Douchebag tricks his girlfriend into taking abortion pills

[Terralthra]

The amount of really sad fallacious reasoning going on in this thread is pathetic. It's really not that difficult to make a logically coherent rebuttal to Jub's position, but everyone in this thread appears to be eschewing logic in favor of strawmen, appeals to intent, and poisoning the well.

Jub is making a few decent points (for example, that the state, as a long-lasting entity with records and enforcement power, is not a bad candidate for abstracting child support in a way that doesn't financially cripple a 16 year-old male, as it should [and does] provide options to a 16 year-old female who gets pregnant; also, that the current structure provides a rather evil incentive to a man who doesn't want to pay for a child he didn't want in the first place [that someone who tricks his partner into taking an abortifacient is an ethically horrible person is not really up for debate]). The state could easily pay child support at the time the child is being raised and offset those costs by levying higher taxes on the father based on his income, both present and future.

This whole debate is actually an excellent example of the bad effects patriarchy has on men, and a great argument for feminism. I doubt anyone here would argue against subsidized antibiotics for someone who contracts syphilis and is in poverty on the basis that "syphilis is a risk you take when you have sex. If you didn't want to get syphilis, you shouldn't have had sex," and based on the posts so far, no one here would say to a woman "if you didn't want to get pregnant, you shouldn't have had sex." Nope, the argument "If you weren't prepared to deal with the life-altering consequences, you should have been abstinent" appears peculiarly and inconsistently applied.

"Biology isn't fair, therefore laws shouldn't be either," is a textbook naturalistic fallacy, but instead of considering the costs and benefits of various policy ideas rationally and logically, this thread is instead 4 pages of bleating about how horrible Jub must be for wanting to have the discussion.

[Jub]

Thanks Hammer and Terralthra, those are probably things I should have said a while ago.

I should also take this chance to say that it can be hard for me to debate without other non-hostile people to bounce ideas off of. If you haven't noticed I tend not to be amazingly tactful and my ideas can often plop out less than fully formed, it's how I work. I send out raw ideas and refine them as I go along, so if I say something that sounds horrible it's likely not the end result I'll come to after thinking it over and talking it out.

I might sig this to save myself headaches.

[Terralthra]

Not sure how I feel saying something that TheHammer agrees with.

On-topic, it's worth pointing out that "I took precautions, and I didn't want a kid, so see ya!" is a horrible, horrible system, and would be way more subject to abuse than the current system.

[Jub]

On-topic, it's worth pointing out that "I took precautions, and I didn't want a kid, so see ya!" is a horrible, horrible system, and would be way more subject to abuse than the current system.

I agree, but I'm not saying we should instate it as is and without over site. I'm not a policy maker and I haven't put in the days if not months or years required to make a good plan even if I was.

[Broomstick]

I'm referring to a morning after pill which should be obvious given the context of abortions.

Oh, like THAT is any better? MUCH higher dose of hormones. Let's look at the side effects there:

Most common (up to half of all women who take it):
1) nausea
2) vomiting

Next most common (20%)
1) abdominal pain
2) fatigue
3) headache
4) dizziness
5) breast tenderness

Yay - basically, she's suffering food poisoning/flu symptoms of moderate to severe strength for a couple days. Oh, boy, that sounds like fun!

Once again, you discount what a woman goes through. Taking a "morning after" pill isn't a get out of pregnancy free card. It's going to make her feel sick, possibly very ill, for several days.

Other states already take on the cost of post secondary now in exchange for money later and they do it without the hassle of student loans. These nations are doing it correctly by eating the up front cost of schooling knowing that it increases the productivity of their work force. Are you going to try arguing that such a system doesn't work?

The flaw is your assumption that this is a problem solely of young university students. I doubt that it is. Unintended pregnancy hits adult men of any age (although under 70 is probably more likely than over 70). If a man already has a job he should fork over to support the child he helped create.

In other words,. stop thinking I'm speaking for a US point of view. I'm not an American and back asswards laws and ideas that take place there don't concern me. I'm much more interested in Australian and Canadian policies; the school policy is taken from my understanding of the Ausie school now, increased taxes for a period later, method of post secondary education.

It's already been pointed out that the laws for those places aren't that dissimilar from the US, and, oh yes, nice moving of the goalposts considering the OP is about a case in the US.

[Broomstick]

So if you're 16, knock up a girl, and for whatever reason she wants to keep it, your life should now be forced to suck.

Nice slap in the face to every person - man or woman - who has had a child at 16 (or whatever arbitrary age you care to name) who have successfully raised the kid AND gone to school/found a job/made a career. It's not EITHER a kid OR school, you can do both, as many people have demonstrated.

It could also work in reverse if the man takes custody and the woman desires a shot at education.

Why do you assume a single mother wouldn't be simultaneously pursing an education? It's not uncommon.

Of course if you come for a nation with extremely limited social safety nets the idea of investing in people might seem odd.

To a self-centered little tool I guess the notion of being responsible for your actions and supporting your offspring (accidental or not) also seems odd.

[Broomstick]

"Life isn't fair"
"Don't stick your dick in someone if you don't want them to be pregnant"
"Use a condom!"
"Just accept your responsibilities!"

These are all variations of same pro-lifer BS that you hear spouted all the time as a reason for banning abortion completely.

So, are you saying everyone in this thread who has spoken words of that sort is a "pro-lifer"? On what do you base that? Certainly nothing I've ever posted on this site would lead a rational person to believe that, indeed, I am very firmly pro-choice. But being pro-choice means supporting a woman's decision to NOT abort as well as to abort.

Again - Jub's, and your, assumption seems to be that only young men get into this situation. That's simply not true.

[SomeDude]

No, Broomstick, what TheHammer is saying is that, if you make those arguments and are not a pro-lifer, then you are a hypocrite. As was perfectly clear.

[Jub]

I'm referring to a morning after pill which should be obvious given the context of abortions.

Oh, like THAT is any better? MUCH higher dose of hormones. Let's look at the side effects there:

Most common (up to half of all women who take it):
1) nausea
2) vomiting

Next most common (20%)
1) abdominal pain
2) fatigue
3) headache
4) dizziness
5) breast tenderness

Yay - basically, she's suffering food poisoning/flu symptoms of moderate to severe strength for a couple days. Oh, boy, that sounds like fun!

Once again, you discount what a woman goes through. Taking a "morning after" pill isn't a get out of pregnancy free card. It's going to make her feel sick, possibly very ill, for several days.

It's more of a say than the man has, but keep treating the view that only a woman should be the only one with any sort of control over the outcome as the sole way of doing things. I'd also argue that a few days of being sick is far less inconvenient than 18 years of payments. Also, this whole tired life isn't fair shtick is getting really fucking old and I don't see you or any of the other women in this thread applying it to your gender.

In fact Broomstick, get off the high horse that you seem to ride into every contentious thread on. Nobody cares and it gets old faster than you might think.

Other states already take on the cost of post secondary now in exchange for money later and they do it without the hassle of student loans. These nations are doing it correctly by eating the up front cost of schooling knowing that it increases the productivity of their work force. Are you going to try arguing that such a system doesn't work?

The flaw is your assumption that this is a problem solely of young university students. I doubt that it is. Unintended pregnancy hits adult men of any age (although under 70 is probably more likely than over 70). If a man already has a job he should fork over to support the child he helped create.

You're the one saying that, not me. I suggested something for a single case top put an idea forward. You're just being closed minded and making assumptions about why I think this could be a point worth talking about.

In other words,. stop thinking I'm speaking for a US point of view. I'm not an American and back asswards laws and ideas that take place there don't concern me. I'm much more interested in Australian and Canadian policies; the school policy is taken from my understanding of the Ausie school now, increased taxes for a period later, method of post secondary education.

It's already been pointed out that the laws for those places aren't that dissimilar from the US, and, oh yes, nice moving of the goalposts considering the OP is about a case in the US.

They aren't entirely the same either and differ in many key respects, but way to hand wave entire legal systems.

Should we be surprised that a country with a shit safety net and an individual oriented mindset produces shit results in cases like this? It's far more interesting to look at the why behind it and try to change that, but you don't seem to like the idea of doing that.

...And you have the gall to call me a child.

So if you're 16, knock up a girl, and for whatever reason she wants to keep it, your life should now be forced to suck.

Nice slap in the face to every person - man or woman - who has had a child at 16 (or whatever arbitrary age you care to name) who have successfully raised the kid AND gone to school/found a job/made a career. It's not EITHER a kid OR school, you can do both, as many people have demonstrated.

Prove that those people are even close to the rule and not a happy exception. I fucking dare you.

[quote

]It could also work in reverse if the man takes custody and the woman desires a shot at education.

Why do you assume a single mother wouldn't be simultaneously pursing an education? It's not uncommon.[/quote]

Not uncommon, but certainly not easy or even overly common. Besides, what's the issue with lending a helping hand, worried your taxes might rise a bit?

Of course if you come for a nation with extremely limited social safety nets the idea of investing in people might seem odd.

To a self-centered little tool I guess the notion of being responsible for your actions and supporting your offspring (accidental or not) also seems odd.

Where have I said that most cases shouldn't end with both parties supporting the child? I've been focused on exceptions and looking at the problem from other angles. You're the closed minded one for not even attempting to be constructive.

Also way to ignore the other posts between mine, must be harder to write rebuttals to people you don't see as an easy target.

Again - Jub's, and your, assumption seems to be that only young men get into this situation. That's simply not true.

You have a real forest for the trees problem going on here Broomstick. Take a step back and try to get rid of the emotional baggage you seem to have.

[Jub]

No, Broomstick, what TheHammer is saying is that, if you make those arguments and are not a pro-lifer, then you are a hypocrite. As was perfectly clear.

Broomstick is interested in staying on her high horse, not about discussing things. This should be clear given that she has yet to make a post that contains anything approaching a suggestion while spewing hate at me.

[Broomstick]

No, Broomstick, what TheHammer is saying is that, if you make those arguments and are not a pro-lifer, then you are a hypocrite. As was perfectly clear.

Bullshit.

It's not hypocritical at all to acknowledge that there is an inherent unfairness in reproductive biology (some of it hits men, some of it hits women). It's not at all hypocritical to state you should be responsible where you spill your bodily fluids, and you should take responsibility for anything untoward that happens. Catch an STD? Get it treated and take precautions not to spread to others. Unintentionally hurt your partner's feelings? Apology/flowers/dinner/bj/whatever is appropriate to express regrets. Don't want a baby? Use your own birth control, don't rely on other people to be sterile for your convenience. Baby is conceived? Deal with it.

[TheHammer]

I'm referring to a morning after pill which should be obvious given the context of abortions.

Oh, like THAT is any better? MUCH higher dose of hormones. Let's look at the side effects there:

Most common (up to half of all women who take it):
1) nausea
2) vomiting

Next most common (20%)
1) abdominal pain
2) fatigue
3) headache
4) dizziness
5) breast tenderness

Yay - basically, she's suffering food poisoning/flu symptoms of moderate to severe strength for a couple days. Oh, boy, that sounds like fun!

Once again, you discount what a woman goes through. Taking a "morning after" pill isn't a get out of pregnancy free card. It's going to make her feel sick, possibly very ill, for several days.

nitpick: It will possibly make her sick. I've known women to take it and go about there day with little actual side effects.

But you're right, it's not fair. What they should do is make a pill that can induce those same side effects in a man and sell them together. Then they can both suffer the same consequences. And I suspect if you give most men the choice between having an unplanned/unwanted child or being sick for a few days he'll take the being sick for a few days - And possibly learn his lesson about unprotected sex .

"Life isn't fair"
"Don't stick your dick in someone if you don't want them to be pregnant"
"Use a condom!"
"Just accept your responsibilities!"

These are all variations of same pro-lifer BS that you hear spouted all the time as a reason for banning abortion completely.

So, are you saying everyone in this thread who has spoken words of that sort is a "pro-lifer"? On what do you base that? Certainly nothing I've ever posted on this site would lead a rational person to believe that, indeed, I am very firmly pro-choice. But being pro-choice means supporting a woman's decision to NOT abort as well as to abort.

Again - Jub's, and your, assumption seems to be that only young men get into this situation. That's simply not true.

I'm saying many of the statements you are making to counter Jub's position are the same ones pro-lifers make when speaking against abortion. The fact that you are pro-choice means your statements are rather hypocritical for reasons I already outlined.

And no, I'm not making any assumptions on the age of the man here. Age quite frankly is irrelevent. Older women get abortions for the same reasons an older man might want one - namely financial or lifestyle related.

[Jub]

No, Broomstick, what TheHammer is saying is that, if you make those arguments and are not a pro-lifer, then you are a hypocrite. As was perfectly clear.

Bullshit.

It's not hypocritical at all to acknowledge that there is an inherent unfairness in reproductive biology (some of it hits men, some of it hits women). It's not at all hypocritical to state you should be responsible where you spill your bodily fluids, and you should take responsibility for anything untoward that happens. Catch an STD? Get it treated and take precautions not to spread to others. Unintentionally hurt your partner's feelings? Apology/flowers/dinner/bj/whatever is appropriate to express regrets. Don't want a baby? Use your own birth control, don't rely on other people to be sterile for your convenience. Baby is conceived? Deal with it.

That's easy to say when your gender holds all the cards between conception and birth. You're calling guys out as scum for wanting out for the same reasons that a woman might abort over.

Willing to try a rational talk about these things instead of these irrational attacks?

[TheHammer]

...Baby is conceived? Deal with it.

WOW

Read that back to yourself. And then think long and hard about the implications of that statement when it pertains to your "pro-choice" stance.

[Jub]

...Baby is conceived? Deal with it.

WOW

Read that back to yourself. And then think long and hard about the implications of that statement when it pertains to your "pro-choice" stance.

It's only pro-choice when the choice is hers and hers alone.

[Broomstick]

It's more of a say than the man has, but keep treating the view that only a woman should be the only one with any sort of control over the outcome as the sole way of doing things.

She's not "the only one with any sort of control" here - the man controls who he fucks, whether or not he uses a condom, whether or not he has a vasectomy if that's a valid choice for him. What you're whining about is that once conception occurs only the woman has final say. That's where the "biology is unfair" part kicks in. If you don't want to be in that position take precautions BEFORE you stick your dick in her.

I'd also argue that a few days of being sick is far less inconvenient than 18 years of payments.

Right, because a single mother bears no financial cost in raising a child [/sarcasm]

If the baby daddy did take custody the woman would have 18 years of payments.

Once there's a child BOTH parents have responsibilities, not just one.

Also, this whole tired life isn't fair shtick is getting really fucking old and I don't see you or any of the other women in this thread applying it to your gender.

It's not fair women have to bear all the risks of pregnancy, but due to biology we do. It's not fair that most effective birth control for women also comes with the greatest health risks for women, but that's how it is. It's not fair that women are on average smaller and weaker than men so they are more easily raped.

I could go on with what's unfair for women at some length but it would be getting quite off topic.

In fact Broomstick, get off the high horse that you seem to ride into every contentious thread on.

So, you're running out of arguments?

You're the one saying that, not me. I suggested something for a single case top put an idea forward. You're just being closed minded and making assumptions about why I think this could be a point worth talking about.

Incorrect. I think you're just flat out wrong on the entire subject. Unlike you, however, I am not telling my opposition to shut up.

...And you have the gall to call me a child.

If you don't want me to call you a child stop acting like a spoiled brat.

So if you're 16, knock up a girl, and for whatever reason she wants to keep it, your life should now be forced to suck.

Nice slap in the face to every person - man or woman - who has had a child at 16 (or whatever arbitrary age you care to name) who have successfully raised the kid AND gone to school/found a job/made a career. It's not EITHER a kid OR school, you can do both, as many people have demonstrated.

Prove that those people are even close to the rule and not a happy exception. I fucking dare you.[/quote]
What would constitute proof to you? I have numerous friends who had a kid prior to finishing high school who nonetheless went on to very financially successful lives while raising those children, but that would be purely anecdotal.

Of course, in the bad old days, which I am old enough to remember, unwed mothers were simply stripped of their infants without consent, the children adopted out, and the fathers had absolutely zero choice in any of it. Typically, despite losing custody of the child completely, both parents would be expelled from education at that point for good. I don't want to return to that system.

Yes, even the Evil US supports single parents seeking an education while raising a young child - something that is equally available to young men in that position although most young men choose not to pursue single parenthood. Thus, your assumption that "life is suck" and opportunities are over for the young unintended parent is just that, an assumption that is not based on any proof I see. Child support only last 18 years. Maybe that seems a lifetime to you, but it's not.

Not uncommon, but certainly not easy or even overly common. Besides, what's the issue with lending a helping hand, worried your taxes might rise a bit?

I don't see it so much as a monetary issue as a moral one. If you father a child you have certain responsibilities towards that child whether you intended to father that child or not.

[Broomstick]

nitpick: It will possibly make her sick. I've known women to take it and go about there day with little actual side effects.

But you're right, it's not fair. What they should do is make a pill that can induce those same side effects in a man and sell them together. Then they can both suffer the same consequences. And I suspect if you give most men the choice between having an unplanned/unwanted child or being sick for a few days he'll take the being sick for a few days

So will a lot of women, hence we have the morning after pill available. My chief objection to Jub is his minimization of the effects on the woman. He characterizes it as a "simple pill" and a "simple solution". No, it's not, really, even if a lot of people choose it as the lesser evil.

I'm saying many of the statements you are making to counter Jub's position are the same ones pro-lifers make when speaking against abortion. The fact that you are pro-choice means your statements are rather hypocritical for reasons I already outlined.

Again, bullshit. It is in no way hypocritical to say people need to be responsible for their actions AND support their right to choose those actions. You're really reaching here.

[Broomstick]

That's easy to say when your gender holds all the cards between conception and birth.

That's because we're the ones who actually do the pregnancy thing. If/when a man ever becomes pregnant then he would hold the same cards and it would be his final decision on whether or not to carry the fetus to term and the other parent in that situation (presumably a woman) would then have to deal with a possible 18 years of child support for a child she doesn't want.

You're calling guys out as scum for wanting out for the same reasons that a woman might abort over.

There are also women who don't want to abort who also don't want the child, and those same women can also wind up in court over that kid. A woman can't give a child up for adoption in the US anymore unless the father also consents to that act - if he takes custody then SHE gets 18 years of child support payments.

Willing to try a rational talk about these things instead of these irrational attacks?

What I find irrational is the notion that men should be able to walk away from offspring they sire.

[Broomstick]

...Baby is conceived? Deal with it.

WOW

Read that back to yourself. And then think long and hard about the implications of that statement when it pertains to your "pro-choice" stance.

It's only pro-choice when the choice is hers and hers alone.

You only get to decide what happens to YOUR body, not anyone else's.

Thus - you choose who to stick your dick into. If/when your girlfriend gets pregnant she decides whether or not to empty her uterus. She can't tell you what to do with your body, you can't tell her what to do with hers.

[Metahive]

OK, I'd really like to know why some people act as if either not having sex or having safer sex is some sort of unthinkable burden for the male. Are they really that goddamned promiscuous as to not be able to control their urges? The risk for an unwanted child should be low for a non-stupid man, so why should people who can't even take the least of precautions be rewarded for their stupidity? Then the state really might as well pay off gambling debts [nope, don't see any difference].

I also fucking despise how certain people here think that A: birth prevention is the sole responsibility of the woman and B: treat abortion as something that's been done lightly. Even if it's just taking the morning after pill, it still takes some serious consideration to undertake this step not to speak of the more intrusive forms of abortion but all I hear is whining about how it's totally unfair that women can just, like, flush the fetus down the toilet like a particularly stubborn turd but males have to pay money should a woman not want to abort.

[Jub]

It's more of a say than the man has, but keep treating the view that only a woman should be the only one with any sort of control over the outcome as the sole way of doing things.

She's not "the only one with any sort of control" here - the man controls who he fucks, whether or not he uses a condom, whether or not he has a vasectomy if that's a valid choice for him. What you're whining about is that once conception occurs only the woman has final say. That's where the "biology is unfair" part kicks in. If you don't want to be in that position take precautions BEFORE you stick your dick in her.

All those things apply equally to her. I could say biology is a bitch and tell her to suck an egg if she doesn't want to abort. It's about as fair as the current system.

I'd also argue that a few days of being sick is far less inconvenient than 18 years of payments.

Right, because a single mother bears no financial cost in raising a child [/sarcasm]

If the baby daddy did take custody the woman would have 18 years of payments.

Once there's a child BOTH parents have responsibilities, not just one.

Again, she has a choice to opt out, he has nothing. What part of this is beyond your simple grasp?

Also, this whole tired life isn't fair shtick is getting really fucking old and I don't see you or any of the other women in this thread applying it to your gender.

It's not fair women have to bear all the risks of pregnancy, but due to biology we do. It's not fair that most effective birth control for women also comes with the greatest health risks for women, but that's how it is. It's not fair that women are on average smaller and weaker than men so they are more easily raped.

I could go on with what's unfair for women at some length but it would be getting quite off topic.

Boo-fucking-hoo, if she didn't want to deal with that she should have planned better. After all she could have had her tubes tied or used other forms of birth control, up to and including refusing sex without a condom. After all this is the standard you apply to men.

On rape and physical strength, now who's shifting goal posts? Your attempt to build pathos is pretty transparent.

Life is unfair and isn't ever likely to be. A lot of the reasons women get shit on aren't fair or logical, deal.

In fact Broomstick, get off the high horse that you seem to ride into every contentious thread on.

So, you're running out of arguments?

Hard to rebut a wall of ignorance.

You're the one saying that, not me. I suggested something for a single case top put an idea forward. You're just being closed minded and making assumptions about why I think this could be a point worth talking about.

Incorrect. I think you're just flat out wrong on the entire subject. Unlike you, however, I am not telling my opposition to shut up.

So you don't support additional safety nets that are free from gender bias?

...And you have the gall to call me a child.

If you don't want me to call you a child stop acting like a spoiled brat.

Okay crone, go ride that broke ass of your back to the garden you tend. Come back when you can start having actual arguments that don't boil down to biology sucks, men are pigs, and women bear all the risk and burden for everything.

What would constitute proof to you? I have numerous friends who had a kid prior to finishing high school who nonetheless went on to very financially successful lives while raising those children, but that would be purely anecdotal.

Actual numbers, studies. I can anecdote right back at you about people less lucky.

Of course, in the bad old days, which I am old enough to remember, unwed mothers were simply stripped of their infants without consent, the children adopted out, and the fathers had absolutely zero choice in any of it. Typically, despite losing custody of the child completely, both parents would be expelled from education at that point for good. I don't want to return to that system.

Life was hard back in old country, ja?

Yes, even the Evil US supports single parents seeking an education while raising a young child - something that is equally available to young men in that position although most young men choose not to pursue single parenthood. Thus, your assumption that "life is suck" and opportunities are over for the young unintended parent is just that, an assumption that is not based on any proof I see. Child support only last 18 years. Maybe that seems a lifetime to you, but it's not.

Assuming typical lower-middle class income and no family support those 18 years can make or break a person's future earning potential. School is hard enough to afford without child support payments and only one gender can choose to opt out before the kid is born so the cost of raising a kid is moot. Getting a four year post secondary degree at say 38 as opposed to say 24 really limits our options. That's also 18 years of wasted earning potential at a higher average wage bracket. 18 years isn't life, but it's sure a decent chunk if it happens at a bad time.

Not uncommon, but certainly not easy or even overly common. Besides, what's the issue with lending a helping hand, worried your taxes might rise a bit?

I don't see it so much as a monetary issue as a moral one. If you father a child you have certain responsibilities towards that child whether you intended to father that child or not.

My system doesn't absolve you of those, or did you just gloss over the bit where the state can reclaim it's outlay and the man picks up when properly employed and able?

You only get to decide what happens to YOUR body, not anyone else's.

Thus - you choose who to stick your dick into. If/when your girlfriend gets pregnant she decides whether or not to empty her uterus. She can't tell you what to do with your body, you can't tell her what to do with hers.

It's funny in how many cases that already isn't true... Most of them aren't uncommon either. I bet even your limited mind can think of a few.

That's easy to say when your gender holds all the cards between conception and birth.

That's because we're the ones who actually do the pregnancy thing. If/when a man ever becomes pregnant then he would hold the same cards and it would be his final decision on whether or not to carry the fetus to term and the other parent in that situation (presumably a woman) would then have to deal with a possible 18 years of child support for a child she doesn't want.

Boo-hoo life isn't fair. You seem fond of applying it the other way so I'll keep doing it too.

You're calling guys out as scum for wanting out for the same reasons that a woman might abort over.

There are also women who don't want to abort who also don't want the child, and those same women can also wind up in court over that kid. A woman can't give a child up for adoption in the US anymore unless the father also consents to that act - if he takes custody then SHE gets 18 years of child support payments.

Yup, and that sucks too.

Willing to try a rational talk about these things instead of these irrational attacks?

What I find irrational is the notion that men should be able to walk away from offspring they sire.

Would be less of an issue if the choice of bringing the kid to term wasn't so one sided.

It might also be better if your only answer is saying that he should have bagged it.

OK, I'd really like to know why some people act as if either not having sex or having safer sex is some sort of unthinkable burden for the male. Are they really that goddamned promiscuous as to not be able to control their urges? The risk for an unwanted child should be low for a non-stupid man, so why should people who can't even take the least of precautions be rewarded for their stupidity? Then the state really might as well pay off gambling debts [nope, don't see any difference].

Care to point out and quote where that has been said? I've said from the start that both sides should share to load on birth control.

I also fucking despise how certain people here think that A: birth prevention is the sole responsibility of the woman and B: treat abortion as something that's been done lightly. Even if it's just taking the morning after pill, it still takes some serious consideration to undertake this step not to speak of the more intrusive forms of abortion but all I hear is whining about how it's totally unfair that women can just, like, flush the fetus down the toilet like a particularly stubborn turd but males have to pay money should a woman not want to abort.

Many men would take those options if they could. Yet they don't and there lies the rub.

[TOSDOC]

Assuming typical lower-middle class income and no family support those 18 years can make or break a person's future earning potential. School is hard enough to afford without child support payments and only one gender can choose to opt out before the kid is born so the cost of raising a kid is moot. Getting a four year post secondary degree at say 38 as opposed to say 24 really limits our options. That's also 18 years of wasted earning potential at a higher average wage bracket. 18 years isn't life, but it's sure a decent chunk if it happens at a bad time.

Maybe this is what we should be teaching in high school sex ed classes then.

If you can't pay for a child, then don't make one.

[Jub]

Assuming typical lower-middle class income and no family support those 18 years can make or break a person's future earning potential. School is hard enough to afford without child support payments and only one gender can choose to opt out before the kid is born so the cost of raising a kid is moot. Getting a four year post secondary degree at say 38 as opposed to say 24 really limits our options. That's also 18 years of wasted earning potential at a higher average wage bracket. 18 years isn't life, but it's sure a decent chunk if it happens at a bad time.

Maybe this is what we should be teaching in high school sex ed classes then.

If you can't pay for a child, then don't make one.

Unless you're a woman, then you at least have options even if they have side effects.

[Flagg]

Assuming typical lower-middle class income and no family support those 18 years can make or break a person's future earning potential. School is hard enough to afford without child support payments and only one gender can choose to opt out before the kid is born so the cost of raising a kid is moot. Getting a four year post secondary degree at say 38 as opposed to say 24 really limits our options. That's also 18 years of wasted earning potential at a higher average wage bracket. 18 years isn't life, but it's sure a decent chunk if it happens at a bad time.

Maybe this is what we should be teaching in high school sex ed classes then.

If you can't pay for a child, then don't make one.

But that's not fair! Waaaaa! I wanna be able to engage in risky behavior with no consequences! I mean if some slut gets knocked up and I want her to get it vacuumed out and she doesn't wanna well fuck her and the kid, I have a life to live!

[Metahive]

Care to point out and quote where that has been said? I've said from the start that both sides should share to load on birth control.

Don't you fucking lie to me, shithead.

Both parties should have an equal share of that burden and men should cover it unless they are 100% sure she's on the pill or has other means of stopping unwanted pregnancy. Still, short of surgery, only one sex has options for contraception that leaves bareback as an option.

Nice way to be a disingenuous jackass. Yeah, condoms are fine, but it's only fun if the female ultimately takes care of the problem. And if that wasn't what you wanted to say, why mention it at all?

Many men would take those options if they could. Yet they don't and there lies the rub.

Know what? We don't live in a fictional universe where males would have to actually seriously consider this, so spare me this "coulda woulda" BS, I don't care.