Male financial abortion - "Legal Paternal Surrender&quo

Post Reply New Topic

Yes! Oh woe is woman, I am the 1% for whom this contraceptive did not work, ah well that's my life over, forced to care for a child I did not wa-.... oh wait I can just get it aborted.

Really? So I can go get pregnant by, say... Keanu Reeves? Or maybe Matt Damon; he's not as cute, but he's smarter.

Oh, wait... maybe those guys would choose not to have sex with a total stranger. Maybe they only have sex with people they have reason to trust.

edit: not to imply that I'd purposfully get pregnant by Damon without thoroughly discussing it with him first, but to imply that he would shouldn't assume that I'm on birth control because I'm a total stranger.

Last edited by LKL on 08 Jan 2012, 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

'Cause EVERY WOMAN sees abortion as a legitimate option?
'Cause abortion isn't, you know, SURGERY?

edit:
'Cause men have NO WAY to make themselves infertile, and NO non-permanent BC options?

If you're so effing scared of getting someone pregnant, make a donation to a sperm bank and then get your tubes snipped. It's cheaper and less invasive than an abortion.

Last edited by LKL on 08 Jan 2012, 10:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sometimes people have to pay for their morals and values, god forbid we force women to make a difficult decision. Also Keanu Reeves is smarter than he lets on.

wrt. Reeves, I doubt it. I've never seen or heard an intelligent word come out of that beautiful face that wasn't scripted.

Wrt paying for their moral values: YES! Go get a f*****g vasectomy, and stop whining!

I don't think that is quite in the same "moral league" if there were such a thing.

How so? It solves all kinds of problems through prevention, which is the best way to solve problems, and makes every individual responsible for his or herself and his or her reproduction. If you don't want kids, get snipped.

I never said it was the same and you've completely missed the point that I was making. Look, consent to sex is not the same as consent to reproduction. The point I was making was that a man can be forced into paying for child support for a child they never wanted in the first place and all because the woman lied about about being on birth control, and yes, there are indeed some women who do that just to get into his bank account. Women on the other hand do have options to terminate responsibility for a child, if not abortion, giving it up for adoption is another option.

Last edited by Jono on 09 Jan 2012, 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Except that a vasectomy is permanent. What if you couldn't afford to have children right now but might want children in the future. That's like asking you to have hysterectomy so that you don't have to go through the bother of taking birth control pills or using condoms.

I repeat, with emphasis:
"If you're so effing scared of getting someone pregnant, make a donation to a sperm bank and then get your tubes snipped. It's cheaper and less invasive than an abortion."

I'm going to cross the line, because in this case it is warranted. LKL, you're a moron. Please stop posting to this topic, your "contributions" are ignorant and insulting, one sided, and lack any semblance of logic or reason. Please stop.

how much money do you think women get for their children from the childs father??? It is certainly not enough to cover a tenth of what children cost, in the UK its a max 15% through the CSA, so if the guy is on jobseekers thats like a £5, couldnt even get nappies for that.

It depends on how much the man earns in the first place. Women who do that sort of thing would usually do it to someone with a high income, certainly not someone who's looking for a job. I personally know a woman who has tried this with someone, so please do not tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Last edited by Jono on 09 Jan 2012, 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

If you could have your eggs frozen, would you still have a hysterectomy as opposed to going on the the pill? That is still not an option I would personally choose.

ok I shall defer to your superior knowledge on single mothers and child maintenance.

It seems to me that the creator of these clips is entirely too blithe regarding the rights of the child.

Whatever the shortcomings in the administration of law, it is abundantly clear that the legal foundation of child support is rooted in the right of a child to receive the necessities of life and enforcement of those rights falls within the state's parens patriae jurisdiction.

Child support is not a contractual fee for access and participation in guardianship. Access is not the right of a parent to be exercised or bargained for--it is the right of a child. As with all rights of children, they are enforcable against both parents so long as the child is entitled to them.

To permit parents--of either sex--to absolve themselves of their obligations to their children is to turn the entire legal theory of child protection on its head.

Now that may be what some people want--a parent-centric legal theory of family obligations. But it's certainly not what I want. I want a society in which the first obligation for the care and maintenance of children falls upon the parents of those children. Otherwise it will fall to the state and its parens patriaep jurisdiction.

Given the many calls upon the public purse that cannot be devolved, it strikes me as the height of foolishness to adopt a public policy that will involve even greater exposure to the most compelling of demands.