Experimental until stated otherwise.

...

Comments

...

Comments

Profile

Latest Month

Links

Tags

Page Summary

Mar. 14th, 2006 at 1:49 PM

Well, not sure how I feel about this. Though, to me, it seems to be missing the simple point of emotional and physical repercussions to the woman in question. Mind you, if I was the woman in question I wouldn't even bother fighting it through the court, I'd have just told the child (when s/he) is old enough the truth; one of your genetic donor was a dickhead who was so selfish that he couldn't comprehend loving anything beyond himself.

Yes, not fair, but in this case I find myself not really caring.

( Leave a comment )

i-smile.livejournal.com wrote:

Mar. 14th, 2006 01:16 pm (UTC)

Though, to me, it seems to be missing the simple point of emotional and physical repercussions to the woman in question.

Yeah.

I don't know; it's kind of unfair that women have more choices re: birth control than men do (I keep hearing talk about the male pill, but it never seems to materialise. Why do we not care more about that?), but they also get the seriously short end of the stick when it comes to the whole pregnancy deal. The thing he's missing is, until the embryo/foetus is viable outside the womb, the woman's just using the freedom she has over her own body to exercise her preferred form of birth control. Just like he's free to use a condom if being kicked in the balls doesn't kill his sperm. If she has problems with abortion, the morning-after pill, condoms--whatever--and prefers not to use them, then that's her deal. He doesn't have to have sex with her if they can't come to an agreement.

Once the baby is out of the womb, though, unless both parents find someone to take it & give up their rights, they're both responsible for it--if an anti-abortion woman gave birth to a kid she didn't want and her partner wanted to raise it, she'd probably have to pay support, too, even if she "isn't ready". That sounds pretty darn equal to me. If sad for the half-unwanted kid. :(

Link | Reply | Thread

naanima.livejournal.com wrote:

Mar. 15th, 2006 09:24 am (UTC)

There need to be an effective men's birth control. Presently ALL chemical birth controls fuck up the woman's body. Lower libido, mood swings, weight gain, and so forth.

On the issue of not having sex; I half agree with the issue and half don't. I agree that in situations where the man have made it explicitly clear that he's just in it for the fun and don't want a child, but the woman does and in fact goes about attempting to get pregnant (don't snicker, one of friend was conceived through a series of events on her mother's part for the sole purpose of marrying the man.) In cases like that; well, the woman deserves what she get, however, having said that, what about the child that is born. All children deserve love and financial security, just because the woman is a fucking retard does not mean the child should suffer.

To me, the whole thing isn't about the money (though I'm sure it is to other people). It is the recognition of the fact that the responsibility of having a child does not rest solely on the mother. And the way the article goes about the whole makes is sound as if it is all the woman's fault, which make me angry enough to kill.

Two people can be in a sexual relationship where both don't want children, however, accidents happen. The fact that all a man has to do is walk away, while a woman have to go through a fucking abortion (and if one more person give me this shit about how it isn't a violation of a person's body I will kill something.) I'm lucky if I were in a similar situation I will have enough backing to have the child without much worries, but some woman isn't, and yes, it is a choice to have an abortion, however, not every woman wants it (what you say now maybe completely different from when it actually happens.) and then what?

This issue make me angry.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

(Anonymous) wrote:

Mar. 16th, 2006 01:32 am (UTC)

I honestly don't care how manipulative a woman is with her birth control in order to get pregnant. If you don't trust your sexual partner (and I'm all for trusting no one when it comes to my well-being, physical or financial), then you take the steps you have to take to feel safe. This applies both to possible pregnancies and to possible STDs. Saying "She should pay for everything because she told me she was taking birth control!" is pathetic. People lie. If you don't know that by the time you've hit puberty, you should probably hold off on adult relationships for a few more years, until you're ready to take personal responsibility for the risks you take. I mean, dude. If you wouldn't give your bank card and PIN to a woman you met a month ago, why would to trust that she's using some form of birth control? (Don't you believe her when she says she'll only use the card to buy your groceries?)

The fact is, once a baby comes into the equation, we're not talking about the woman's rights anymore. The baby did less wrong than its father or its mother, whatever they did; why should it suffer if someone doesn't want to pay for it? I totally agree that the responsibility is a joint affair, and that people who don't think so are severely underestimating the gravity of any of the choices a woman has when she finds she's pregnant.

Abortion and pregnancy are both emotionally difficult, and both physically risky. If someone is entering into either one, we can be pretty sure that she doesn't think the other one is an option, whatever she thought before she became pregnant this time. Likewise with, at the end of a pregnancy, deciding to keep the child or give it up. I don't think it takes much empathy to work that out. :/

Link | Reply | Parent

i-smile.livejournal.com wrote:

Mar. 16th, 2006 01:35 am (UTC)

I was just so dismayed at the selfishness displayed in the link that I couldn't even log in. :D

Link | Reply | Parent

archangelbeth wrote:

Mar. 14th, 2006 01:19 pm (UTC)

*chuckle*

There are planned children, whose parents were married till the child was 19, who say that... Did I mention I was so happy and excited when my parents got a divorce?

Yeah, I think it misses the point, too -- no guy has ever died from eclampsia/toxemia.

Link | Reply | Thread

naanima.livejournal.com wrote:

Mar. 15th, 2006 09:31 am (UTC)

I can imagine ^^;; Had a friend with the same reaction as you when her parents divorced.

Exactly!

Link | Reply | Parent

squidlet.livejournal.com wrote:

Mar. 14th, 2006 09:24 pm (UTC)

It seems fair to me. I don't see why the male has to be yoked into supporting a child that the mother /chose/ to have. Assuming the act of conception was mutually consensual?

Reproduction is just biased against the mother psychologically and biologically. But I don't believe in affirmative action for groups of people, whether segregated by race or sexuality or gender.

Link | Reply | Thread

naanima.livejournal.com wrote:

Mar. 15th, 2006 09:13 am (UTC)

To me, it is the issue of PreEclampsia/Eclampsia (Toxemia), and let's not forget the emotional.

I have no problem with using the morning after pill, because it is a choice. However, even the morning after pill have repercussions. My GP kept on going on and on and on about how using the morning after pill may cause serious side effects for the female body. So, use the pill or condoms. (And let's not even ge started on how the pill tend to fuck up a woman's body.)

My whole issue isn't the whole 'not paying for the childcare' as I said, if it was me I'd keep the baby and not give a fuck about the sperm donor. It is the fact that the article seem to be implicitly stating that having a child is totally on the onus of the woman. By which case I say; WTF?!

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

squidlet.livejournal.com wrote:

Mar. 15th, 2006 12:38 pm (UTC)

It seems to me that the sex act before conception is mutually consensual?

Just because the woman is usually the one screwed over when a child is had (we can add high blood pressure, diabetes, swollen legs, morning sickness, a whole list of complaints) means that she better be aware of her own body and take appropriate precautions when having sex. Should the issue of pregnancy come up, it seems to me that the child having is really on the onus of the woman. After all, what you said, all the guy does is contribute some gametes. It's not like he's going to face carrying the child to term.

The question for the woman is whether she chooses to do so for whatever reasons of her own. As for the risks, she should be aware of them as part of the deal of keeping the fetus.

Basically, I think people should be responsible for themselves and their own bodies. In the pregnancy case, yes, the woman suffers but that's her choice. I don't see why you have to force the man to accept responsibility for her body when there are alternative solutions.

For the risk level in these solutions, well, that's why people should take the pill/wear condoms/not have sex in the first place.

Link | Reply | Parent

naanima.livejournal.com wrote:

Mar. 15th, 2006 09:29 am (UTC)

P.S.

The other thing that make me angry is; what happens to the child in question?

So, the woman doesn't have the finance to take care of the child, does that mean that the child should suffer? It is all nice for the man to say that it isn't his problem because he didn't want the child, however, once the kid is born it is automatically an issue.

If he doesn't want to pay the child support because he feel as if the woman is taking the money then fight for the custody of the child.

I'm not talking about affirmative action of groups, I'm talking about the welfare of an individual.

Link | Reply | Parent

( Leave a comment )

October 2009