A man's right to choose.

[Trip]

Having a kid should be completely about selfishness IMO, if you are too selfish or your partner is too selfish, then maybe it isn't the best idea to have one and then be forced to deal with each other for a long ass time because of the kid.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

Having a kid should be completely about selfishness IMO, if you are too selfish or your partner is too selfish, then maybe it isn't the best idea to have one and then be forced to deal with each other for a long ass time because of the kid.

Two things, to that; as I've said before the man isn't put through the same physical compromises and the kid didn't ask to be conceived, so why penalize the kid?

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Two things, to that; as I've said before the man isn't put through the same physical compromises and the kid didn't ask to be conceived, so why penalize the kid?

The physical compromises for the woman happen regardless of her decision. Both are life altering experiences.

The kid isn't a kid yet.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Two things, to that; as I've said before the man isn't put through the same physical compromises and the kid didn't ask to be conceived, so why penalize the kid?

On both points you appear to be making assumptions about what a woman's decision would be.

On the first point, I don't see a woman being put through any unique physical compromises when comparing keeping the baby and putting the baby up for adoption. Either way on the physical side she is carrying the baby to term and whether a man is responsible for parental obligations doesn't change that process at all.

Secondly I am going to make my own assumption about what you mean, but your assertion that a kid would be penalized leads me to think you are referring to either being raised without paternal financial support or being aborted. Of the potential options being raised exactly the same, just with no paternal financial support is very likely to result in a "penalty" to the kid. The result of adoption is much more difficult to predict in my view. Abortion by its nature is a touchy subject but as Trip already pointed out the pro-choice movement has sold this country on the idea that a kid isn't a kid until they are born.

Taking a look at the available options there is a decent chance adoption would actually benefit the kid while having no physical effects on the mother.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

On both points you appear to be making assumptions about what a woman's decision would be.

On the first point, I don't see a woman being put through any unique physical compromises when comparing keeping the baby and putting the baby up for adoption. Either way on the physical side she is carrying the baby to term and whether a man is responsible for parental obligations doesn't change that process at all.

Secondly I am going to make my own assumption about what you mean, but your assertion that a kid would be penalized leads me to think you are referring to either being raised without paternal financial support or being aborted. Of the potential options being raised exactly the same, just with no paternal financial support is very likely to result in a "penalty" to the kid. The result of adoption is much more difficult to predict in my view. Abortion by its nature is a touchy subject but as Trip already pointed out the pro-choice movement has sold this country on the idea that a kid isn't a kid until they are born.

Taking a look at the available options there is a decent chance adoption would actually benefit the kid while having no physical effects on the mother.

The only assumption that I make about the woman's decision is that she'll either decide to carry it to term, or to abort it. As far as I know those are the only two choices available.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The only assumption that I make about the woman's decision is that she'll either decide to carry it to term, or to abort it. As far as I know those are the only two choices available.

Doesn't a father actually get a say in adoption? I think he has to sign away his parental rights as well for this route to happen.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

Doesn't a father actually get a say in adoption? I think he has to sign away his parental rights as well for this route to happen.

Yup, which means that he not only has responsibilities already, but a certain degree of rights. And before you say it I'll say it again; the woman has more perceived rights because she has more real issues to deal with.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Yup, which means that he not only has responsibilities already, but a certain degree of rights. And before you say it I'll say it again; the woman has more perceived rights because she has more real issues to deal with.

You can say it as many times as you want, as you said before you won't convince me and I won't convince you. The woman holds all the cards before birth, as she should, but the man deserves an opt out. The woman will have plenty of time to make her choice with that knowledge and also be able to opt out with minimum risk thanks to modern medicine.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

The only assumption that I make about the woman's decision is that she'll either decide to carry it to term, or to abort it. As far as I know those are the only two choices available.

OK, so no differentiation between adoption and keeping the baby? Then how do the factors you mention even come in to play?