GameBanshee Forums

If you get the wrong woman pregnant, then in short you have F'd up. As a man you will either make up your mind to take care of it or not. I think every young man has been in the "I hope she's not pregnant" scenario. Pretty scary, but who is to blame?? It is no different than anyone who has been stuck with consequences they didnt want.
ie...killing or hurting someone in an accident.

To answer the original question: I do not think it's morally defenseble that a man could force a woman to carry a child she does not want to have, in her body. It is after all her body, and she should have full integrity.

However, I think it's deeply unfair that a consequence of this, is that a man can get in the position to loose a child he would like to have, or IMO much worse: to get a child he did not want.

I know two men who have been "forced fathers" because their girlfriends wanted a child, they wanted to wait, and their girlfriends stopped taking their pills without telling the man, and then refused abortion. Need I say that love cannot survive such a deep let down.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

Average cost of raising a child in U.S. to age 18, not including private school or any college costs: $250,000


So be careful, people!

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG> It is after all her body, and she should have full integrity. </STRONG>

But the body she is carrying was assisted in its creation by another person, i.e. the father. On the day when a woman can create a fetus in her womb just by thinking about it, with no assistance from male sperm, I might acknowledge that she has sole rights to decide on the child's fate. Until then the father must, by virtue of his role in the creation of the child, have a say in its fate. I don't understand how anything else can be morally acceptable.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG> Need I say that love cannot survive such a deep let down.
</STRONG>

Your right..it cannot. This is way I'm not married to my first wife anymore. I tried to do the 'right' thing and married her, but it was doomed. How could I trust her when I feel she betrayed me.


The thing is though...I would do it all again the same way to get my little girl. I would still get a divorce though.

Originally posted by loner72:
<STRONG>But the body she is carrying was assisted in its creation by another person, i.e. the father. On the day when a woman can create a fetus in her womb just by thinking about it, with no assistance from male sperm, I might acknowledge that she has sole rights to decide on the child's fate. Until then the father must, by virtue of his role in the creation of the child, have a say in its fate. I don't understand how anything else can be morally acceptable.</STRONG>

What do you do if the female decides she doesn't want a child and the male does?

Force her to carry the child for 9 months?

Isn't this one step away from being a slave?

Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>third, the mother wants it, the father doesn't. his life gets ruined for the next 18 years.
fourth, the mother doesn't want it, but the father does. he is willing to pay all of the expenses, and will take full responsibility for the entire kid's life. the mother will not have to see him/her or pay a single nickel. she can go out and abort it without any concern for the father, for whom this might be his only chance to have a child.
</STRONG>

I am not happy with these two supposed to be opposite cases. It's not opposite, is it?

What if the woman wants a baby and is willing to pay everything, take full responsibity, and the man does not have to do anything at all, not even paying a penny, or "it's your turn to change" in the 2.00am? Or, if the man wants it and somehow managed to get his unwilling wife/partner pregnant and had a baby, then what? Do you think her next 18 years would be a happy one? Do you really think the woman will happily ignore the baby she gave birth after 9 months of morning sickness, kicking in the tummy in the night, fear of getting too fat, constant advice from family and friends (or strangers), and agony?

If you look at genes, the baby is half from mother and half from father. But, in reality, babies rely more heavily on their mothers.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>Your right..it cannot. This is way I'm not married to my first wife anymore. I tried to do the 'right' thing and married her, but it was doomed. How could I trust her when I feel she betrayed me.

The thing is though...I would do it all again the same way to get my little girl. I would still get a divorce though.</STRONG>

I understand this completely - I would have done the same thing One of my friends who was in this situation tried, like you, to keep the relationship together for the child's sake, but it was impossible. Like you, he says his little girl is the best thing that has ever happened in his life, but he felt there was nothing left between him and the mother after she had betrayed him this way.

My other friend - that's a sad story. He split up with the mother, and as a "revenge" she took the child and moved abroad. He has only met his daughter a few times.

I don't understand these mothers. How can you do such a thing to your loved one, and to the child? How can the egoistic longing for a child become so strong so that you let down your parter, and also bereave your child of having a father that wanted it in the first place?

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

@loner - that is exactly what i am getting at.

@minerva - i did not neccessarily put those last two as opposites of eachother. i mean there are countless other options, but i used those two as extremes.

i think part of the problem that men will never have any rights, is the large amount of deadbeats out there. if it was decided that the baby was completely the mother's and it fell on the dad to step up on his own accord, there would be a lot of losers out there ditching his duties.
and obviously, women are the one's carrying the baby for nine months inside their body, but to say slavery is the next step is a far cry. the woman can carry out her normal life (without any unexpected complications) well into term. and as i said before, she would only be carrying it for nine months, then man would take over. in the third case, the man would be enslaved for 18 years. and yes, i whole heartedky believe that any decent human being would take of their child so i am not sayign by any means that a man should not take care of his kid.

and bringing up issues as to why he cannot have any more kids, dodges the question.

Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>
obviously, women are the one's carrying the baby for nine months inside their body, but to say slavery is the next step is a far cry. the woman can carry out her normal life (without any unexpected complications) well into term. and as i said before, she would only be carrying it for nine months, then man would take over. .</STRONG>

What is it called if I force you to do something against your will for nine months?

Prisoner? Slave?


(Lightbulb comes on)

In my case I don't consider myself a 'prisoner' or 'slave' to my child. I believe I'm lucky to have her and unlucky enough to have meet her mother.

Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>the woman can carry out her normal life (without any unexpected complications) well into term. and as i said before, she would only be carrying it for nine months, then man would take over. </STRONG>

What do you mean by "normal" life? My friend couldn't eat a thing in a family dinner even though she was hungry, because baby was sort of standing up position in her tummy? And she told me next day in our office. In other words, she was working then. Do you think that is a normal life? She couldn't even tie shoe laces unless she put her foot on chair or something.

Also, don't say "only" 9 months. For example, woman spare part of her body, thus women tend to lose more teeth and have weaker bones than men.

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>What is it called if I force you to do something against your will for nine months?

Prisoner? Slave?

.</STRONG>

and what about the opposite side where if the man doesn't want the child and he is forced to care for it. what do you call those 18 years?
why can one "enslave" the other, but not the other way around?

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>

I don't understand these mothers. How can you do such a thing to your loved one, and to the child? How can the egoistic longing for a child become so strong so that you let down your parter, and also bereave your child of having a father that wanted it in the first place?
</STRONG>

I don't understand it either. I can tell you the reasons my ex-wife gave.

To bring us closer.

Paralelal question:

Any of you know when someone start to exist juridically? (By the American Laws, or the majority of the estates laws).

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>Paralelal question:

Any of you know when someone start to exist juridically? (By the American Laws, or the majority of the estates laws).</STRONG>

i believe the standard was set at when it capable of living on its own outside the womb.

Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>and what about the opposite side where if the man doesn't want the child and he is forced to care for it. what do you call those 18 years?
why can one "enslave" the other, but not the other way around?</STRONG>

Years I can make some decisions about.

Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>why can one "enslave" the other, but not the other way around?</STRONG>

I can only give you my thoughts on this.

Both can be 'enslaved' but should I support the same thing to be forced on someone else?

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>I don't understand it either. I can tell you the reasons my ex-wife gave.

To bring us closer. </STRONG>

The reasons my friends told me their ex's had given were something like "But I thought you would change your mind when the baby was there".

This must be one of the great self deceptions of womenkind

well, i'm stepping out for the night, so any questions directed at me will have to wait till tomorrow.
bye folks

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>
This must be one of the great self deceptions of womenkind </STRONG>

I will not bunch all women in this group.