male's choice in abortion

[Soviet Haaregrad]

When it's time to the play the game you gotta be ready to pay for play.
What are you wanting? A free ride?

If you don't want to pay for the consequences then don't play the darn game. Keep it in your pants pocket.

You can remove it and put it in your pocket for storage?
My penis is integral, is this normal?

[Maurepas]

When it's time to the play the game you gotta be ready to pay for play.
What are you wanting? A free ride?

If you don't want to pay for the consequences then don't play the darn game. Keep it in your pants pocket.

You can remove it and put it in your pocket for storage?
My penis is integral, is this normal?

Uh, no,

You should probably have that looked at...

[Grainne Ni Malley]

My penis is integral, is this normal?

Uh, no,

You should probably have that looked at...

Erm...

So they've been detachable all along? The LIES!!!

[The Blaatschapen]

Uh, no,

You should probably have that looked at...

Erm...

So they've been detachable all along? The LIES!!!

You want to keep one for yourself, don't you?

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Erm...

So they've been detachable all along? The LIES!!!

You want to keep one for yourself, don't you?

Several. In jars. Just think. It would be a great conversation starter when the Jehovah Witnesses come by.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

When it's time to the play the game you gotta be ready to pay for play.
What are you wanting? A free ride?

If you don't want to pay for the consequences then don't play the darn game. Keep it in your pants pocket.

You can remove it and put it in your pocket for storage?
My penis is integral, is this normal?

You can't use that word. Remember this is a PG 13 site. We have to avoid directly mentioning body parts, sexual activity and stuff.

[The Blaatschapen]

You want to keep one for yourself, don't you?

Several. In jars. Just think. It would be a great conversation starter when the Jehovah Witnesses come by.

Ask The Nuclear Fist I guess.

But it would come in handy when you need one but you don't want to deal with the rest of the body

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Several. In jars. Just think. It would be a great conversation starter when the Jehovah Witnesses come by.

Ask The Nuclear Fist I guess.

But it would come in handy when you need one but you don't want to deal with the rest of the body

I can't answer this without risking violation of the PG-13 ruling.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

You can remove it and put it in your pocket for storage?
My penis is integral, is this normal?

You can't use that word. Remember this is a PG 13 site. We have to avoid directly mentioning body parts, sexual activity and stuff.

Proper medical terminology is PG-13. I didn't use a dirty word.

[The Blaatschapen]

Ask The Nuclear Fist I guess.

But it would come in handy when you need one but you don't want to deal with the rest of the body

I can't answer this without risking violation of the PG-13 ruling.

Yeah, I might have already risked it right there myself

[The Congregationists]

Not really. Biologically speaking, the Female reproductive process lasts around 9 Months. Anytime between conception and the end of that 9 Months she has the option of having an abortion(legally or otherwise, this option is there). Males have that same option through their time in the reproductive process.

Normally, you're right, rights don't necessarily arise in nature. In this instance, however, it's biological in nature.

Still don't think a 'natural capacity' translates into a natural right though. The community or the state could decide that people shouldn't terminate their involvement in the reproductive process and enact legislation aimed at stopping it. Whether is is desirable, or whether said legislation could be enforced is another matter. I wonder if such measures won't be undertaken in the future by countries facing terminally low birth rates?

I want a damn manpill.. I'd get surgery but I want kids maybe possibly someday.

I second this motion.

Five to seven years away, apparently. Sooner for inplants. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/ns/health-sexual_health/

I'd be curious to see NSG's reaction to this when it finally becomes available. They should be good.

[Maurepas]

Not really. Biologically speaking, the Female reproductive process lasts around 9 Months. Anytime between conception and the end of that 9 Months she has the option of having an abortion(legally or otherwise, this option is there). Males have that same option through their time in the reproductive process.

Normally, you're right, rights don't necessarily arise in nature. In this instance, however, it's biological in nature.

Still don't think a 'natural capacity' translates into a natural right though. The community or the state could decide that people shouldn't terminate their involvement in the reproductive process and enact legislation aimed at stopping it. Whether is is desirable, or whether said legislation could be enforced is another matter. I wonder if such measures won't be undertaken in the future by countries facing terminally low birth rates?

Possibly, but if we are going to argue these things on a "is it equal?" basis as the argument in the OP does, then the fact remains, the father already has an equal right to an abortion, he simply doesn't have the ability to take as long to decide, due to biology.

[The Congregationists]

A "male right to an abortion" is kinda moot, don't you think?

What the OP suggests has grave potential for abuse. If he and she decide something like that ahead of time, fine. As I've said in other threads on this subject though, the OP will never fly because even the most generous welfare state won't be willing to fund the upbrining of children born to single women in this manner.

I don't know why this subject gets brought up so much. It's not like the female BCP and coitus interuptus are the only means of preventing pregnancy. Rubbers anyone?

[Maurepas]

A "male right to an abortion" is kinda moot, don't you think?

What the OP suggests has grave potential for abuse. If he and she decide something like that ahead of time, fine. As I've said in other threads on this subject though, the OP will never fly because even the most generous welfare state won't be willing to fund the upbrining of children born to single women in this manner.

I don't know why this subject gets brought up so much. It's not like the female BCP and coitus interuptus are the only means of preventing pregnancy. Rubbers anyone?

I think the reason it gets up is because a guy who doesn't like abortion thinks to himself, "How can I turn this on its head? Then I can show everyone why it's wrong!"

[The Congregationists]

There are far better arguments against abortion than this. Hell, arguing that abortion makes the Baby Jesus cry is better than this. Good arguments against abortion exist. People who oppose abortion OVERWHELMINGLY do not use them.

[Dempublicents1]

I think as long as Abortion is legal men should not be required to pay child support, provided they sign some sort of waiver surrendering all parental rights.

If men aren't going to be required to care for their children, why should they have parental rights in the first place?

[Vortiaganica]

I wrote a reply but backspaced half of it by accident and can't be stuffed writing again.

Short story shorter:

The male's rights are greatly impeded due to the fact that the female is allowed to control his involvement with the child. She can unilaterally choose to terminate the baby or keep the baby without consent, both of which can have either moralistic or financial cost on the father.

Personally, I'm a pro-lifer, which obviously makes this argument easier but brings up other issues.

However, in this case, I would support making abortions require consent of the carrying female AND the male who would, if the baby were born, be required to provide for the baby financially (and in theory, all other aspects). Should the male leave/not want an abortion, he will be required to pay financial support based on both his and the female's financial situation (e.g. if the female happens to have offshore investments to the tune of a few million, she gets nothing if the male is a pauper who dropped out of high-school and is badly disabled or whatever), with the male paying at least the average cost of living if both he and the female are of equal education and most recent income, and if the male wants an abortion but the female denies (of course, there would need to be some legal paperwork junk), then the male would only be required to give financial support for four years (which is when preschool starts, I believe, and therefore when the female can take part-time work again) and given the option of providing for longer if he's a nice person.

[Vortiaganica]

I think as long as Abortion is legal men should not be required to pay child support, provided they sign some sort of waiver surrendering all parental rights.

If men aren't going to be required to care for their children, why should they have parental rights in the first place?

In this case, the idea is that if the men DOESN'T care for the child, they don't have parental rights. They aren't required, but they can.

Your point fits easily within the proposal.

[Dempublicents1]

The male's rights are greatly impeded due to the fact that the female is allowed to control his involvement with the child.

Only if she has full custody, which is rare if he has made any attempt to pursue a relationship with the child.

She can unilaterally choose to terminate the baby or keep the baby without consent, both of which can have either moralistic or financial cost on the father.

Why should she need consent to decide whether or not she will remain pregnant?

However, in this case, I would support making abortions require consent of the carrying female AND the male who would, if the baby were born, be required to provide for the baby financially (and in theory, all other aspects).

Giving the man the "right" to use an unwilling woman as an incubator isn't going to solve anything.

Should the male leave/not want an abortion, he will be required to pay financial support based on both his and the female's financial situation (e.g. if the female happens to have offshore investments to the tune of a few million, she gets nothing if the male is a pauper who dropped out of high-school and is badly disabled or whatever), with the male paying at least the average cost of living if both he and the female are of equal education and most recent income, and if the male wants an abortion but the female denies (of course, there would need to be some legal paperwork junk), then the male would only be required to give financial support for four years (which is when preschool starts, I believe, and therefore when the female can take part-time work again) and given the option of providing for longer if he's a nice person.

Your options seem to be based in the misconception that child support is owed to the custodial parent. Child support is owed to the child. It isn't about what the mother (or father, if he has custody) gets from the other parent. It is about what the child gets. The custodial parent is simply accepting money on behalf of the child.

If men aren't going to be required to care for their children, why should they have parental rights in the first place?

In this case, the idea is that if the men DOESN'T care for the child, they don't have parental rights. They aren't required, but they can.

Your point fits easily within the proposal.

No, it doesn't. If men are not going to automatically be expected to take care of their children, I don't think they should have any parental rights to sign away. Either we go on as we are, with both parents having the same obligations and rights concerning their children, or we go the route of only a woman having either. This in-between "Men only get obligations and rights if they feel like it" thing is not acceptable.

[Teinohikira]

Well I felt like making some feminists angry.

Remember, feminists are lesbians.

[The Blaatschapen]

Still don't think a 'natural capacity' translates into a natural right though. The community or the state could decide that people shouldn't terminate their involvement in the reproductive process and enact legislation aimed at stopping it. Whether is is desirable, or whether said legislation could be enforced is another matter. I wonder if such measures won't be undertaken in the future by countries facing terminally low birth rates?

Possibly, but if we are going to argue these things on a "is it equal?" basis as the argument in the OP does, then the fact remains, the father already has an equal right to an abortion, he simply doesn't have the ability to take as long to decide, due to biology.

That's why stamina is valued, so that we can extend the precious moment with a few extra minutes to make a decision.

[Arilando]

I agree, no one should be forced to take care of a child.

[Farnhamia]

I agree, no one should be forced to take care of a child.

Ansolutely, let the government do it. What the hell do we pay taxes for, anyway?

[Ashmoria]

I agree, no one should be forced to take care of a child.

if the child cant take care of itself it deserves to die.

[Farnhamia]

I agree, no one should be forced to take care of a child.

if the child cant take care of itself it deserves to die.

This would probably save taxpayer dollars.