America is big on Equal Rights, as they should be. Explain to me how THIS is equal-
When a woman gets pregnant women have the right to choose life, abortion, or adoption. A woman can keep her baby, kill her baby, or even leave her baby abandoned in the hospital or in a church and not be procecuted. In the case of adoption, giving up all of their parental rights without thought of responsibility to their child, they are even praised for "giving the child a better life" with another family.
When a woman gets pregnant a man has NO CHOICES. He doesn't get to decide if he wants to keep the baby or sign his rights away [I am NOT saying he should have the right to force an abortion]. If he decides he is not ready for his responsibility [like women who leave their child with the hospital/church, or through adoption] he is a "deadbeat", and is then hunted by DCS and/or the police.
How can this duplicity exist in a society who values "equal rights"? I apologize, I should have been more clear: I am speaking about a parent's responsibility to the child. Women have the right to choose to be responsible for the child [by keeping it] or not [by killing it or abandoning it]. HOWEVER once a man is named as the father he has NO CHOICES-he is responsible for that child according to the state for the next 18 years whether he wishes to be or not. Even if he is not married to the mother he will still expected to be responsible in terms of child support. My question is if a woman has the right to decide they do not want to be responsible for a child they created, then why don't men have that same choice? How is that inequality determined to be "equal" in the eyes of the law? I agree with you. Also, since men and women are equals, how is it that women pay less for car insurance, and/or get less physical training when joining the army.
This world is silly. It is all about biology, and I am sure if women could transfer the pregnancy to the man, they would do it.
Until then, the baby grows in their body and nothing can change that, so it is their right.
Once the child is born, the father has just as many rights to protect and parent the child as the mother. It's not fair but men can't do sh^t about it unless they can afford a good attorney. Uhhh . . . . the woman is pregnant, so she has a choice to make about HER body. If the man made a choice, it would be about someone else. Seems simple enough to me.
If man wanted to keep the baby and woman didn't, why should she have to carry a baby for 9 months and have to disrupt her life and work if it is something she doesn't want to do. DOESN'T SEEM EQUAL DOES IT?
Mans choice comes in choosing to be there for the baby after it is bor or not.
(I am not arguing the caseof ProLife or ProChoice with my comments. I am trying to address the question asked.) First you have to have a right. A husband has a right. Someone who is not named on the birth certificate has no legal rights
"Kill her baby"! What are you talking about? You can't kill babies, and a fetus is not one by any legal or medical definition!
You can't sign something away you don't have!
I think you have a big misunderstanding! Unless paternity is established by DNA testing, or affidavits given to the state, a child born out of wedlock has a big blank where the fathers name is suppose to be! A blank has NO rights! Well females also get half the mans money after divorce. The Paul McCartney case is a GREAT example of Male vs. Female rights.
Its pathetic how while males have the less amount of rights in this country now days. The man doesnt have to carry the thing around for 9 months either, if it comes to abortion I dont think the man should have any rights concerning it, as for abandoning the baby or being put up for adoption if the father is a good canidate then he should have the option of raising the child himself and unless the mother expects to pay child support she should have to give up all parental rights. My personal opinion if a woman aborted my baby for other then a life threatening reason to herself I'd end any relation or contact with her Not being ready for the responsibility of being a parent is something the guy should think about before he has unprotected sex.
Giving the man an 'equal' say in the pregnancy wouldn't be fair by a long shot. Its not his body ultimately. Its hers. Once the baby is out, then and only then does he have any say in the matter.
Biology determined this. Its not 'equal' that a woman has to be pregnant, and the man gets to run around doing whatever he wants. Thats just the way it is.
I repeat:
Not being ready for the responsibility of being a parent is something the guy should think about before he has unprotected sex. You already know that it's not equal. Do you think feminist TRULY seek equality? No way! They are PERFECTLY happy to leave the status quo be ANYWHERE that women have it better than men. The ONLY time feminist invoke this concept of equality is when they feel that women are somehow being cheated out of opportunities.
I'll give you another example. If a certain court ruled against women 90 percent of the time they faced off with men, there would be a massive feminist outcry. But I dare say that way more than 90 percent of all custody cases go to women. Where's the outcry? A friend of mine's wife cheated on him. When he talked to his lawyer about getting sole custody, the lawyer laughed at him. "But she cheated on me," he said. "She's unfit!" The lawyer told him, "If she was an ax murderer, she would still have a good chance of winning the custody case. As someone who merely cheated on you, she's a shoo in!" That's the way it is. JUST as it is in abortion cases, where, as you point out, ALL THE POWER is with the women. That's why we read on a seemingly daily basis about men killing their pregnant wives and girlfriends. For many men, that seems to be the only say they have in the matter.
But you tell that to a feminist and she'll just smile. "They are PERFECTLY happy to leave the status quo be ANYWHERE that women have it better than men. "
I am unaware of this "feminism" you speak of.
Think about it this way. Let's imagine that my boyfriend got a tattoo that he doesn't like, so he wants to remove it. However, I like it, and want him to keep it because it looks great. I can whine and complain all I want to, but ultimately, I have no say over what he does with it. I can accept his decision, or I can leave, but I certainly don't get to decide what he does with the tattoo.
Also, consider that when the man chose not to wear a condom, he made a choice. I don't see the unfairness of the situation.
And for the record, women are not allowed to kill babies. Remove fetuses, yes. With all of the birth control options we have available to us including sterilization you would think that abortion wouldn't be used as a form of birth control anymore.
A man can either get sterilized or use a condom and the options available to a woman are without end.
Killing an innocent baby should never be considered an option just because two people decided to act like animals and have unprotected sex.
How would you or anyone else feel if you were murdered because someone decided you were a mistake and should die because of it?
At least you could beg for your own life and plead for mercy where an unborn child can't.
No matter how you roll the dice killing a baby is not justified for any reason and becoming pregnant is not like gaining weight or getting a hair cut or breast implants or anything else that has to do with a womans body.
Because being pregnant means that there is a LIFE inside of her and it is a direct result of a decision she made so therefore she should have to deal with it and take responsibility for her own actions instead of murdering an innocent baby.
And if the man objects to the abortion she should then be forced by law to give birth to the child then hand the child over to the father with full rights to custody.
And if a man finds out later that she was pregnant and killed his child without informing him about it and giving him a chance to intervene on the childs behalf then he should have the option of having her brought up on charges of murder in the 1st degree.
So I think there should be two singnatures on the consent form for an abortion to take place,the mother and the fathers. Unless the female is a minor then her parents should have to consent as well.
Women need to be more responsible with what they do with their body's if they don't want to get pregnant.
If they suffered consequences for getting pregnant out of wedlock then less women would be doing it.
Just like we have less people committing murder against one another out of fear of spending their entire lives in prison.
If they didn't have prison as a consequence for killing someone then there would be as many homicides annually as there are abortions.
And before you go all out pro abortion I think you should find out first hand how the different types of abortions are performed and what they do to the unborn child in order to end it's life and extract it from the mothers body.
One type is performed and is particularly painful for the child by cutting off it's limbs with a knife one by one by one and then an instrument is placed over it's head to smash it before removing it from the mother.
They remove each body part as it's cut off and place it in a bowl.So there's two little feet,two little arms,two little hands and then the torso with a smashed head in the bowl.
And the infant screams while all this is being done to it.
That's just one way they do it.
Partial birth abortion is even worse and more painful for the infant because it's older and has grown to full term and is by now ready to be born before it's pulled out of the mothers body up to it's head then have it's brains sucked out with a tube and it's head collapsed.
It's heartbreaking, and anyone with half a heart will be brought to tears just thinking about it.
SpongeChick,men should have to pay more for auto insurance because they cause more accidents due to road rage of which I have personally witnessed first hand on more than one occassion.
My husband is a perfect example,he can't be in the drivers seat for more than 4 minutes without getting pissed off at someone else for any little reason and then acting like a total jerk becuase of it.
He's famous for slamming his foot on the gas and then almost rear ending another car and going inbetween cars scaring everybody half to death then slamming his foot on the break almost giving us and our son whiplash.
He'll get frustrated at the amount of vehicles there are at the gas station as he's trying to leave and he'll peel out almost losing control of the truck as he's going around the corner after exiting the gas station.
And he'll yell and scream and slug the dash and insult other drivers for any or no reason at all.
And when I'm driving he likes to lean over and blast the horn almost causing me to lose contol of the streering because he's got his hand on the horn holding it down.
Almost every man I have ever known exhibits this kind of behavior while driving a motor vehicle.
So they should have to pay more for their insurance because I don't want to have to pay more because of them
That wouldn't be fair. Okay let me try to help the questioner....
Forget the right to decide birth... FOCUS on financial responsibility.
A woman can abdicate her financial responsibility, why can't a man?
I look at this a little differently. I believe in the right of choice.... If I CHOOSE to have sex, than I accept the consequences of that choice, both physically and financially. (and that should be true for BOTH genders) "I AM asking why a WOMAN gets the choice whether she wants to be responsible for the child or not and a MAN, once presented with parental responsibility upon the birth of the child, does NOT have that right. How is that fair?"
I will focus on your question, trying to avoid going off on a tangent ranting on my personal views or personal morales or religious beliefs like so many before me.
At first glance based on your line of thinking, it is not fair. Pure & simple. [Opps, I lied. That is my opinion.]
In the case of a child, the government is not interested in the well being or fairness to the parents. The system is concerned about the child's well being - what is best for the child. With that in mind, the courts usually figure it is best for the child if there are finances coming into the household so there IS a household, there is food, there is clothing for the child.
If your primary concern is this concept [what is best for the child], it eliminates the gender unfairness. The court will decide the same way if the child is female or male. |
