I have a 2 year old daughter and I'm about to have a son in February. Walking away from them is unfathomable. I can't imagine the regret I'd feel at my old age, having lost the few short years where I get to watch my children grow up, just so I can walk to some places.
There's far more depth and mystery to be explored in raising a human than there will ever be as a tourist. The deep stupidity it takes to think otherwise is depressing to behold.
I leave often to go to the mountains because I could not live an entirely domestic life.
It is just a day or two at a time but I realized at some point that this is what I have to do to be able to be a caring husband and father. If I don’t I will become depressed and miserable and no amount of loving them will overcome it. I am much more useful as a happy and functional human being 350 days a year than a miserable one for 365.
The mother left the country and went to Belgrade, where Carl was not allowed entry. The mother is who eliminated the possibility of contact. Karl left England after the estrangement. It was part of the reason for his journey, as he told me at least.
Not giving men any authority on abortion is taking a hard stance that abortion is a female issue over a human issue.
I won't pass any judgement either way, but it's an interesting perspective.
With 100+ Million orphans in the world, having your own kids is anti-humanitarian (not anti-human) anyways, so why is being a corporate climber relevant?
> Not giving men any authority on abortion is taking a hard stance that abortion is a female issue over a human issue.
i think it should be this way. but what happens when you got someone pregnant by mistake? it can happen even with people taking secure measures... the man doesn't want but the woman do. she has the right of having it but the man shouldn't be obligated "on being a dad". maybe i think in a country that has abortion legalized the man also should abstain from paying pension. the otherwise (the man wanting and the woman not) should still depend on the woman decision, after all is her body and any consequence of pregnancy falls upon her
> With 100+ Million orphans in the world, having your own kids is anti-humanitarian (not anti-human) anyways, so why is being a corporate climber relevant?
yes, i would love a law punishing people (higher taxes maybe?) from having children when there are anyone for adoption in the country... beyond orphans, having kids is the worst offense to climate. much more than owning a car, going vegan and using an airplane for traveling occasionally, all summed together. it's serious business and i don't like the idea of scarce ecosystems and resources in 200-400 years :) i was just trying to show a case where it's somehow valid to a man simply walk away (no pun intended, i really didn't sympathized with the plot of our corporate climber here nor the walking guy)
And this is the problem, your exact phrasing. You get her pregnant. A man gets a woman pregnant. It's putting all the onus on the man in an activity that requires two consenting participants (rape is obviously excluded for this argument).
It's kinda sexist because it diminishes the responsibility of the woman involved and strengthens the responsibility of the man involved, both bad things and everpresent through many aspects of society.
> And this is the problem, your exact phrasing. You get her pregnant. A man gets a woman pregnant. It's putting all the onus on the man in an activity that requires two consenting participants (rape is obviously excluded for this argument).
have you read what i typed? where do i diminish the responsibility of a woman in my comment? i literally typed i'm against any decision on having or not a child BY MEN
And still it is men who are being blamed, despite all the power being in women' hands. Men often only wanted sex, not the child. And yet, if pregnancy happened, there is nothing he can do about it, even if he was tricked or lied to.
If a woman gets gets pregnant, she has all the power. She is the sole decider what to do about it. Therefore, if the child was born it was always because the woman decided to do it.
If the woman decides to abort the child, she can also do it, without the guy/husband having any say.
This is the reason why I think that the abortion rights should be extended to men as well. If women have rights to be the sole deciders in getting the children aborted, then men should have the right to a financial abortion (she can decide what to do with the child, he should decide whether he wants to be financially participating in the woman's decision; her body, her choice. His money, his choice.). Not only would that be fair and balancing the reproductive rights, but would also greatly decrease the baby trappings and the number of single mothers.
And while we are at it, make paternity tests mandatory after each birth (before taking upon oneself a 20-year financial burden for the kid who is very often bot yours). This would greatly decrease adultery and paternity fraud.
Then why wonder that men feel left alone and act accordingly.
There aren't enough kids to be adopted in Western countries, even for very small number of people who would want it. The formal requirements, time and money expenses, as well as reliance on a huge amount of luck is often an insurmountable obstacle. My friends tried for many years, but were forced to abandon the process. This was incredibly sad, knowing how great parents they would have been.
I actually wasn’t referring to abortion, rather taking any of the various steps you can take to avoid having children if you don’t want them. Especially the second time around.
I mean as a gay man who doesn't want kids I still think that it's unfair for men to have zero reproductive rights beyond "Well don't have sex then". Women aren't told the same thing.
I believe the law should be changed; if an unintended child is unwanted by the Father and the mother does not want to get an abortion (which is her choice) then the Father has the right to refuse contact with the child as well as refusing to support the child.
Cause straight men: at the moment, as soon as you stick it in you have zero choice, zero rights, even if you're using protection and there's been no agreement that you're doing it for fun or for reproductive purposes. But then none of you seem to care about it so...?
Women are definitely told the same thing. That's the whole fight about roe v wade in the US. The difference is that if a man wants the kid and the woman doesn’t, the woman is the one who is putting her health and life on the line, not the man. That's why it's her choice. Or at least it used to be in the US. In many places it's not and women die as a result. Childbirth is somehow still the top 10 killer of women. It's only birth control that dropped it from #1. Men don't die. They're not even the most financially impacted. They also get to walk away like women never get to do. A woman who is forced to carry a child rarely gets to walk out the door and forget about her family. That's why women grt to choose. Until men carry the same burden in child care and child creation, it's the kind of of unfairness that's inherent to the situation.
I understand why men feel this way, but realistically when a woman is stuck with a child she didn't want, which happens more often than people admit because of so many factors and systems set against the idea of abortion, she never gets to walk away.
this post reads like a parody you'd find on linkedin lunatics. I mean, sure, how could the joys of raising a human being compare to a slight bump in relevant kpi's?
There's far more depth and mystery to be explored in raising a human than there will ever be as a tourist. The deep stupidity it takes to think otherwise is depressing to behold.