wolas3214 said:
It should be illegal for a woman to give birth to a child without a signed consent form from the biological father.
Oh, this is going to go over great, well, let's see what he has, ladies and gentlemen.
When a man doesn't want a child, and the woman uses her religion as an excuse to not get an abortion (or any other reason) children are born without a loving home with two financially stable parents. This behavior has created endless problems in our society. I would posit that having children, like having sex, should be a decision reached mutually, and not forced upon a party by one overbearing, overzealous individual. Some feminists have suggested 'sexual consent forms'. Why are there two different standards for getting consent for the sexual act, and the birthing act? Contrary to what Christians would have you believe, people have sex for pleasure, and only rarely set out with the intention of creating a child. Children are most often an accidental byproduct of the act. Women should not have a monopoly on reproductive rights.
I'm compelled to ask for you to cite a source for this statistic (About accidental versus planned births).
The division between willingness to actually birth the child does not automatically make the home unloving. It does not automatically cause a divorce or break-up. Two people - even when consenting to both sex and birthing does not mean that the child's family will be financially stable. You seem to be making assumptions about sex and birthing.
I'm unsure of what you mean by a sexual consent form, but another damnable piece of bureaucracy between a man and a woman (Or any other conceivable combination of consenting adults of a number without limit) having sex seems like a very, very bad idea.
On a similar subject - what if the mother doesn't know who the biological father is? This happens too.
If a man doesn't want a child, he should be able to have control over what happens to his genetic material, in the same way that women have control over who has sex with them. Women are allowed to get abortions, even if the father wants to have the child. Another double-standard. A simple consent form accompanied with genetic samples can be used to ascertain the validity of a birth. If a woman wants to give birth, she'd better have a consent form from the father, as well as a signed contract specifying the terms of the relationship with the father, preferably with indication the pair will remain a couple indefinitely so that the child may have both a mother and a father, provided that both parties agree to those terms
The average man does have control over his genetic material - even more so than the average woman. Certainly both can be victims of sexual assault, and both shed large amounts of skin and hair. Both unwillingly bleed. A man can choose to not dip his wick, just as a woman can choose to not have a wick dipped. The woman, however is more slave to random chance than the man over whether or not two zygotes meet, through sheer biology.
not to mention that Marriage contracts have become legally meaningless as there are no longer any courts which uphold them. This also needs to change, but the word marriage needs to cease to be used, because of its religious overtones. Contracts imply that a promise must be made, and a promise must be kept. That people honor all of their contracts is an essential part of any society, whether it's a marriage contract, or a contract for the exchange of goods or services.
Marriage contracts are still honoured. Furthermore, we're humans, not Salarians.
Marriage has lost all religious under/overtones in the lexicons of most people I've spoken to, including myself. We're pretty sure it's a strictly legal thing. Contracts other than marriage, I should remind you, are broken constantly. Hell, when was the last time you said "I'll just play this one more level." or "Wait until I get to a save point." and then proceeded to play even after the level/save point in question? You just established - and broke - a verbal contract.
Whenever there's a single mother, they have always blamed the father, while assigning no blame whatsoever to the mother, who refuses to get an abortion even when it's legal and free to do so. The mother is applauded for her bravery and allowed to repeat this atrocious behavior in order to get a meal ticket. When the child stops being cute, the young mother puts the child up for adoption (or worse, neglects the child while retaining custody), creating a burden on society.
[Poster's note: Minor grammar fix in the quote]
Firstly: I ask you to please define "they".
Secondly: You're using notoriously shaky (and easy to discredit) all-inclusive language.
Abortion is not free and legal everywhere, you'll recall. A mother might not have the finical or civil liberty to actually carry out an abortion that she may dearly want.
I would also like to point you that you seem to be taking the actions of the (highly-visible) "Bottom two percent" of
people women and applying it to the entire, broad spectrum of
people women as a whole. You're taking horror stories and outright assuming that's the way the world works. One hundred percent of the time. All of the time.
Is this change to our society really too much to ask?
Yes.
My opinion is thus: What you are proposing - that a man should be legally able to force a woman to have an abortion - is tantamount to legalizing rape.
Yes, I'm being intentionally sensationalist with the phrasing above, because it drives the point home hardest. You're saying that a man should legally be able to force a woman's rights into a matter which suits him most. He should be legally able to have some doctor stick *something* into *somewhere* usually considered sexual and have the *man's* way with the *woman* regardless of *her consent* in the matter.
It also seems like it could even further solidify the concept of a male-dominated society.