South Dakota and Roe v. Wade

[movie zombie]

Date: 4/5/2006 4:58:30 PM
Author: Angela1977
Yes, Maria...that is what I am saying.
Let me outline just in case someone isn''t getting it...
1. If a couple is married, it''s a contract. The man has a reasonable expectation a pregnancy may occur and cannot refuse to support a child that was conceived while in that contract.
2. A man cannot force a woman to bring a child to term nor can he force her to have an abortion.
3. BUT, on the other hand, a woman has a choice to bring the child to term. If she knows that the father, who made his case up front that he wants nothing to do with parenthood, isn''t going to participate, she has three options, adoption, abortion, or raising the child on her own.
4. If a man says that he will support the woman, he makes a binding verbal agreement and should be bound by that. He may not then change his mind at any point he so chooses.
5. A man should have to take all precautions he can to ensure that a prenancy doesn''t occur.
6. AND, (i know this is pushing it a step further) I think a man should have some sort of legal recourse if he was lied to (told she was on birth control or told she couldn''t get pregnant when the woman KNEW she could). Some sort of mental anguish compensation etc. especially if she tries to sue him for medical expenses or child support, when he was mislead from the beginning. (Conversely, if a woman is told that a man has had a vasectomy, the same rules should apply). The precedent for this is someone lying about a sexually transmitted disease. There have been cases of people knowingly spreading diseases, and they have been brought up on charges for that. And not just AIDS which is terminal, but other ones which just cause mental anguish.

I rest my case and I''m going to talk about diamonds and engagements and proposals and girly fun stuff.

1. marriage is a contract severed by divorce and if daddy leaves the state, good luck getting any payment. or perhaps daddy isn''t working. he may go to jail but you''re still not getting help raising the child.
2. agreed.
3. then he should have used birth control and not relied upon her to do so. if they have discussed it and he knew she wanted kids, he should have used said birth control or found another sex partner. and he''s equally responsible for bringing the topic up and discussing it in the first place.
4. verbal contracts in the moment of passion are rather hard to enforce and become his word against hers. yes he can change his mind and does [usually after having gotten her into bed] ....again, if he leaves the state, good luck getting any payment.
5. YES AND YES AGAIN!
6. he should have used birth control anyway. as in all things, let the buyer be ware. if he wants sex but no babies then he had better use birth control no matter what the woman says. ditto for the reverse in the vasectomy situation.

and even if both parties do everything right, birth control can fail.

movie zombie

 

[Maria D]

>>and even if both parties do everything right, birth control can fail<<

Which is why, in theory, men who absolutely don''t want children shouldn''t be having sex with the type of woman who would bring an accidental pregnancy to term. I say "in theory" because there are plenty of cases where a woman thinks she would have an abortion if an accident happened only to find that once actually pregnant she cannot go through with it. (At least on TV this happens all the time...Rachel, Miranda, etc.) I''ll bet a lot of times when it appears that the woman "trapped" the guy into having a child it was actually a case of her believing she''d "take care of it" if she got pregnant but when confronted with the decision in reality rather than hypothetically, she exercised her *choice*.

Let''s face it; sex can lead to pregnancy. Birth control not only can fail, it does quite regularly. If I had the same chance of winning hte lottery that a scrupulous birth control pill user has of getting pregnant, I''d be playing the numbers every day! My own precious daughter was a result of diaphragm failure (which worked well for over a decade before it failed). I''m grateful that I had the choice at the time to have a baby or end the pregnancy. I want that same choice for my daughter. (The original debate here.)

What''s all this got to do with men who conceive? They don''t get to decide whether or not the pregnancy goes to term. They only get to decide if they''ll have sex, how they''ll have it and who they''ll have it with. Unless of course they''re S. Dak lawmakers, then they get to decide everything, apparently.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 4/6/2006 9:35:43 AM
Author: Maria D
>>and even if both parties do everything right, birth control can fail<<

Which is why, in theory, men who absolutely don''t want children shouldn''t be having sex with the type of woman who would bring an accidental pregnancy to term. I say ''in theory'' because there are plenty of cases where a woman thinks she would have an abortion if an accident happened only to find that once actually pregnant she cannot go through with it. (At least on TV this happens all the time...Rachel, Miranda, etc.) I''ll bet a lot of times when it appears that the woman ''trapped'' the guy into having a child it was actually a case of her believing she''d ''take care of it'' if she got pregnant but when confronted with the decision in reality rather than hypothetically, she exercised her *choice*.

Let''s face it; sex can lead to pregnancy. Birth control not only can fail, it does quite regularly. If I had the same chance of winning hte lottery that a scrupulous birth control pill user has of getting pregnant, I''d be playing the numbers every day! My own precious daughter was a result of diaphragm failure (which worked well for over a decade before it failed). I''m grateful that I had the choice at the time to have a baby or end the pregnancy. I want that same choice for my daughter. (The original debate here.)

What''s all this got to do with men who conceive? They don''t get to decide whether or not the pregnancy goes to term. They only get to decide if they''ll have sex, how they''ll have it and who they''ll have it with. Unless of course they''re S. Dak lawmakers, then they get to decide everything, apparently.

this is very true....and even prochoice women may decide to carry a pregnancy to term. being prochoice is just that. it doesn''t mean that one would have an abortion and it doesn''t mean that one wants to force someone else to have an abortion. plain and simple its about choice.

movie zombie

 

[Angela1977]

Exactly my point, Movie Zombie. Pro-choice women choose to bring babies to term all the time when the originally said they would have an abortion if they ever found themselves "accidentally" pregnant. Men then have no choice. If it''s all about CHOICE, then women AND men should both have choices. This was an excellent point to add to my argument...

 

[Maria D]

Angela1977, either you're looking for an argument where none exists or your argument has changed. Didn't your issue used to be that you didn't think a man should be responsible for a child he didn't wish to be father to if he wasn't married to the mother?

Here it is exactly:
>>Yes, Maria...that is what I am saying.
Let me outline just in case someone isn't getting it...
1. If a couple is married, it's a contract. The man has a reasonable expectation a pregnancy may occur and cannot refuse to support a child that was conceived while in that contract.
2. A man cannot force a woman to bring a child to term nor can he force her to have an abortion.
3. BUT, on the other hand, a woman has a choice to bring the child to term. If she knows that the father, who made his case up front that he wants nothing to do with parenthood, isn't going to participate, she has three options, adoption, abortion, or raising the child on her own.
4. If a man says that he will support the woman, he makes a binding verbal agreement and should be bound by that. He may not then change his mind at any point he so chooses.
5. A man should have to take all precautions he can to ensure that a prenancy doesn't occur.
Is anyone here disagreeing with you? By that I mean in theory, because let's face it, the contract in #1 can be broken, and good luck with binding verbal agreements of #4.

As for #6 (which I didn't cut and paste) I'm sure someday a man will sue for mental anguish when a woman he impregnated has a baby he didn't want. There are no laws stopping a man from doing so.

Your new argument:

>>Men then have no choice. If it's all about CHOICE, then women AND men should both have choices. This was an excellent point to add to my argument...
seems to say that men should be able to "force" the woman to make good on her promise to choose abortion, otherwise the poor guy has no choice. This is a change from the #2 you stated earlier.

Perhaps you just like to argue?

 

[movie zombie]

since this all opinions and i''m entitled to mine i reiterate:

no, angela, the man does not get the choice.
its too easy for him to change his mind after the choice and leave me with the responsibility and costs 1,5, 10 years down the line.
the choice is ENTIRELY mine, married or not.

with your arguement i can also see a rapist sueing his victim to make sure she has his child.

the day a man gets pregnant and carries to term is the day he gets to have a choice.

my opinon and i''m entitled to it. just as everyone else is entitled to their opinion.

movie zombie