Even though this thread has gone off topic as DrunkMonkey rightly points out, it has brought out some very important male/female issues which should not be ignored.

However, let me specifically address the question, "Does the man have the right to force the woman to carry a child if she does not want to?"

Well evidently, (from a legal perspective) No he doesn’t.

The law does not give me legal recourse to make a woman carry (and deliver) my child against her wishes. The law does not see fit to assume such rights over a woman’s body. However, paradoxically, the law gives her the legal recourse to make me provide (financial at least) for a child which she has against my wishes.

We can argue the senselessness of this double standard until we are blue in the face, but the bottom line is, that is how things stand. Knowing that is how things stands makes me, personally, think carefully about the situations I allow myself to get into.

Anyway, let me play devils advocate for a moment and turn this thing on its head.

I am making my points without going into the pro/against ‘right to abortion’ question….I am not getting into a pro-life debate here.

Therefore the question for me is this:

Is it fair, in the conception of a child (involving two consenting adults), for the woman to have the absolute right to determine if that conception then results in both she and the man becoming parents?

Is it also fair to ‘expect’ him, the man, to take on his parental responsibilities following the birth of a child he did not want brought into life, but yet had no ‘right’ to choose whether said child should be brought into life?

Now, if you are going to say, "Ah, but he did have a say. He had the say whether to sleep (putting it politely) with the woman or not", I would turn it back to you and say "Well is that not so for the woman also?

So why the disparity in rights?

Shouldn’t she have no choice but to accept (without legal recourse) the man’s decision not to take on parental responsibility for a child he did not want, in the same way he has no choice but to accept (i.e. without legal recourse) that she can give birth to a child he does not want or prevent the birth of one he does want?

You (well some of you) admonish the man from ignoring his ‘responsibility’ for the child outside of the womb, but you do not admonish the woman (it’s her body you say) for ignoring her ‘responsibility’ for the child inside the womb. Why? Because you see it as a living being outside of the womb, but a non-entity inside the womb?

However, the man announces that he does not want it before it was outside of the womb, but yet it is deemed that ‘it must be’ irrespective of his wishes. When the woman decides she does not want it before it is outside of the womb, she has the ‘right’ to have her wishes met.

[font=arial]Remember now, they both had a say in the act that led to this situation and if you are going to use the maxim of ‘free choice’ to hook the man to the consequences that flow from the act (i.e. her becoming pregnant and choosing to have the child) you must surely hook the woman by it also (i.e. her having the baby and he not supporting it post birth). Isn’t this fair?

Sure, it is bad news for the child whichever way you look at it…this innocent party has no say in anything. Doesn’t life suck?

Sothough this seemingly unfair state of affairs may look out for the woman’s interest in those situations where ‘unscrupulous-no-good-man-dem’ just ‘shoot their bolt and gone’ it does nothing to cater to the interest of the ‘good-man-dem’ who want to have this child and take care of it when she chooses to make a decision against his wishes. By the way the argument that this situation is very rare and it is usually the case that it is the man who doesn’t want the child, is irrelevant. One should not base a principle on the number of ‘likely’ occurrences that would justify it, but on the merits of the principle from an ethical, moral, fair and balanced perspective. If something is unfair, it is unfair, irrespective of the low number of those who may suffer from its unfairness.

So, I would contend that you cannot talk about the ‘woman’s right to choose what happens to her body (though I can agree with the logic of that principle) in isolation from the ‘man’s right to have some choice as to what to do following her making her choice. A bit of a conundrum I know, but how can we allow for a state of affairs where the situation began with both sides having equal say (to have sex or not have sex) and ends with the choices lying in the hands of one side predominantly?

Now taking off my ‘Devils Advocate’ hat and putting on my ‘Backatya’s self-opinionated hat’……and also moving off topic again….

I strongly believe in the principle of personal responsibility. Furthermore, I believe that where the ‘consequences’ of a particular outcome are known from the outset to fall disproportionately in one area (e.g. on the man’s side or the woman’s side) there is an encumbrance on the interested party (i.e. the one likely to feel the brunt most) to take extra care to avoid said consequences, irrespective of the fact that the ‘other side’ has a responsibility also.

So the way I look at it, if I know a particular outcome could be real bad news for me, I take extra care to avoid it, and rely more on ME, than someone else to see that I avoid that outcome. So if I am not willing to face the future with a particular woman being the mother of my child I would not take the ‘risk’ of getting her pregnant. Just because she says she is on the pill is not enough. I have to weigh that up against what I know about her and how much I trust her. Then if I do take said risk and, despite my safeguards, pregnancy does occur, I know I have to face the fact that this woman may use that pregnancy/child as a tool against me. My bad luck and/or poor, unfortunate judgement I guess. Likewise, if I just follow the call of my loins, then tough on me. I have to be strong enough to face the ‘consequences’ since I was not strong enough to by-pass the ‘goodies’. This principle applies equally to women.



The thing is that the ‘burden’ of pregnancy falls heavier on the woman because, despite paternity laws, the man can more easily walk away than her. This knowledge is one that leads many men to take on the ‘risk of pregnancy’ in situations where they clearly have no desire to conceive a child from.

Now if the ‘burden’ of pregnancy was more heavily weighted against the man, you can bet that the risk would not be taken so lightly. Yeah, a lot of you women are probably shaking your head in agreement at this…right?

So, I ask you. Why, with the knowledge that the burden is more heavily weighted against them, don’t (some) women have the same regard for protecting themselves, that men would most likely have if the situation was reversed?

Could it be that women look at the risk differently? Could it be that there are many women who (naively/stupidly) believe that the pregnancy would make the man come to heel? Another debate most probably.

Now for those of you who claim that the above puts all the responsibility on the woman and none on the man who is free to ‘walk away from his responsibility’ I contend that you have missed the point.

The point is that it is a fact of life (as things currently stand) that in matters of conception and child birth women bear the heavier burden. Nature and ‘Society’s conventions’ dictate that to be so. That ‘fact of life’ cannot or should not be ignored by women when it comes to the choices and decisions they make. Cries of ‘unfair burden’ or for ‘seeking parity with men’ may on principle have merit but one still has to deal with the way things stand, even whilst actively fighting to have them changed.

As they stand woman cannot get away from the fact that they automatically have to take greater care to ‘avoid’ consequences that fall more heavily on them, whether or not men are just as responsible for those consequences. Also when claiming a ‘right’ aimed at protecting YOUR ‘interest’ in the event of those consequences, be then prepared to accept ‘extra responsibility’ as the price for that right.

Respect

I cant quite believe wot i am reading . Fredblack states the violent restribution that he/his brother/family want to commit upon this gal cos of her scheming to have a baby. Granted wot she did was wrong, but wot about the brother who is supposed to be committed to another woman but cant keep his tings in his trousers. Did this gal tie him up and rape him? Wot happened to "im sorry i dont want u - leave me alone"

I agree that wot the gal did to scheme to get wot she wanted wasnt right, but these people call themselves men - if that is the action of a man lawd help us. The only reason they wanted this child gone was so that the brothers business didnt come out and his girls family come looking to lynch him.

If man dont want to get caught like this then he needs to learn to keep his tings to himself - the gal cannot get pregnant with ur baby if u dont have sex with her yannoblkfingerwag

RAHTID!

is this about responsibilty after the baby is born, or rights of man to have a choice in abortion.

RAHTID!

Sir Fredblacks name been called out not once but twice........................oh he must be in buisness, or with flu or sumtin cause i know Mr Black won't remain quiet when his name beens called..........................lord help us with the oncoming onslaught of black women.
blkhide
blkhide

Wifeable
I didnt see that post you were responding to in the first place, lets just say even though it will be going on after we are dead (which is a long time) and though I differ on the reasons, I still think it's boring.

Noir
My bad. Sorry. Never saw THAT one...

@ Noir and Wifeable,clp).



As was already stated, I believe that a man's responsibilities for a child, should begin at birth, just as his rights begin at that point. It may not seem fair, in a situation where he was against the child being born, but it doesn't seem fair to me that women should have to bear the brunt of pregnancy and childbirth,exclusively...such is life.

Having said that, if I were to find myself in a situation like this, and made a decision to have the child against the man's wishes, I WOULD NOT pursue him for child support. Like I stated in an earlier post, I refuse to spend my time and energy chasing some "sorry nigga down for child support", I said that and I meant that. Any man that I would have to beg,cajole, threaten, to do what he should be willing to step up and do of his own free will,(regardless of his feelings about my choice), is severely lacking in some essential qualities and is someone who I would not want in my child's life,(and whenmy child grows up to besome hellafied rich athlete like Shaq, the sperm donor better keep his sorry ass under whatever rock he was hiding under,lol)

I've known women who didn't want to have a child, planned an abortion, couldn't get one for one reason or another, but once the child is born they step up and do what's right.They suck it up and deal with it, not bitch and whine about how they never wanted the child anyway, so why should they have to make sacrifices. Afterall, it is because of their decisions/behavior that the child is here. For me, that is what separates the women from the girls.

Continued....

and what should separate the men from the boys.