[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]

> No Thanks" refers not to carrying a child to term, but supporting a child who exists

The existence is chosen by a woman, who is presumably aware of the fact that it's going to be 9 months of difficult physical changes, followed by 18 years of life changes.

> I just as clearly support the notion that a child carried to term has two parents who share the responsibility of raising that child.

Why do you support that notion? So basically a woman gets to choose to bear a child, but a man has to abide by that decision?

> 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.

That is a logical fallacy. You've already carried the child to term, now you're roping another unwilling participant into this? When you've already had the choice (easy and affordable) of choosing a difficult path?

> 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.

I don't see how any of my other posts would counter my position of confusion. There is no "hollowness" there. My point has always been that if a woman can terminate a pregnancy, a man should be able to renounce all parental rights and responsibilities.

Remember, your original post referred to reproductive rights. Shouldn't men have those as well? Instead of just being told not to screw?

[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?)