A man's right to choose.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

It's her body, she makes the decisions for it. She will have to go through medical procedures regardless. The woman put herself in that situation as much as the man and she holds the cards for everything that goes into it. The man is completely divorced from the situation, he should be able to divorce himself from the situation entirely in a timely manner before birth. She will have to go through a severe life changing trauma regardless of her decision. There is no other option. Talking about the medical aspect of abortion is completely meaningless because even if she doesn't do it, she still has to go through pregnancy which has the potential to be far far more devastating.

I think that I previously said something about neither of us likely changing our minds on this, didn't I?

[Rangerscott]

No one can resist the dick......not even men.

[OneSickPsycho]

Originally Posted by Rangerscott

No one can resist the dick......not even men.

[Triple]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

In my case my father refused to pay, which meant that a court order for payment would be required. When your total home income is something like $6K a year, a month without money can put you on the street. I ended up skipping school, most days, so that I could work full time and try to keep everything from falling apart, at age 16. It was something like 6 months before there was an order to pay in place, and they weren't divorced until a year and a half after that.

I think this pretty much summarizes the source of your argument; your reasoning is more emotional than logical/rational. You have personal experience with how a disappearing father and his lack of financial support can stress a family.

It sounds to me, however, that your dad left well after you (and your siblings?) were not only born, but teenagers. The argument in question asks if fathers-TO-BE have the right to financially abort themselves from children who have yet to be born. To which I say, "absolutely."

Like Trip said, the mother faces medical "consequences" whether she aborts the fetus or carries it to term. Until we develop the time travel necessary to simply "undo" the conception, these risks will exist either way.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Triple

I think this pretty much summarizes the source of your argument; your reasoning is more emotional than logical/rational. You have personal experience with how a disappearing father and his lack of financial support can stress a family.

It sounds to me, however, that your dad left well after you (and your siblings?) were not only born, but teenagers. The argument in question asks if fathers-TO-BE have the right to financially abort themselves from children who have yet to be born. To which I say, "absolutely."

Like Trip said, the mother faces medical "consequences" whether she aborts the fetus or carries it to term. Until we develop the time travel necessary to simply "undo" the conception, these risks will exist either way.

You can think that if you like, and I provided the information by way of full disclosure, but I think that it allows me to see the situation more rationally from both sides. Believe me; I tend to evaluate my opinions quite carefully, to know whether or not they are unduly influenced by emotion. That is why I even thought to make that disclosure.

From my side of it, it looks like many people here have an opinion that's based on selfishness, rather than coming to a rational conclusion.

[Trip]

Having a kid should be completely about selfishness IMO, if you are too selfish or your partner is too selfish, then maybe it isn't the best idea to have one and then be forced to deal with each other for a long ass time because of the kid.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

Having a kid should be completely about selfishness IMO, if you are too selfish or your partner is too selfish, then maybe it isn't the best idea to have one and then be forced to deal with each other for a long ass time because of the kid.

Two things, to that; as I've said before the man isn't put through the same physical compromises and the kid didn't ask to be conceived, so why penalize the kid?

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Two things, to that; as I've said before the man isn't put through the same physical compromises and the kid didn't ask to be conceived, so why penalize the kid?

The physical compromises for the woman happen regardless of her decision. Both are life altering experiences.

The kid isn't a kid yet.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Two things, to that; as I've said before the man isn't put through the same physical compromises and the kid didn't ask to be conceived, so why penalize the kid?

On both points you appear to be making assumptions about what a woman's decision would be.

On the first point, I don't see a woman being put through any unique physical compromises when comparing keeping the baby and putting the baby up for adoption. Either way on the physical side she is carrying the baby to term and whether a man is responsible for parental obligations doesn't change that process at all.

Secondly I am going to make my own assumption about what you mean, but your assertion that a kid would be penalized leads me to think you are referring to either being raised without paternal financial support or being aborted. Of the potential options being raised exactly the same, just with no paternal financial support is very likely to result in a "penalty" to the kid. The result of adoption is much more difficult to predict in my view. Abortion by its nature is a touchy subject but as Trip already pointed out the pro-choice movement has sold this country on the idea that a kid isn't a kid until they are born.

Taking a look at the available options there is a decent chance adoption would actually benefit the kid while having no physical effects on the mother.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

On both points you appear to be making assumptions about what a woman's decision would be.

On the first point, I don't see a woman being put through any unique physical compromises when comparing keeping the baby and putting the baby up for adoption. Either way on the physical side she is carrying the baby to term and whether a man is responsible for parental obligations doesn't change that process at all.

Secondly I am going to make my own assumption about what you mean, but your assertion that a kid would be penalized leads me to think you are referring to either being raised without paternal financial support or being aborted. Of the potential options being raised exactly the same, just with no paternal financial support is very likely to result in a "penalty" to the kid. The result of adoption is much more difficult to predict in my view. Abortion by its nature is a touchy subject but as Trip already pointed out the pro-choice movement has sold this country on the idea that a kid isn't a kid until they are born.

Taking a look at the available options there is a decent chance adoption would actually benefit the kid while having no physical effects on the mother.

The only assumption that I make about the woman's decision is that she'll either decide to carry it to term, or to abort it. As far as I know those are the only two choices available.