Re: 'Roe v. Wade for Men' hudson: [quote author=atlgirl link=topic=42015.msg476490#msg476490 date=1173140840">
I believe that men should have equal rights as women, however I never believed women should have the right to destroy a life in the first place. ;)
[/quote">
Are you suggesting that abortion should be illegal?
Re: 'Roe v. Wade for Men' pluscachange: [quote author=Magalucia link=topic=42015.msg481001#msg481001 date=1173927312">
[quote author=Phyxius link=topic=42015.msg480960#msg480960 date=1173915518">
[quote author=Magalucia"> But when two people are not ready to have a child and there is an "accident" they both have to live with the consequences of that accident. All of the consequences. That may mean that a man has no say in whether the woman aborts a child of his or that he has no way to compel her to abort or avoid paying child support if she elects to keep the child.[/quote">
Look at what you posted. There is no equality there. He should have the same reproductive rights that she does. The law does not require her to keep her legs closed to opt out of parenthood, so why should he have to keep his pants zipped to have the same option?
[/quote">
Basic biology. He does not have to physically carry and bear the child. That makes a big difference. I believe the law recognizes that.
[/quote">
That's a dandy argument for saying you have the choice to kill your child in the womb or not. Fine and dandy. But it has absolutely nothing to do with being able to have the same right to say "no, I do not wish to support this child" (before it's born) as women do.
If you find that it's so terrible to be, well, female and fulfill the role of female in the capacity of bearing the child to term, then by all means, don't have sex, or only have sex when you feel you're ready to have children (with another consenting and aware adult).
Same rights under the law, or no rights for either under the law.
Re: 'Roe v. Wade for Men' hudson: [quote author=atlgirl link=topic=42015.msg476346#msg476346 date=1173119312">
In reverse I believe if the woman chooses to have such child then without the father's consent she should be ready to provide for such child. :o
[/quote">
So, this guy has sex with the woman, knowing full well that sex is how babies are made and you're gonna let him off the hook?
If this guy doesn't want to take care of a kid, then he shouldn't have stuck his dick in that woman. He needs to be held responsible for his actions. He had sex with her. That means he took the risk of getting a woman pregnant and therefore having a child.
Time to be a big boy and take responsibility.
Re: 'Roe v. Wade for Men' Lumpy: [quote author=Magalucia link=topic=42015.msg481001#msg481001 date=1173927312">
[quote author=Phyxius link=topic=42015.msg480960#msg480960 date=1173915518">
[quote author=Magalucia"> But when two people are not ready to have a child and there is an "accident" they both have to live with the consequences of that accident. All of the consequences. That may mean that a man has no say in whether the woman aborts a child of his or that he has no way to compel her to abort or avoid paying child support if she elects to keep the child.[/quote">
Look at what you posted. There is no equality there. He should have the same reproductive rights that she does. The law does not require her to keep her legs closed to opt out of parenthood, so why should he have to keep his pants zipped to have the same option?
[/quote">
Basic biology. He does not have to physically carry and bear the child. That makes a big difference. I believe the law recognizes that.
[/quote">
That's a damn good point Mags. If I had to push a bowling ball out of my a$$, I'd think twice before unzipping my pants.
Re: 'Roe v. Wade for Men' Magalucia: [quote author=Phyxius link=topic=42015.msg480960#msg480960 date=1173915518">
[quote author=Magalucia"> But when two people are not ready to have a child and there is an "accident" they both have to live with the consequences of that accident. All of the consequences. That may mean that a man has no say in whether the woman aborts a child of his or that he has no way to compel her to abort or avoid paying child support if she elects to keep the child.[/quote">
Look at what you posted. There is no equality there. He should have the same reproductive rights that she does. The law does not require her to keep her legs closed to opt out of parenthood, so why should he have to keep his pants zipped to have the same option?
[/quote">
Basic biology. He does not have to physically carry and bear the child. That makes a big difference. I believe the law recognizes that.
Click More for the next page.
