Male Reproductive Rights

I see where these guys are coming from. I really do. But I completely disagree that a man should ever have the authority to tell a woman what to do with HER body. Also, in these situations (99% of the time), not only is the woman going to be the primary caregiver in the literal sense, but she's going to carry a huge majority of the financial burden of the child, even if the guy does end up "having" to pay child support. They figure that shit out using a formula, and the person with custody ends up paying way more, whether its the mother or the father.

I don't think it's fair that men have no say, though. It just doesn't seem right. Maybe they could come up with something where if a guy officially requests the woman to have an abortion - going through some preset process - and she refuses, the amount of child support he's required to pay is significantly reduced.

I also think that if a guy chooses that route, he automatically forfeits his right to visitation, etc. having clearly demonstrated that he would rather see his child dead than have to fork over any money.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

I I'm sorry, but, even considering the risks and responsibilities involved with pregnancy, it's just fundamentally wrong for women to have reproductive rights and choices so far exceeding those of men.

Let's be honest, here. The woman is the one who will ultimately bear the responsibility for the child, so it makes sense that she would have rights and choices equal to her level of responsibility. Men have the option of just walking away if they want to. It happens all the time. Women do too (I guess), but how often do you really hear about a woman abandoning her child? It's far more rare for women to do this - almost unheard of - and everyone knows it.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by ArrowHead

Women don't absondon their children; they kill them.

There is no such thing as SIDS - it is only a name that doctors made up because so many women have suffered from post-partum depression and smothered their babies in their sleep and a strangled baby's corpse shows very few if any of the signs of suffocation that an adult corpse does.

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?!

I can't even respond to that, it's so retarded. I have now officially deemed you not worth my time. Have a nice life.

How ya doing, buddy?

I have a problem with the fact that you've read a couple of articles (which, by the way, do NOT support your assertion that SIDS isn't a legitimate disorder) and drew your own screwed-up conclusion and stated it here as fact.

I happen to know a few women whose babies died from SIDS and what you're claiming is unthinkable to me. Some of these women had other children - before and after - and were excellent mothers. One woman I know almost didn't survive herself after her infant died (presumably from SIDS). I also know of two people whose babies almost died of SIDS, but they were discovered in time to save them and both babies wore monitors thereafter that would alert the parents any time the condition started to happen again (which it did, in both cases).

What you said is ridiculous and we all know it. They haven't completely figured SIDS out, but there have definitely been advances, such as the monitor I mentioned. Also, studies that show that there's a 12.9 times higher risk of death when babies sleep on their stomachs instead of on their backs.

Now prove that what you said wasn't some temper tantrum outburst brought on by the fact that I said more men abandon their children than women, or GTFO.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?