Discussion about abortion: part 2

aaah will teach me to pay some attention before making death threats

I offer full and unreserved apology for any distress my comments may have caused and obviously wholly retract it etc

(it did occur to me I was being a bit of knob)

Oh sorry, I didn't mean for it to come off like that, I was quoting the person who quoted you.

argh sorry, super defensive twat alert (me not you)

it's just this bit of your post:

MI: "they just can't or shouldn't force someone else to have a baby against their will" But it's OK for the woman to make him a father against his will? ?

because is my initials and I did say the first bit, up to the word 'but'

There's always the snip

Mitchy, you're not talking to me are you? I didn't refer to you.....

ok not exactly die

is just have been chuntering on in complete opposition to that idea

wtf

I didn't and would never say 'it's ok for the woman to make him a father against his will'

retract or DIE

This is ridiculous

Hopalong
?But I do find it strange that a man can in theory not want children, try to avoid his partner becoming pregnant by using contraception, and still be expected to pay for the child. And indeed, still be expected to take on the role of a father.

I know perfectly well that a lot of men don't conform to these expectations, but the expectation is still there.

It doesn't feel right to me that women can choose whether or not to become parents, but men can not. However, I don't know what the alternative is. I guess until we have a fail-safe but temporary method of male contraception, there is no alternative.?

Exactly, men DON?T tend to take care of their unwanted children, hell, many don?t take care of their wanted children so don't feel too sorry for them and their 'lack of choice'
We all know a fail safe of a man avoiding impregnating someone, so why don?t they just abstain? Their body, their choice! They don?t want a baby, they don?t have sex!! Who in their right mind goes about having sex and then trying to force their partner into doing what THEY want them to do with their own body? How power trippy is that?

It doesn?t seem right to me that the alternative to pro-choice is to control women and force things upon their own body. Outrageous.

Purits
?vasectomy is not necessarily the answer. The man might not want this baby now, but may want a family in the future.

MI: "they just can't or shouldn't force someone else to have a baby against their will" But it's OK for the woman to make him a father against his will? ?

Again, if he doesn?t want a baby, he shouldn?t be having sex. And why are you prioritising a mans right to swimmers over a womans right to decide over her own body????

oooh, do you mean to insult with 'selfish and stupid' to proceed with a pregnancy the man is not happy with?

I have to agree that its the lesser of two evils. I don't think a man should be forced to have a child he doesn't want- and nor do i think that vasectomy is the answer. It is imo hugely selfish and stupid of any woman to have a baby that is not wanted by both parents, however, it is abysmal to suggest that she be forced to abort! Imagine being forced to terminate against your will! I have recently had a termination (my son would not have survived outside of my womb) and it is a huge and life altering decision to make. Unfailingly i imagine that decision would affect the mother in ways indescribable, deeply damaging emotionally should she have be forced by a reluctant father. children would be the ones to suffer. And the main issue is that once a child is born a third persons rights are thrown in. And a childs right to be supported by the father regardless of whether the father wanted them, far outweigh the rights of the reluctant father.

MI,

Indeed, you're both right about other options being available!

And IMO people (male and female) shouldn't have sex without being fairly sure that they can deal with the consequences, but thats even less likely than 100% reliable contraception

happysmiley - we are in agreement!

you just say it a bit more elegantly

99% is better odds than the Pill for most users.

And if a man is really really scared, abstinence from penetrative sex isn't the end of the world. There are other things you can do in bed .

it's pretty reliable but that is sort of how sex works and the fact that it is fun doesn't really detract from its reproductive role does it?

so he can either weigh up the 1 or 2% risk of his condom breaking, and or verify that the woman is also using contraception, and then decide whether to indulge

and there's wanking and anal and stuff

vaginal sex not the be all and end all is it?

99% sounds like a pretty big risk to me TBH.

But MI, contraception is not 100% so they can only truly opt out through abstinence.

To be fair, the success rate for condoms is 99% if properly used. I'm not sure that men who use them are taking a particularly big risk. From my younger days , I do remember that not a lot of men were very keen on them.

men can can can opt out

they can assure themselves of contraception or lack of and make informed choice before they get stuck in

Sorry, MI, the reason I keep banging on about it is because purits suggestion ultimately results in men not having to pay, ie there would be no legal redress as there is now, and women and children would be the ones to suffer financially.