Sex Differences in Reproductive Rights

I can't get on the weekend, so havent read the thread, but thought I'd drop my immediate thoughts (what could go wrong doing that!?) anway :silly:
I don't think the parents create the child - but that the child creates itself within the mother, from the mother. She can help this process, hinder it, or stop it, but either ways she has to endure it and its consequences. To compare the required involvements in the process leading up to birth between parents tends to leave the father left standing with a minute and pleasurable limited to the first moment - compared to 9 months of physically demanding, life changing and potentially life threatening experience of motherhood. So there is that, but how does that relate to the 'human' that pops out becomes more tricky. There can be no doubt she will have a massively larger psychological investment (positive or negative) as a result of those above differences, so it would seem apathetic to deny that aspect. But I do agree custodial responsibilities should be for both as the adults creating the circumstance for life to develop - especially given the nature of burden the carrying mother must endure in regards to capacity to work etc during pregnancy. Most of the existing laws are probably carry over from many cultural realities which represented from that nuclear family, and its subsequent breakdown. So it's easy to see how things might exist to favour the mother, given it is not even one generation from the times of female workplace 'oppression' which required the feminist movement. A lot of those things might still exist which could cause the stats to show this.... meaning it might not be a systematic problem with the laws but rather a cultural problem within society still. So I really think it has to be a case by case basis, and a good court system needs to have the resources to be able to make the fair call based on the reality of each case.

Adder wrote: I can't get on the weekend, so havent read the thread, but thought I'd drop my immediate thoughts (what could go wrong doing that!?) anway :silly:
I don't think the parents create the child - but that the child creates itself within the mother, from the mother. She can help this process, hinder it, or stop it, but either ways she has to endure it and its consequences. To compare the required involvements in the process leading up to birth between parents tends to leave the father left standing with a minute and pleasurable limited to the first moment - compared to 9 months of physically demanding, life changing and potentially life threatening experience of motherhood. So there is that, but how does that relate to the 'human' that pops out becomes more tricky. There can be no doubt she will have a massively larger psychological investment (positive or negative) as a result of those above differences, so it would seem apathetic to deny that aspect. But I do agree custodial responsibilities should be for both as the adults creating the circumstance for life to develop - especially given the nature of burden the carrying mother must endure in regards to capacity to work etc during pregnancy. Most of the existing laws are probably carry over from many cultural realities which represented from that nuclear family, and its subsequent breakdown. So it's easy to see how things might exist to favour the mother, given it is not even one generation from the times of female workplace 'oppression' which required the feminist movement. A lot of those things might still exist which could cause the stats to show this.... meaning it might not be a systematic problem with the laws but rather a cultural problem within society still. So I really think it has to be a case by case basis, and a good court system needs to have the resources to be able to make the fair call based on the reality of each case.

Not too shabby. Haha

and a good court system needs to have the resources to be able to make the fair call based on the reality of each case.

So....not in favour of knee jerk reactions and one-size-fits-all judicial decisions?


You'll never get far in politics with that stance....

I don't know if it has been mentioned yet (I haven't waded through the entirety of this thread yet) but I feel like there is a key point missing here.

The law was made to protect woman from Abusive Situations. In the case of rape and other similar scenarios.

Because, lets be honest here. If you are a happily married couple facing the concerns of a child too soon - Communication is kind of the obvious "Duh" I should think? Hope? If you as wife and husband are not talking about tough things then....why are you a couple?

Quick life experience in the spoilers



But if the couple is NOT a happy couple. The law is there to help abused woman make the decisions she needs. Because come on. Your a man. You say you had a part in the conception but how difficult was that part you played in....really? Without being too crass, you got your rocks off, rolled over and went to sleep. I'm pretty sure you can do it again, as many times as you like and have a whole brood of children should you choose. (It happens far too commonly) Its easy for a man to step away from the responsibility before legal bindings take hold - Not so much so for woman. It is much more complicated for us once that seed plants.

But that's just how I feel on the matter. Ultimately it is not the mans place to make that decision....unless you are in a binding relationship where you are supposed to be communicating and making decisions with each other anyways.

In the UK pretty much any random woman can make any random claim about any random man. If for whatever reason the man cannot either afford to finance the test or in cases obtain consent from the mother for the child's dna testing, or even access the child, he will have to hope the child one day contacts him, agrees to a dna test (once over 18 -- that's the guy's life wasted by that point), and once that crucial piece of evidence has been produced, he can hope to sue for paternity fraud. He'll never get his money back, although if he doesn't pay for child support, he will lose things like the right to hold a passport (as is the case in the US)

Years ago I worked in an environment with night shifts and dangerous working conditions. Not only were the only people working there men, but every single one of them was there because they had some alimony to pay for the cheating ex-wife or child support to pay for children they had no access to. Even the drugs-test doctor who got called following incidents would casually talk with everyone else about his alimony payments and what he'd do once he no longer had to pay them.

Its easy for a man to step away from the responsibility before legal bindings take hold - Not so much so for woman.

Are you having a laugh? Women who have kids despite their best intentions can easily abandon them and have been doing so for the entire recorded human history. The whole "she doesn't have a choice that's why we give her more" line is completely bogus; the ones that don't get rid of their kids actually want to keep them, they don't want the man though, just his money and that is why feminist legislation exists to support his system.

ren wrote: Are you having a laugh?

Errmm....Do I look like I am laughing? 0_o

It's a whole tangled ball of yarn. We could sit here all day arguing scenarios like this one

Women who have kids despite their best intentions can easily abandon them and have been doing so for the entire recorded human history.

Absolutely they can. And they do. That is not the average scenario however.

The whole "she doesn't have a choice that's why we give her more" line is completely bogus;

Where did I, or anyone, say that? 0_o Coz...I seem to recall Abortion is a choice.... And I know I at least have said Woman should have that choice. Sooooo.....Yea....Totally Bogus

the ones that don't get rid of their kids actually want to keep them,

Another senario.........Or the woman don't want to but do so for moral and/or religious reasons. Thats another scenario too.

Scenario's Scenario's.....All day long.

they don't want the man though, just his money

Yup. Another valid scenario

.......and that is why feminist legislation exists to support his system.

Also likely true.

Ah yes - Everything else aside, Ren raises a valid point that I'd been mulling over -

Many of the assumptions in this discussion also include a scenario when the "Father" wants to keep it, but the Mother wants to abort, and defending her right to so.

The other situation, often as not, is that the Father thinks that (separately or jointly) a small human is a bad idea, but the mother wants to keep it....

In these circumstances, yes, in many jurisdictions, the Father is over a barrel.

I'm not saying this impacts one way or another on whom has which rights, just keeping up the effort to point out that (as per my snide remark about) It's very unlikely to find a "Perfect" rule that will in any way cater to a quality outcome in every circumstance.

You (The broad you, not a specific you) I, or anyone else can sit here and say what the "norm" is, and there's a reasonably good chance we'd be talking out of our cushions.

JamesSand wrote: Many of the assumptions in this discussion also include a scenario when the "Father" wants to keep it, but the Mother wants to abort, and defending her right to so.

Father says "Well I want to have that baby so you better batten down the hatches wife and get ready to endure 9 months of hell on my account so that I can have what I want!" LoL

Father says "Well I want to have that baby so you better batten down the hatches wife and get ready to endure 9 months of hell on my account so that I can have what I want!" LoL

I know, right? Funny.

Of course, Ren's Alternative is

"Mother says "Well I want to have that baby, so you better tighten your belt and get ready to pay for its needs for eighteen years" LoL"

Also Funny.

Therein lies the problem with coming up with some sort of divine ruling on how it should work.

I mean, There is Adder's crackpot idea that - "It has to be a case by case basis, and a good court system needs to have the resources to be able to make the fair call based on the reality of each case."

but we can all agree that "it depends" is a terribly boring answer, and making edicts based on our views is far more satisfying

Or. We could provide our children with more and better Sex & Family Education. Nip it at the bud as it were. The problem is this mentality of "Cleaning up the mess after it's happened" while completely ignoring what lead up to the mess in the first place.