Men should not be forced, obligated, or coerced to support and subsidize a child that they never consented to bring into this world. This should not be happening to men legally, financially, morally, nor philosophically.
Look at the facts, and you will see that legally and financially, women are under absolutely no such obligation to care for or support any child that they do not want to.
Let us suppose a woman is in a monogamous, sustained relationship with her boyfriend. There is an emotional commitment which they both readily acknowledge. Or perhaps a woman is in a casual, ongoing relationship with a man, which sometimes includes sex, sometimes doesn't. It is very possible there is no definite commitment between these two people. Whatever; they are consenting adults and what they do is noone else's business. This woman chooses to have sex later on in the day or maybe later in the week. Let us say she has decided that she will definitely have sex later on. Does this mean she automatically consents to becoming pregnant, carrying the pregnancy to term, and then childbirth? I am asking sincerely, genuinely, n honestly. I am not asking facetiously, I am not asking rhetorically, facetiously, sardonically, nor sarcastically.
Just because a woman might decide to have sex later on, does that mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth? And after that, keeping the child, then doing all the work of feeding, bathing, cleaning, and raising the child?
No, of course not. That is why birth control pills, intrauterine devices, norplant arm implants, and depo-provera shots exist.
So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?
Let us suppose a woman is not on any type of regular, ongoing birth control and is not in any ongoing, casual or otherwise, sexual arrangement with any man. Perhaps she wasn't planning to have sex earlier, she wasn't even thinking about it at all. but then she sees a really hot guy in the club and immediately decides to hook up with him. Let's say she made a spur-of-the-moment decision and now, boom, is currently having sex with said stranger, or this woman just had sex as in five minutes ago. Let us say that neither she nor the dude she is having sex with utilized any form of birth control during sex or immediately preceding sex.
I am not asking rhetorically, facetiously, sardonically, sarcastically. Just because a woman suddenly decided to have sex, does this mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth? And after that, keeping the child, then doing all the work of feeding, bathing, cleaning, and raising the child?
No, of course not. That's why post-coitus conception inhibitor Plan B exists. There is a small window of time, experts estimate 72 hours, AFTER a woman has sex during which she can still decide whether or not she wants to become pregnant. She still has time during which she can prevent conception from happening. After she has already had sex, she still fully has the option to prevent a zygote from forming.
So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?
Let us say a woman neglects to use any type of birth control prior to having sex, and also fails to use Plan B. Let us say she is still within the first three weeks following conception.
Just because a woman neglected to use any type of pre-coitus birth control as well as post-coitus birth control, does that mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?
No, of course not. That is why the abortion pill RU-486 exists.
So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?
Let us say a woman neglected to use any type of birth control prior to having sex, neglected to use any type of post-coitus birth control (Plan B), didn't bother to get an early-term pregnancy terminator such as the abortion pill, and allowed the pregnancy with the growing fetus to carry on for a few more weeks.
Just because a woman exhibited all that laziness, irresponsibility, callousness, and neglect, does this mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?
No, of course not. That is why the typical surgical abortion procedure, dilation n curettage, exists.
So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?
Now, let us suppose the woman somehow didn't bother to do any of that. She did not take any precautions to prevent pregnancy. Nor could she be bothered take any steps to terminate the pregnancy to ensure that neither society nor she would be stuck with an unwanted infant.
none of this snuck up on her. /ohmygod, the baby just sprung up! it came out of nowhere! it must have been hiding behind that bush the whole entire time! then it just ran out into the street and oops, it's delivery time!//
__even though she had forty weeks to decide. That is actually nine-and-one-half months; it is not actually nine months.
----
We know that a man has no control over a woman's body. He has no right to dictate what she does with her body. She might get rid of the pregnancy, she might keep the pregnancy but get rid of the baby to adoption, she might keep the baby and decide to raise it. Her body, her choice, certainly.
But do you expect me to believe that just because a man randomly has sex with a woman, he automatically consents to monetarily supporting the grown adult woman who is allowing conception which is letting the haploid gametes fuse into one new diploid cell, allowing the zygote to germinate, allowing the zygote to implant to the uterus, making the unilateral decision to keep the pregnancy, making the unilateral decision to carry the pregnancy to term, making the unilateral decision to who should be fully capable of making her own decisions and living her own life, by paying her rent, paying for her food, paying for her clothing, paying for her electricity usage, paying for her water usage, paying for her sewer usage, paying her cell phone bill, being legally and financially shackled and bound to her, being legally and financially shackled and bound to an offspring that he did not consent to have, paying for the offspring's food, paying for the offspring's clothing, paying for the offspring's electricity usage, paying for the offspring's water usage, paying for the offspring's sewer usage, paying the offspring's daycare, paying for the offspring's furniture and school supplies and toys and other household items?
Her body, her choice. Yep. And--
His livelihood, his choice.
His wages for his work are those that he earned with his body, with his hands, with his eyes, with his mind. There is a technicality in that men do not physically get pregnant and therefore any decisions regarding the pregnancy are solely the female's. But the court and police systems have effectively become jackbooted thugs that force men to metaphorically support a pregnancy for twenty-one years.
You expect me to believe that if the man doesn't agree, well, too bad, he has no choice, his livelihood and his earned living will be forcibly taken from him by way of what amounts to legalized theft? Having his wages garnished for the next twenty-one years or face jail time?
All this just because the man had sex?
Look at the facts, and you will see that legally and financially, women are under absolutely no such obligation to care for or support any child that they do not want to.
Let us suppose a woman is in a monogamous, sustained relationship with her boyfriend. There is an emotional commitment which they both readily acknowledge. Or perhaps a woman is in a casual, ongoing relationship with a man, which sometimes includes sex, sometimes doesn't. It is very possible there is no definite commitment between these two people. Whatever; they are consenting adults and what they do is noone else's business. This woman chooses to have sex later on in the day or maybe later in the week. Let us say she has decided that she will definitely have sex later on. Does this mean she automatically consents to becoming pregnant, carrying the pregnancy to term, and then childbirth? I am asking sincerely, genuinely, n honestly. I am not asking facetiously, I am not asking rhetorically, facetiously, sardonically, nor sarcastically.
Just because a woman might decide to have sex later on, does that mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth? And after that, keeping the child, then doing all the work of feeding, bathing, cleaning, and raising the child?
No, of course not. That is why birth control pills, intrauterine devices, norplant arm implants, and depo-provera shots exist.
So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?
Let us suppose a woman is not on any type of regular, ongoing birth control and is not in any ongoing, casual or otherwise, sexual arrangement with any man. Perhaps she wasn't planning to have sex earlier, she wasn't even thinking about it at all. but then she sees a really hot guy in the club and immediately decides to hook up with him. Let's say she made a spur-of-the-moment decision and now, boom, is currently having sex with said stranger, or this woman just had sex as in five minutes ago. Let us say that neither she nor the dude she is having sex with utilized any form of birth control during sex or immediately preceding sex.
I am not asking rhetorically, facetiously, sardonically, sarcastically. Just because a woman suddenly decided to have sex, does this mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth? And after that, keeping the child, then doing all the work of feeding, bathing, cleaning, and raising the child?
No, of course not. That's why post-coitus conception inhibitor Plan B exists. There is a small window of time, experts estimate 72 hours, AFTER a woman has sex during which she can still decide whether or not she wants to become pregnant. She still has time during which she can prevent conception from happening. After she has already had sex, she still fully has the option to prevent a zygote from forming.
So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?
Let us say a woman neglects to use any type of birth control prior to having sex, and also fails to use Plan B. Let us say she is still within the first three weeks following conception.
Just because a woman neglected to use any type of pre-coitus birth control as well as post-coitus birth control, does that mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?
No, of course not. That is why the abortion pill RU-486 exists.
So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?
Let us say a woman neglected to use any type of birth control prior to having sex, neglected to use any type of post-coitus birth control (Plan B), didn't bother to get an early-term pregnancy terminator such as the abortion pill, and allowed the pregnancy with the growing fetus to carry on for a few more weeks.
Just because a woman exhibited all that laziness, irresponsibility, callousness, and neglect, does this mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?
No, of course not. That is why the typical surgical abortion procedure, dilation n curettage, exists.
So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?
Now, let us suppose the woman somehow didn't bother to do any of that. She did not take any precautions to prevent pregnancy. Nor could she be bothered take any steps to terminate the pregnancy to ensure that neither society nor she would be stuck with an unwanted infant.
none of this snuck up on her. /ohmygod, the baby just sprung up! it came out of nowhere! it must have been hiding behind that bush the whole entire time! then it just ran out into the street and oops, it's delivery time!//
__even though she had forty weeks to decide. That is actually nine-and-one-half months; it is not actually nine months.
----
We know that a man has no control over a woman's body. He has no right to dictate what she does with her body. She might get rid of the pregnancy, she might keep the pregnancy but get rid of the baby to adoption, she might keep the baby and decide to raise it. Her body, her choice, certainly.
But do you expect me to believe that just because a man randomly has sex with a woman, he automatically consents to monetarily supporting the grown adult woman who is allowing conception which is letting the haploid gametes fuse into one new diploid cell, allowing the zygote to germinate, allowing the zygote to implant to the uterus, making the unilateral decision to keep the pregnancy, making the unilateral decision to carry the pregnancy to term, making the unilateral decision to who should be fully capable of making her own decisions and living her own life, by paying her rent, paying for her food, paying for her clothing, paying for her electricity usage, paying for her water usage, paying for her sewer usage, paying her cell phone bill, being legally and financially shackled and bound to her, being legally and financially shackled and bound to an offspring that he did not consent to have, paying for the offspring's food, paying for the offspring's clothing, paying for the offspring's electricity usage, paying for the offspring's water usage, paying for the offspring's sewer usage, paying the offspring's daycare, paying for the offspring's furniture and school supplies and toys and other household items?
Her body, her choice. Yep. And--
His livelihood, his choice.
His wages for his work are those that he earned with his body, with his hands, with his eyes, with his mind. There is a technicality in that men do not physically get pregnant and therefore any decisions regarding the pregnancy are solely the female's. But the court and police systems have effectively become jackbooted thugs that force men to metaphorically support a pregnancy for twenty-one years.
You expect me to believe that if the man doesn't agree, well, too bad, he has no choice, his livelihood and his earned living will be forcibly taken from him by way of what amounts to legalized theft? Having his wages garnished for the next twenty-one years or face jail time?
All this just because the man had sex?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment