[M_Grey]

I appreciate you taking the time to find something worth responding to in the mess I seemed to have touched off. I agree with all of your points, but I'm also careful to suggest that if raising a child is something you're unwilling to do, you need to restrict your sexual activity accordingly. That can just mean protected sex with someone you trust, and know would be willing to terminate an unexpected and accidental pregnancy.

[celticninja]

What happens when the condom splits and someone changes their mind on termination when the rubber meets the road? Who gets the final say? I do not expect you to have the answer, just that regardless of every precaution taken, shit can get complicated once their is a fetus in play.

[M_Grey]

The person who has to carry the child to term gets the final say, and both parties going in knew that was a possibility. You can't honestly be shocked that sex can have consequences, including some you might not foresee. If you can't afford, under any circumstances including the very unlikely, to have a kid? Don't. Screw.

[celticninja]

I agree in the final say being with the woman carrying the child however the father should be able to renounce all rights and responsibilities pre-birth if they do not want the child. Sex can lead to pregnancy and pregnancy leads to kids, both parties know the potential outcome so blaming it on one party seems a bit silly.

[M_Grey]

It's not blaming anything on one party, two people made a baby, two people have to pay. Why should either party get to just say, "No thanks"? Again, pregnancy is a known potential complication of sex, and both parties knew that going in.

[jimmywanger]

> Why should either party get to just say, "No thanks"?

So now I'm confused. Do you support abortion or not?

I completely agree. If abortion is illegal, yeah, the man should have no say just like the woman has no say in giving birth and raising a baby.

If abortion is legal, it's the logical equivalent of a woman saying "no thanks" to the baby unilaterally. "My body, my choice" and all that.

I am not trying to be difficult, I just want to know where you're coming from.

[M_Grey]

I doubt that you're confused, so much as confusing the issue for a reason, but what the hell. "No Thanks" refers not to carrying a child to term, but supporting a child who exists. Needless to say, you'll find some inequalities in situations which are unequal, and where one person assumes all of the biological burden, they get the call in regards to their own body. So yes, I clearly support abortion, and I just as clearly support the notion that a child carried to term has two parents who share the responsibility of raising that child. To clarify again, to avoid any "confusion", the logical equivalent of, "No thanks I'm not involved" is the woman leaving that child on the father's doorstep with a similar statement of disinterest.

Beyond that, be aware that your other posts on this topic are visible, so the "I'm confused... not trying to be difficult" lines ring especially hollow.

[jimmywanger]

> The person who has to carry the child to term gets the final say

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't have to carry the child to term, at least in the states or most western countries. You choose to carry the child to term.

> Don't. Screw.

Have you spoken to teenagers or remember what that was like? They're still not fully formed human beings, under the influence of raging hormones. Don't expect old heads on young shoulders.

[M_Grey]

>>The person who has to carry the child to term gets the final say

>You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't have to carry the child to term, at least in the states or most western countries. You choose to carry the child to term.

Either you misunderstood what I said, or you think that there is something to be gained from harping on semantics. Either way... no thanks.

>>Don't. Screw.

>Have you spoken to teenagers or remember what that was like? They're still not fully formed human beings, under the influence of raging hormones. Don't expect old heads on young shoulders.

Life isn't fair, and sometimes what you do as a teenager has long-term consequences, like having a child, or having to provide for a child. I have to say though, that in general this conversation does not seem to center around the impulsive choices of children, for the obvious reasons you've outlined. The usual way I see this issue framed is:

Condom broke. -or- "Conniving" woman poked a hole in the condom.

Neither implies reckless teenage abandon.

[jimmywanger]

> The usual way I see this issue framed is: Condom broke. -or- "Conniving" woman poked a hole in the condom. Neither implies reckless teenage abandon.

Nowhere in this thread was that brought up, and what is the relevance here? Don't put words in our mouths.

> Life isn't fair, and sometimes what you do as a teenager has long-term consequences,

Yes, like college loans. But people still ask for loan forgiveness. (See what I did there?)