you sound like a man in your u2u`s

You must be having a man day then,not every pregnant women has a husband or partner so who helps her make the decision to terminate.At the end of day the women has to carry the baby for nine month's ,then give birth,then alot of the time she's the one left holding the baby.

what?... no reply Sticks

So if a woman wants the baby and the man does not want the baby the woman has more legal rights? And when the baby is born the man by law has to support that child with paying child support?

lol yes she does mate.... this a suprise to you? hehe.
In Sticks IVF example the answer to that question is no because it's proir to conception but in your example andy then answer is yes.

"And when the baby is born the man by law has to support that child with paying child support?"
Mate of course he has to. Are you saying that if he wants the baby terminated then he ought NOT have to pay child support if she decides to have the baby?... dude that's is damaged hehehe. He made all HIS choices during conception ....end of choices for him....SHE can choose if SHE wants to have the baby but he had all the choices he's going to get. That was my point with Sticks' IVF example. In that case there's been no conception so he still has a right over his sperm that's on ice ( lol eww "sperm on ice?" ..."nah vodka and orange thanks" ) .....Andy what is your point exactly?... you saying he ought to have the final choice over whether she aborts or not because he will be financially liable? wow... that's cold even for you..

Lets say a woman got pregnant due to a one night stand, he does not want the baby, she wants to keep the baby.. So legaly she has more rights than he does, but if thats the case then it should end there! If his rights over his seed went soon after conception then he should not pay child support! His rights went before the baby was born so any legal connection to the child should be gone (no child support payments) The legal connection was broken before birth and should stay that way, she wanted it, she pays for it.

"His rights went before the baby was born"
do you mean obligations? His obligation don't "go away" because he changes his mind.

"If his rights over his seed went soon after conception then he should not pay child support!"

Again "rights" "obligations" are 2 very different things mate. He still has obligations to support the child irrespective of whether she terminates or not.
But during conception he made a choice.... DONE!!! ... no more choices for him and certainly not in regards to choices over a women's body. What are you thinking?

Here's the problem your having with this. You having trouble understanding that the "point of no return", or the point where you can't undo your choice, is different for men and women. For men it's conception ... for women ( WHO HAVE TO CARRY THE BABY FOR 9 MONTHS) it's a little later. In your example just because he says "oi... I don't want it" doesn't mean he has no obligation to financial support the child. What you seem to be saying is "oh poor man... he made a mistake but can't he have a second bite at the cherry by forcing the women to have an abortion under the threat of ZERO financial support should she decide to have it. ...dude that is soooo fcking COLD!!!

ps how many kids you paying maintenance on champ? hehe

Ange7, sorry I thought I had replied

The case I was referring to the embryos had been fertilised when the man withdrew consent.

The aside about men bullying women into an abortion was not meant to be an argument just an observation that sometimes a woman's choice could be over ruled

As for the man's contribution that was obviously a potential argument somebody might try on.

BTW can we avoid making this personal and lay off personal insults please on all sides.

where were you personally insulted?

We all know your position on abortion, your morally against it but the idea that men may in some cases force women to abort isn't reason enough to deny the choice from the majority of women.

"The case I was referring to the embryos had been fertilised when the man withdrew consent."

wow so he gave his consent ... w@nked into a test tube ( sorry hehe), gave his further consent during the IVF fertilisation in a petri dish... but then withdrew consent when it was time to implant the fertilised egg in her womb.... is that right? ... I think that is still fair. The reason why women have a later and more final choice is because they have the baby in their bodies... this obviously isn't the case in the IVF example so both the man and the women's rights are equal here.... therefore if one declines then it ought to be off. This still fits.

Not really but I noticed that some of the other posters were hurling insults and it did seem heated between them.


I can see how I might be seen a denying the woman's right to choose, however if abortions were illegal I still suspect some men would "Find a way" if they did not want to be dads, to have their way, something neither of us want to see. Actually in the 1980's the reverse case came to court, she wanted to abort and he wanted her to keep it. The court ruled in her favour but one commentator (or possibly a letter writer) asked if that court case had gone the man's way what would have happened in the scenario we are debating

Crudely put yes that is what happened

That case did raise issues with natural pregnancies where a woman exercises her right to choose and chooses to have the baby, but the reluctant male trying to use that case as legal precedent to force a termination.

It could be a matter of time before we see that coming

Having a man day? Please grow up
Did i say every woman? I said there are plenty of women out there who make these decisions with there partners.
A lot of your opinions on my posts have been completely wrong because you misunderstand what i'm typing.
READ PROPERLY and make sure you understand before replying little girl.

Debate the topic and not each other. I would have thought people weaken their arguments if they resort to criticising the poster and not the argument.

I understood exactly what you said all women who terminate a baby are murderers.And remember you started this because my opinion is different to yours end of.

[/quote]I understood exactly what you said all women who terminate a baby are murderers.And remember you started this because my opinion is different to yours end of. [/quote]

NO, there you go again. MISUNDERSTANDING
Like i said, you are entitled to your own opinion BUT your criticisms of my opinions are wrong because you misunderstand.
For example, i said ''terminating an unborn child IS murder''
You replied, ''Don't be stupid, just because someone doesn't want children doesn't mean they are going to go out and kill someone''
I never said that someone who doesn't want children will go out and kill someone.
Now, do you understand my point.

I understood exactly what you said all women who terminate a baby are murderers.And remember you started this because my opinion is different to yours end of. [/quote]

NO, there you go again. MISUNDERSTANDING
Like i said, you are entitled to your own opinion BUT your criticisms of my opinions are wrong because you misunderstand.
For example, i said ''terminating an unborn child IS murder''
You replied, ''Don't be stupid, just because someone doesn't want children doesn't mean they are going to go out and kill someone''
I never said that someone who doesn't want children will go out and kill someone.
Now, do you understand my point. [/quote]You are not reading or understanding me, i already explained that i didn't mean someone who just didn't want children were going to murder someone.You must live in fairy story land in real life not everything as a happy ending.At the end of day it's up to every women to do the right thing for them.end of i will not reply anymore cos you keep going on about the same thing's over and over again.

NO, there you go again. MISUNDERSTANDING
Like i said, you are entitled to your own opinion BUT your criticisms of my opinions are wrong because you misunderstand.
For example, i said ''terminating an unborn child IS murder''
You replied, ''Don't be stupid, just because someone doesn't want children doesn't mean they are going to go out and kill someone''
I never said that someone who doesn't want children will go out and kill someone.
Now, do you understand my point. [/quote]You are not reading or understanding me, i already explained that i didn't mean someone who just didn't want children were going to murder someone.You must live in fairy story land in real life not everything as a happy ending.At the end of day it's up to every women to do the right thing for them.end of i will not reply anymore cos you keep going on about the same thing's over and over again. [/quote]

What the hell are you talking about since when did i say that i believe everything is like a fairy story with a happy ending.
You sound very immature, what are you... 12 maybe 13.
I didn't say that you said someone who just didn't want children were going to murder someone. You accused me of saying that.

Overall you are killing a living thing, so i would say it is murder?

Is tommy tank mass murder?

Who

Ermmm... Its ok :bigsmile:

oooo fck .... is that rhyming slang for w@nk? Come on people ...andyman needs to know if he's guilty of murder on an untold scale.

Huge scale... Mass amount! :bigsmile: tommy tankinging, wearing the sausage coat, treat on her face... I could be worse than pol pot and hitler!!! :shocked:

treat on her face ?..... what kind of birthday parties did you go to as a kid. hehe when is that a treat?

Women love a facial...