Poll of the Day > Judge is CONFLICTED on a GUY Suing his EX GF for ABORTING THEIR CHILD!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Alabama Judge Chris Corner is in a corner on whether or not to dimiss a lawsuit against a man's wrongful death suit against the clinic that performed his ex gf's ABORTION!!

21 y/o Ryan Magers is filing on behalf of his aborted child against the Alabama Women's Centre and the maker of the abortion inducing medication that used to terminate his ex's pregnancy

He and his ex were both teenagers when she got pregnant in 2017 and he BEGGED her not to have an abortion but she did it anyway when she was 6 weeks as the case made national headlines which is the first in American history to move forward with the estate of the aborted embryo

The judge heard arguments on both sides but hsa yet to make a ruling to dimiss as he asked both to submit proposed orders within 2 weeks to make a decision

He expressed skepticism on wrongful death stating the impact of the ruling in Magers favour would be "chaos" because it would give the green light to sue abortion provideres and Roe V Wade

Magers complaint is vague and would have to be amended but he expects whatever decision he makes will be appealed

Brent Helms, the attorney for Magers said "There's never been a case like this in the United States of America, it didn' get dismissed, we have the opportunity to move forward. We are really excited. We're confdient. We decided to proceed solely under him being named the personal representative of the estate. For the first time in history of America the aborted child has been able to move forward with this case"

Magers convinced Madison County Probate Judge, Frank Barger to allow to list the terminated fetus "Baby Roe"

Magers said his aborted child's rights to life were violated as the State of Alabama recognized Baby Roe is a person as the laws allow for Baby Roe's personal representative...

Attorney Sara Tucker for the women's clinic said there was no wrongful act because the abortion was legal and said deciding in favour of the plaintiff would create a dangerous precedent affecting all women seeking abortions

They hope this reaches the Supreme Court and overturn Roe V Wade as it will be the first to force the judges to make a decision and with a strong anti-abortion majority, Conservatives may have found their golden opportunity

Alabama passed the most restrictive anti-abortion bill in the country as it is felony punishing up to 99 years in prison as all abortions, including incest and rape are illegal

Do you think this Kid has rights or does his ex have the final say?

Judge - Conflicted



Ryan - Conservative





Conservative Oinker Lawyer -



Clinic -


---

Of course it's fucking Alabama.
---

Full Throttle posted...

Do you think this kid has a right to have his child born despite his g/f wanting an abortion?

Nope. Nobody should be forced to have a kid they don't want and ultimately it's the gals body so her choice.
---

Well, it's long overdue that men are recognized as having some rights. If women can choose to obligate men to pay for a kid they don't want, men should be allowed to obligate women for a pregnancy they don't want. Two keys to launch that missile.
---

Taily_Po posted...

If women can choose to obligate men to pay for a kid they don't want, men should be allowed to obligate women for a pregnancy they don't want. Two keys to launch that missile.

Yes because paying for life you created is the same as pregnancy, child birth and all the stuff that comes with it.
Still it's nothing more than selfishness to want a kid that the other doesn't regardless.
---

I feel bad for the kid but it's ultimately the woman's decision.
---

I believe in legal paternal surrender (and even that I'm iffy on), but to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is all kinds of nope. Male and female reproductive commitments are not equal, therefore they do not have equal say in the matter.
---

No

BUT...In the opposite case, where the woman wants the kid and the dad does not, he shouldn't be forced to be responsible for it, financially and in all other ways.

Currently, abortion law is unbalanced and sexist. Nobody should be forced to support a child if they don't want to have one, man or woman.

streamofthesky posted...

No

BUT...In the opposite case, where the woman wants the kid and the dad does not, he shouldn't be forced to be responsible for it, financially and in all other ways.

Currently, abortion law is unbalanced and sexist. Nobody should be forced to support a child if they don't want to have one, man or woman.

I actually agree with that. I think there should be a way to cut all ties. Like, you can't see the kid or have any say in anything, but you don't have to pay child support... I would like this, tbh...
---

There is nothing to be conflicted over.

wwinterj25 posted...

Taily_Po posted...

If women can choose to obligate men to pay for a kid they don't want, men should be allowed to obligate women for a pregnancy they don't want. Two keys to launch that missile.

Yes because paying for life you created is the same as pregnancy, child birth and all the stuff that comes with it.
Still it's nothing more than selfishness to want a kid that the other doesn't regardless.

Just like it's selfish for that kid to want to be alive, right? >_> At any rate, if a man can't compel a woman to have an abort his child then he's being deprived of his reproductive rights. And it's somewhat telling that the arguments against men in this arena are IDENTICAL to most of the ones used to forbid women from having abortions. But hey, if you don't want a man to have a say then don't obligate him to pay for the child if he doesn't want it.

BlackScythe0 posted...

There is nothing to be conflicted over.

Of course not, the man should be allowed to sue.
---

Taily_Po posted...

Of course not, the man should be allowed to sue.

He has no grounds on which to sue.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Taily_Po posted...

Of course not, the man should be allowed to sue.

He has no grounds on which to sue.

Clearly his equal protection rights were violated.
---

Keebs05 posted...

I feel bad for the kid but it's ultimately the woman's decision.

This

streamofthesky posted...

BUT...In the opposite case, where the woman wants the kid and the dad does not, he shouldn't be forced to be responsible for it, financially and in all other ways.

Also this
---

streamofthesky posted...

No

BUT...In the opposite case, where the woman wants the kid and the dad does not, he shouldn't be forced to be responsible for it, financially and in all other ways.

Currently, abortion law is unbalanced and sexist. Nobody should be forced to support a child if they don't want to have one, man or woman.

This. Women want their cake and they want to eat it too. Laws are too biased toward women. Let's see the strength and independence from women that they claim to have.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

streamofthesky posted...

No

BUT...In the opposite case, where the woman wants the kid and the dad does not, he shouldn't be forced to be responsible for it, financially and in all other ways.

Currently, abortion law is unbalanced and sexist. Nobody should be forced to support a child if they don't want to have one, man or woman.

This. Women want their cake and they want to eat it too. Laws are too biased toward women. Let's see the strength and independence from women that they claim to have.

Couldn't agree more. If they want to keep the child the can pay for it themselves. Even worse that judges are able to force men who are not biologically the father to pay child support.

he isnt allowed to be emotionally stressed
---

LinkPizza posted...

streamofthesky posted...

No

BUT...In the opposite case, where the woman wants the kid and the dad does not, he shouldn't be forced to be responsible for it, financially and in all other ways.

Currently, abortion law is unbalanced and sexist. Nobody should be forced to support a child if they don't want to have one, man or woman.

I actually agree with that. I think there should be a way to cut all ties. Like, you can't see the kid or have any say in anything, but you don't have to pay child support... I would like this, tbh...

This. That's a decision he should have to make as early as possible, so the mother can make an informed decision about whether or not to abort, and this naturally must be paired with readily available abortions, but being able to cut all ties with and responsibility for the child would be the male equivalent of an abortion.

As for suing the doctors that performed the procedure and the company that made the drugs, this guy's grasping at straws and I doubt this will go anywhere because they acted perfectly legally. At least, I would doubt that this would go anywhere if it were happening anywhere but Alabama. Because it's Alabama, it could really go either way.
---

God, this guy is such a tool. I feel bad for the woman he is torturing over this. Make a new fucking zygote, fucking idiot.
---

No, he should have no say.
---

Taily_Po posted...

Just like it's selfish for that kid to want to be alive, right? >_>

Why are you assuming it wants to be alive? Did you ask it?
My point was more about the kid having a parent that doesn't want it though. Ideally having both parents in a kids life is the best. Knowingly making yourself a single parent is selfish.

Taily_Po posted...

But hey, if you don't want a man to have a say then don't obligate him to pay for the child if he doesn't want it.

.. or he could simply not create life he doesn't want. "Accidents happen!"? Then tough shit.
---

Roe V Wade is law of the land. Period.

wwinterj25 posted...

Why are you assuming it wants to be alive? Did you ask it?
My point was more about the kid having a parent that doesn't want it though. Ideally having both parents in a kids life is the best.

So men should have abortion rights?

wwinterj25 posted...

.. or he could simply not create life he doesn't want. "Accidents happen!"? Then tough shit.

Then she shouldn't have abortion rights either? It goes both ways, remember to consider all perspectives before you speak.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

So men should have abortion rights?
.

No, Kyuubi, remember how it works; you need to see it from the perspective of an idiotic feminist:

-The man shall be held accountable for participating in creating a life if it's for the sake of him paying child support or for or anything to the strong, independent woman.

-The man, however, shall not be held in account for creating a life if it goes against the wish of the woman.
---

Taily_Po posted...

Just like it's selfish for that kid to want to be alive, right? >_> At any rate, if a man can't compel a woman to have an abort his child then he's being deprived of his reproductive rights. And it's somewhat telling that the arguments against men in this arena are IDENTICAL to most of the ones used to forbid women from having abortions. But hey, if you don't want a man to have a say then don't obligate him to pay for the child if he doesn't want it.

Your argument makes absolutely no sense. You cannot be compelled to donate your blood, your kidney, or anything else to save a life. Even if this refusal directly causes a person's death, it is not murder. So why do you believe that women can be compelled to donate their uterus against their will? Why do you believe that a man with no legal authority over a woman's medical decisions (or even any legal relationship to her) should able to force her to literally risk her health and her life? That's not an exaggeration, btw--the US has the worst maternal mortality statistics of the developed world. There is no equivalency between a woman making medical decisions about her own body and a man trying to control that woman's medical decisions. Or would you be fine with a law mandating vasectomies? A man's reproductive rights are over his body alone, no one else's. And Mr. "welfare is pure loss," you want taxpayers to be on the hook for even MORE irresponsible men? Seriously? For crying out loud, even the Code of Hammurabi had provisions for child support.

The_tall_midget posted...

This. Women want their cake and they want to eat it too. Laws are too biased toward women. Let's see the strength and independence from women that they claim to have.

Yeah, God forbid that men take responsibility for their decision to ejaculate inside a woman with no condom. Asking them to pay a small fraction of the childcare cost is just selfish and ridiculous.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Full Throttle posted...

Do you think this kid has a right to have his child born despite his g/f wanting an abortion?

Nope. Nobody should be forced to have a kid they don't want and ultimately it's the gals body so her choice.

tell that to a vast portion of men.
---

Lirishae posted...

Yeah, God forbid that men take responsibility for their decision to ejaculate inside a woman with no condom. Asking them to pay a small fraction of the childcare cost is just selfish and ridiculous.

Thank you for proving my point:

"Men are only going to be hold accountable for conception if it means they have to pay for it. Otherwise, they have no say."

Woman wants to abort: IT'S HER BODY, HER CHOICE!!111!1 THE MAN HAS NO SAY IN THIS!
Woman wants to keep the child or demand child support: SHE'S A VICTIM! THE MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THAT LIFE!

How impressively sexist and biased of you.
---

The_tall_midget posted...

"Men are only going to be hold accountable for conception if it means they have to pay for it. Otherwise, they have no say."

Woman wants to abort: IT'S HER BODY, HER CHOICE!!111!1 THE MAN HAS NO SAY IN THIS!
Woman wants to keep the child or demand child support: SHE'S A VICTIM! THE MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THAT LIFE!

How impressively sexist and biased of you.

Oh, good lord. Your post doesn't even make sense. The man can say whatever he wants. He just can't make medical decisions for a woman and legally compel her to donate her uterus against her will. The woman is not a victim assuming the sex was consensual, but the man is still equally responsible for creating that life. The woman is doing her part by caring for the child and paying the lion's share of costs. If the man does not wish to be held responsible for having children, he should get a vasectomy, wear a condom, or hell, even just pull out. If you do it right, it's actually pretty effective.
---

Lirishae posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

"Men are only going to be hold accountable for conception if it means they have to pay for it. Otherwise, they have no say."

Woman wants to abort: IT'S HER BODY, HER CHOICE!!111!1 THE MAN HAS NO SAY IN THIS!
Woman wants to keep the child or demand child support: SHE'S A VICTIM! THE MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THAT LIFE!

How impressively sexist and biased of you.

Oh, good lord. Your post doesn't even make sense. The man can say whatever he wants. He just can't make medical decisions for a woman and legally compel her to donate her uterus against her will. The woman is not a victim assuming the sex was consensual, but the man is still equally responsible for creating that life. The woman is doing her part by caring for the child and paying the lion's share of costs. If the man does not wish to be held responsible for having children, he should get a vasectomy, wear a condom, or hell, even just pull out. If you do it right, it's actually pretty effective.

Or just cut all ties. I believe that should be an acceptable condition. No child support, but also cant see, talk to, or have any authority over the child...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Or just cut all ties. I believe that should be an acceptable condition. No child support, but also cant see, talk to, or have any authority over the child...

Yes, but that would make it so that the man has actual rights and choices, and as Lirishae is skillfully refusing to admit, we can't have that! Because, as we know, it's a woman's body and her choice... until comes the time to hold someone accountable, then apparently only men have access to anti-contraceptives or are responsible for conception.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Or just cut all ties. I believe that should be an acceptable condition. No child support, but also cant see, talk to, or have any authority over the child...

How is it fair that a man can participate in bringing a child into the world, and be let off with zero consequences? Don't you think that will just encourage more men to be irresponsible, when all they have to do is sign away their parental rights?

The_tall_midget posted...

Yes, but that would make it so that the man has actual rights and choices, and as Lirishae is skillfully refusing to admit, we can't have that! Because, as we know, it's a woman's body and her choice... until comes the time to hold someone accountable, then apparently only men have access to anti-contraceptives or are responsible for conception.

It's absolutely laughable that you think "actual rights" for men is being able to make medical decisions for women. Also, I'm guessing you missed the part where I mentioned equal responsibility. The woman is already doing her part by caring for the child and paying the lion's share of the cost. You and others are balking at the idea that men should have to pay a fraction of that even though biologically speaking, they are the doers here. A woman can have all the sex that she wants, but won't get pregnant unless a man chooses to forego a condom and ejaculate inside her. Yes, a woman does have a responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and many are doing just that. 60% of child-bearing age women use birth control, but only 15-19% of men use condoms reliably. The pill has a higher failure rate than using a condom, which is 98% effective when used correctly (slightly less when used incorrectly). Also, around half of the women who get abortions report using contraceptives in the month they got pregnant.

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/third-u-s-men-use-condoms-not-every-time-n791426

https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2018/about-half-us-abortion-patients-report-using-contraception-month-they-became

Not only are women doing the majority of the work to prevent pregnancies, it's much harder for women than it is for men. Birth control for women requires a doctor's prescription, isn't always affordable, and the side effects can be brutal, even life-threatening. Surgical solutions are invasive and irreversible. Birth control for men is a condom that can easily and cheaply be bought 24/7, while vasectomies are simple procedures that can usually but not always be reversed. There's also the fact that men can get dozens, even hundreds of women pregnant in the span of time it takes a woman to have one baby. Clearly, men are the ones not holding up their fair share of the responsibility here. But somehow I suspect you will continue to blame women anyway.
---

Kimbos_Egg posted...

tell that to a vast portion of men.

When men get pregnant I will.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

So men should have abortion rights?

Correct.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Then she shouldn't have abortion rights either? It goes both ways, remember to consider all perspectives before you speak.

First I'm typing so at least get your facts right. Second it's her body and her choice so wrong yet again. Although yeah she should be using contraception too if she doesn't want a kid. I'm also against using abortion as birth control but eh it's better than having a unwanted kid.

The bottom line is if she decides to keep the kid then the bloke should indeed pay for the life he helped create even if he doesn't want it. If she doesn't then the problem goes away. The guy wants to keep the kid due to his own selfish reasons? Tough. Why? Men don't get pregnant. Although I've already said it's selfish for either the guy or gal to have the kid when one doesn't want it but that doesn't change anything. Forcing someone to do something with their own body and go through all the shit that comes with pregnancy is not ok whatever way you dress it up as.
---

Lirishae posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Or just cut all ties. I believe that should be an acceptable condition. No child support, but also cant see, talk to, or have any authority over the child...

How is it fair that a man can participate in bringing a child into the world, and be let off with zero consequences? Don't you think that will just encourage more men to be irresponsible, when all they have to do is sign away their parental rights?

I think the woman should be able to do it, too. But most women who dont want one will have the abortion. Though, now that some places are trying to make it illegal, there will probably be more women who want to cut ties, as well. And I think either parent should be able to do it.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

First I'm typing so at least get your facts right. Second it's her body and her choice so wrong yet again. Although yeah she should be using contraception too if she doesn't want a kid. I'm also against using abortion as birth control but eh it's better than having a unwanted kid.

The bottom line is if she decides to keep the kid then the bloke should indeed pay for the life he helped create even if he doesn't want it. If she doesn't then the problem goes away. The guy wants to keep the kid due to his own selfish reasons? Tough. Why? Men don't get pregnant. Although I've already said it's selfish for either the guy or gal to have the kid when one doesn't want it but that doesn't change anything. Forcing someone to do something with their own body and go through all the shit that comes with pregnancy is not ok whatever way you dress it up as.

You just said:

wwinterj25 posted...

Correct.

to

Kyuubi4269 posted...

men should have abortion rights?

So how does that work? Women have complete control over the abortion, but men have rights in principle that are overruled by the woman in 100% of cases?

You can't say everybody has the same rights but some are more rights than others.
---

LinkPizza posted...

I think the woman should be able to do it, too. But most women who dont want one will have the abortion. Though, now that some places are trying to make it illegal, there will probably be more women who want to cut ties, as well. And I think either parent should be able to do it.

Giving up your parental rights is already a thing. But rights are separate from financial obligations, which aren't usually terminated unless the child is being adopted.
---

Lirishae posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I think the woman should be able to do it, too. But most women who dont want one will have the abortion. Though, now that some places are trying to make it illegal, there will probably be more women who want to cut ties, as well. And I think either parent should be able to do it.

Giving up your parental rights is already a thing. But rights are separate from financial obligations, which aren't usually terminated unless the child is being adopted.

The UK isn't the same as everywhere.

Also our system is pretty fucked up. Men can choose to have no rights to their children (or not be told they can have them) but be forced to be obligated to them regardless. If you're going to force somebody to be obligated, you should give them the rights expected from that obligation.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Lirishae posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I think the woman should be able to do it, too. But most women who dont want one will have the abortion. Though, now that some places are trying to make it illegal, there will probably be more women who want to cut ties, as well. And I think either parent should be able to do it.

Giving up your parental rights is already a thing. But rights are separate from financial obligations, which aren't usually terminated unless the child is being adopted.

The UK isn't the same as everywhere.

Also our system is pretty fucked up. Men can choose to have no rights to their children (or not be told they can have them) but be forced to be obligated to them regardless. If you're going to force somebody to be obligated, you should give them the rights expected from that obligation.

That's how it is in the US. Judges generally rule based on what's in the best interest of the child, not the convenience of the parents. It's rare for them to decide that stopping child support payments are in a child's best interest. At the same time, the judge can also decide it's best for the child not to see the non-custodial parent.
---

Lirishae posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Lirishae posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I think the woman should be able to do it, too. But most women who dont want one will have the abortion. Though, now that some places are trying to make it illegal, there will probably be more women who want to cut ties, as well. And I think either parent should be able to do it.

Giving up your parental rights is already a thing. But rights are separate from financial obligations, which aren't usually terminated unless the child is being adopted.

The UK isn't the same as everywhere.

Also our system is pretty fucked up. Men can choose to have no rights to their children (or not be told they can have them) but be forced to be obligated to them regardless. If you're going to force somebody to be obligated, you should give them the rights expected from that obligation.

That's how it is in the US. Judges generally rule based on what's in the best interest of the child, not the convenience of the parents. It's rare for them to decide that stopping child support payments are in a child's best interest. At the same time, the judge can also decide it's best for the child not to see the non-custodial parent.

The problem is thats not always true. The system leans heavily in favor of women. Not always in favor of the child. They may think its the best choice, but its not always the case. That being said, I dont think they should be forced to pay if they have no rights over the child. Just like in an adoption. But I do think that if they are forced to pay, they should have more rights and such. But as I said, I do believe that either parent should be able to not pay child support if they give up all rights of the child to the other parent...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Lirishae posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Lirishae posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I think the woman should be able to do it, too. But most women who dont want one will have the abortion. Though, now that some places are trying to make it illegal, there will probably be more women who want to cut ties, as well. And I think either parent should be able to do it.

Giving up your parental rights is already a thing. But rights are separate from financial obligations, which aren't usually terminated unless the child is being adopted.

The UK isn't the same as everywhere.

Also our system is pretty fucked up. Men can choose to have no rights to their children (or not be told they can have them) but be forced to be obligated to them regardless. If you're going to force somebody to be obligated, you should give them the rights expected from that obligation.

That's how it is in the US. Judges generally rule based on what's in the best interest of the child, not the convenience of the parents. It's rare for them to decide that stopping child support payments are in a child's best interest. At the same time, the judge can also decide it's best for the child not to see the non-custodial parent.

The problem is thats not always true. The system leans heavily in favor of women. Not always in favor of the child. They may think its the best choice, but its not always the case. That being said, I dont think they should be forced to pay if they have no rights over the child. Just like in an adoption. But I do think that if they are forced to pay, they should have more rights and such. But as I said, I do believe that either parent should be able to not pay child support if they give up all rights of the child to the other parent...

If you want really messed up, my father was paying child support to my mom for 2 years while I was living with him, and my mom only had "visitation" for 4 hours a week. And it wasn't a small amount either, it was like $500 a month (which I think was about 1/4 of his paycheck). That was on top of the $250 a month he had to pay in alimony.
---

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is thats not always true. The system leans heavily in favor of women.

In the overwhelming vast majority of cases, both the mother and father agree that the mother should have primary custody. In those few cases that are contested (less than ten percent), judges tend to keep children with their primary caregiver, which is their mother in the vast majority of cases. This does not equate to being biased in favor of women.

"In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court?

What do these statistics tell us?

1. Fathers are less involved in their children's care during the marriage.

2. Fathers are less involved in their children's lives after divorce.

3. Mothers gain custody because the vast majority of fathers choose to give them custody.

4. There is no Family Court bias in favor of mothers because very few fathers seek custody during divorce."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115
---

Lirishae posted...

In those few cases that are contested (less than ten percent), judges tend to keep children with their primary caregiver, which is their mother in the vast majority of cases. This does not equate to being biased in favor of women.

In the case of a dispute, the man isn't the primary caregiver because he was kicked out of the family house and didn't wait for the police to forcibly evict him, or get arrested for kicking out the mother. This is defaulting to the woman for convenience.
---

Lirishae posted...

In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court?

The undisputed cases aren't relevant, the court is biased when it's involved.

Lirishae posted...

Fathers are less involved in their children's care during the marriage.

If you consider being the breadwinner in the household not caring.

Lirishae posted...

Fathers are less involved in their children's lives after divorce.

It's like there's a person standing between them (the mother).

Lirishae posted...

There is no Family Court bias in favor of mothers because very few fathers seek custody during divorce.

See above, not relevant.
---

Lirishae posted...

How is it fair that a man can participate in bringing a child into the world, and be let off with zero consequences? Don't you think that will just encourage more men to be irresponsible, when all they have to do is sign away their parental rights?

"How is it fair that a woman can participate in bringing a child into the world, and be let off with zero consequences? Don't you think that will just encourage more women to be irresponsible, when all they have to do is get an abortion?"

You sound just like all the asinine arguments against women being able to have legal abortions right now. Right down to wanting to use another human's existence as a form of punishment (excuse me, "consequence") for perceived promiscuous behavior.

Lirishae posted...

You and others are balking at the idea that men should have to pay a fraction of that even though biologically speaking, they are the doers here. A woman can have all the sex that she wants, but won't get pregnant unless a man chooses to forego a condom and ejaculate inside her. Yes, a woman does have a responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and many are doing just that. 60% of child-bearing age women use birth control, but only 15-19% of men use condoms reliably. The pill has a higher failure rate than using a condom, which is 98% effective when used correctly (slightly less when used incorrectly). Also, around half of the women who get abortions report using contraceptives in the month they got pregnant.

And this is just...wow....
There are female contraceptives, too. And if a condom isn't used, it could be that *both* figure the pill is enough and/or would rather not use one. It doesn't just feel better for the guy w/o one...
And yeah, Plan B and abortions both exist for when the other methods fail. But it's all the guy's fault.

Lirishae posted...

Not only are women doing the majority of the work to prevent pregnancies, it's much harder for women than it is for men. Birth control for women requires a doctor's prescription, isn't always affordable, and the side effects can be brutal, even life-threatening. Surgical solutions are invasive and irreversible. Birth control for men is a condom that can easily and cheaply be bought 24/7, while vasectomies are simple procedures that can usually but not always be reversed. There's also the fact that men can get dozens, even hundreds of women pregnant in the span of time it takes a woman to have one baby. Clearly, men are the ones not holding up their fair share of the responsibility here. But somehow I suspect you will continue to blame women anyway.

If a woman cares so much about this, she can insist on the condom use and even keep some on her own person, their sale isn't restricted to men. It's just as inexpensive for them to buy, is it not?
Why am I even seriously debating w/ someone trying to sell a vasectomy as no big deal for a guy to undergo, though?

Lirishae posted...

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is thats not always true. The system leans heavily in favor of women.

In the overwhelming vast majority of cases, both the mother and father agree that the mother should have primary custody. In those few cases that are contested (less than ten percent), judges tend to keep children with their primary caregiver, which is their mother in the vast majority of cases. This does not equate to being biased in favor of women.

"In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court?

What do these statistics tell us?

1. Fathers are less involved in their children's care during the marriage.

2. Fathers are less involved in their children's lives after divorce.

3. Mothers gain custody because the vast majority of fathers choose to give them custody.

4. There is no Family Court bias in favor of mothers because very few fathers seek custody during divorce."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115

The 91% who give up custody probably do because the courts heavily lean in favor to the woman. Meaning a lot of wasted money and time all for them to not have custody. The proof is in what you said yourself. For the 9%-10% that do go to court, they stay with primary caregiver which is usually the mother. Also, if we are talking about the courts leaning heavily in favor of the woman, only the custody battles that go to court usually count. If you want to count the settlement cases, you can. But those seem to go well for the mother, too...

But some of the other posters said some of the things I wanted to say. Probably shouldnt just repeat the same things over and over...
---

The_tall_midget posted...

anti-contraceptives

What is this supposed to mean?
---

adjl posted...

The_tall_midget posted...

anti-contraceptives

What is this supposed to mean?

Maybe fertility pills?
---

Kyuubi4269: When I searched for bias against men, most articles I found stated that custody decisions were made amicably between the mother and father. The court was asked to settle only 4%. Out of that 4%, only 1.5% actually wound up being settled by the court. That is an awfully tiny number to be arguing about. Out of those that alleged bias, most were anecdotal or stated the bias was toward other things, like being in favor of the cooperative parent, or biased toward traditional gender roles (women are nurturers, men are breadwinners). If you have meaningful sources to back up your claims, please do.

LinkPizza: Please provide a source for your claim.

streamofthesky posted...

"How is it fair that a woman can participate in bringing a child into the world, and be let off with zero consequences? Don't you think that will just encourage more women to be irresponsible, when all they have to do is get an abortion?"

Apples and oranges, but if you read my previous post, the majority of women are doing their part to prevent pregnancy by using birth control. Men are not. In many cases, getting an abortion is time consuming and expensive. Very few women opt to use it as glorified birth control.

streamofthesky posted...

You sound just like all the asinine arguments against women being able to have legal abortions right now. Right down to wanting to use another human's existence as a form of punishment (excuse me, "consequence") for perceived promiscuous behavior.

I'm not talking about punishing anyone. I'm talking about who should be obligated to care for a child that's been born, ethically speaking. I believe both parents have this obligation, and that it's disingenuous to argue that men should be allowed to flout this responsibility.

streamofthesky posted...

And this is just...wow....
There are female contraceptives, too. And if a condom isn't used, it could be that *both* figure the pill is enough and/or would rather not use one. It doesn't just feel better for the guy w/o one...
And yeah, Plan B and abortions both exist for when the other methods fail. But it's all the guy's fault.

You clearly didn't even read what I wrote. I wrote about both male and female contraceptive use, and documented how the majority of women use it while men very often don't.

streamofthesky posted...

If a woman cares so much about this, she can insist on the condom use and even keep some on her own person, their sale isn't restricted to men. It's just as inexpensive for them to buy, is it not?

There's no point in buying them if men won't wear them.

streamofthesky posted...

Why am I even seriously debating w/ someone trying to sell a vasectomy as no big deal for a guy to undergo, though?

I was trying to point out that it's wrong to make reproductive decisions for other people. This apparently went over your head, much like everything else I wrote.
---

Lirishae posted...

The court was asked to settle only 4%. Out of that 4%, only 1.5% actually wound up being settled by the court. That is an awfully tiny number to be arguing about. Out of those that alleged bias, most were anecdotal or stated the bias was toward other things, like being in favor of the cooperative parent, or biased toward traditional gender roles (women are nurturers, men are breadwinners).

I don't think it's matters how many were settled in court. What was said was that the courts favor the mother more. It doesn't matter if it were 100 court battle or 10000. But based on the evidence you provided, it seems like they do favor the mother more. Even with the last sentence in the quoted area.

Lirishae posted...

LinkPizza: Please provide a source for your claim.

For which part?

Lirishae posted...

There's no point in buying them if men won't wear them.

Maybe they would if they had them. Maybe they ran out, or left them at home thinking they would go back home. I know many women who keep condoms. And they can also say no to sex if the guy won't wear one...
---

LinkPizza posted...

And they can also say no to sex if the guy won't wear one...

Wasn't there an issue of an increase of guys slipping them off in the middle of things at one point? I swear I read before that that had become a problem though.

ChaosAzeroth posted...

LinkPizza posted...

And they can also say no to sex if the guy won't wear one...

Wasn't there an issue of an increase of guys slipping them off in the middle of things at one point? I swear I read before that that had become a problem though.

It's called Stealthing. And in Sweden, if a male does that, it's considered rape. Well, it's stealthing if they take it off without the consent of the female...
---