Would pregnancy prevention be more effective...

S

Stoney.Hobbittess

Registered Senior Member
In the US, would pregnancy prevention be more effective if men were not obligated to financially support their illegitimate children?

This was something that I was discussing with my husband as a societal issue and wondering if women would be more careful about getting pregnant and becoming single mothers if men were not legally financially responsible to care for their children? Would some men take the moral obligation?
 
In my opinion, contraceptive use would decrease. The number one reason for use is still to prevent conception, right? well, less men would be worrying about getting some kind of obligation to the women their fooling around with, and not use them as much, or maybe the number one reason would become to prevent the transmission of infectious disease.
 
Okay, so if men SHOULD be reponsible for the children of the women they impregnate, women should be forced to get a tattoo right by their bush that says: "Warning, Penile insertion is the leading cause of pregnancy. This shit might seriously cost you." Instead of the "please insert here" that I'm used to seeing. :D
 
I apologize Fairnif. I guess that was unfair of me. I had to change the question because I didn't write it specific enough for the question that I was intending.

I think, too, that given my prior question... "Would controceptives be more widely used..." you are correct. But, on the otherhand, yes, controceptives may still be used for prevention of STDs.
 
Last edited:
I'm of the opinion that the biological imperative to reproduce will override any attempts at social engineering.
 
that's ridiculous to assume women are that stupid. "drrrr, who cares if i get pregnant? cause he'll just send me money, drrrrrr."

i hardly think women are not careful about pregnancy prevention because of the man's financial contribution. single women make a hellava lot more of a contribution by carrying, having, and raising the baby, as well as contributing a much greater portion of their income, not to mention the humongous opportunity cost, than a father she is not married to would (assuming that she is a single mother receiving child support.....married women would have help with raising and finances). if she doesn't want a baby, she would take the proper precautions. on the other hand, i agree that more men might refuse to use a barrier contraceptive if they will bear no financial responsibility, but not by much; i do believe that most men are moral, worthwhile human beings and the reason many fathers of illegitimate babies are not a part of their child's life is at the mother's request. rights for fathers are only recently improving.

but none of that is valid because people do not do what is expected
 
Originally posted by wesmorris
Okay, so if men SHOULD be reponsible for the children of the women they impregnate
Click to expand...

why should anyone NOT be responsible for children they bring into the world, regardless of sex?
 
Originally posted by SwedishFish
why should anyone NOT be responsible for children they bring into the world, regardless of sex?
Click to expand...

Hey, I was trying to make a joke. Gimme a break. :D

I would say that there's a difference between moral and legal responsibility. Of course a guy SHOULD take responsibility for the children that result from his sexual exploits, but should he be legally obliged? Would it be more a statement of personal responsibility if there were 1no legal obligation? Would chicks stop fucking as much?

Have you thought about the implications of a male birth control pill? I think it could seriously change society. It'll be interesting to see when it finally comes along.
 
it's a good idea but i sure as hell wouldn't trust a guy to remember to take it when he doesn't have to worry about getting pregnant. sure, the thought of putting a child into the world is a good deterrant but it really hits home when it has to happen in your own body. if it's my body, i want proof that i'm safe. but i'm sure other people might want to use it.
 
shut up

dont have sex unless you except the risk of pregnancy is there. Also dont have sex unless you can fully support a child.
 
Re: shut up

Originally posted by freefighter187
dont have sex unless you except the risk of pregnancy is there. Also dont have sex unless you can fully support a child.
Click to expand...

Quite studious I'm sure, but lacking in acceptance of obvious evidence to nullify your point.

People do it. They do it a lot. Most of them will keep doing it even if they're alone. Hell some people don't care what's happening, they're just gonna do it. It doesn't matter if you attempt to compel them with your keen observation, they're going to do it. Apparently, people aren't neccesarily reasonable. Go figure. :rolleyes:
 
it wouldnt....do you realize how much that wud suck if u didnth have to support ur kids???
 
it seems that birth control is most efficient when there is good,proper, and recurring sex education in school.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the state of New Jersey...
 
Originally posted by Xevious
Tell that to the state of New Jersey...
Click to expand...

State of New Jersey...listen up... birth control is most efficient when there is good,proper, and recurring sex education in school. Take your sex education seriously!
 
Just a question

What are the practices in other countries for disseminating knowledge about contraception?
What I'm trying to say is, in the US there is a high rate of underage pregnancy and single motherhood what are other countries doing differently that we could learn from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top