I didn't even know she was a Scientologist.

So you would say that if a man does not want kids, he should not have sex with someone who would not get an abortion? Otherwise, he is on the hook? Unless, of course she changes her mind and aborts or goes for adoption.

For the opposite side of the coin, would it not be fair to say that women who do not want children should not have sex?

What does "things went wrong" mean? You are saying she did not use birth control, but took the morning after pill after every time you two had sex?

I'm sure that's what he meant. Yep.

Yes,just like if I don't want to breath second hand smoke I shouldn't go into a smoky bar.

Yes, they shouldn't have sex or they should take matters into their own hands - take the pill, morning after pill, or stock condoms and refuse sex unless he uses one.

No. Sometimes we used condoms, sometimes we used other stuff. Some crazy spermicidal pieces of dissolvable something or rather that you folded over twice and inserted vaginally.

I think, in our year together, she used morning after a total of two to three times.

Men are responsible for the creation of the child as well as taking care of its raising, but they do not have a say in its destruction?

This is a false equivalence as phrased because we have already factored in abortions in the first paragraph, but sure, if a woman doesnt want an abortion and doesnt want to have kids then not having sex is likely her best shot at not having kids.

who said that?

Which part do you disagree with?

Who are you talking to and about what? You seem to be inserting words into people's mouths that they never said or hinted at

I thought we had established that men are mutually responsible for the creation of children. If you disagree, say so. My next assertion is that men who have children, should be responsible for their welfare. Do you agree?

Yes. She can't destroy it after birth, though.

while it is inside her body, it's up to her. anything else is unrealistic, imo.

tbf to krmont, i've wondered the same thing that he is articulating here - men are expected to care for the kid when it's born, why should they have no say in whether it lives or dies? the conclusion that i arrived at was that it's both unrealistic and oppressive to try to dictate what a woman can do with her own body.

if men could get pregnant abortion would be the most standard thing OAT, so...

After birth the child changes into a living citizen?

Once it is outside her body, it is property of man and woman?

Sure, my arbitrary line is drawn where I think men who refuse to help out with the little social security number they helped create should be forced to, same as if a woman birthed a kid and dumped it on the father before splitting.

Men have full responsibility for children in conception and care, but they have no responsibility during the pregnancy. Do you agree?

a key angle that is often overlooked in political discussions is that while it's inside her body, she's going to have the final say, whether anyone else likes it or not. make abortions illegal? there's still clothes hangers, alcohol, drugs, stairs, etc. and it's not like u can really prevent these things... u can't outlaw pregnant women from drinking (nor would the party of limited government want to do that), and even if u could, are u gonna outlaw them from getting access to a clothes hanger?

i'd prefer that women that don't want to have a child have access to the dignity and safety of an abortion clinic rather than risking their own lives via a clothes hanger or w/e

cliffs: it's in her body, she's gonna decide what to do with it

Paul,

I agree with most everything you said. I am still undecided on some parts. I still have a lot of qualms about whether or not abortion is legalized murder. It is not an easy distinction.

The law in basically every US state. Men are financially on the hook in pretty much any situation their sperm ends up fertilizing an egg, even if the man didn't consent to any transmission of his sperm to the woman's uterus (some specific arrangements like sperm banks are obviously exceptions to this).

http://www.popjolly.com/woman-uses-s...d-support-2109

Pretty much. Except, say I do something to you that requires hospital visits, like breaking your leg and you need physical therapy. If it was totally my fault, I would expect to have to pay all the costs of your visits. Should you choose not to go, great, saves me money! A man getting a woman preggo could easily be thought to have to pay half the costs, since he is half as responsible. Should the woman not want to go to the hospital, that's her choice.

I think where krmont is going with this is something along the lines of "OK, given that a woman gets to make this decision, why is it the father doesn't have any decision on what happens afterwards?

Oooh let's not forget that the husband can be responsible for child support for any child born during their marriage, even if it's not his!

I don't think any poster on this forum wrote the law in every US state, so I dunno why or who he'd be talking to about this.

well no poster in this forum wrote the abortion laws either, but you seem ok with talking about that.