society.

[Bing_Oh]

Wow, Jack...did you take courses in socialism or what? That was VERY impressive.

[Jack Price]

Wow, Jack...did you take courses in socialism or what? That was VERY impressive.

Worse! I've been using my benefits to attend school, and now have my J.D. Am getting some practice before I retire and go to the dark side. :cool: