that's a lovely story & I am glad it worked out for you but for every smiley happy story of an unwanted child finding a loving family there is a story of a life of abuse, neglect & abandonment.

You are entitled to be against them but it is not up to you or anyone else except the woman having to make the decision, to say if it is right for her or not & the option should ever be taken from her. It is not YOUR right to chose whether she goes through with a pregnancy, it is hers.

Very simple really.

that's a lovely story & I am glad it worked out for you but for every smiley happy story of an unwanted child finding a loving family there is a story of a life of abuse, neglect & abandonment.

You are entitled to be against them but it is not up to you or anyone else except the woman having to make the decision, to say if it is right for her or not & the option should ever be taken from her. It is not YOUR right to chose whether she goes through with a pregnancy, it is hers.

Very simple really.

I've never really understood why it is solely up to the woman if she aborts a pregnancy. It's not as if she created it herself. She can arbitrarily either commit a man to a lifetime of support payments when both had previously agreed they didn't wish to become pregnant. And conversely she can arbitrarily abort the child of a man to whom she had previously agreed to have a child with. Matters of sanctity of life aside, I know of no other area of the law that is so one sided to one party's interests.

So by the argument you are making here, only the woman should take on all the responsibility to not get pregnant but if she does is given no chance to end the pregnancy?

What you seem to be saying is that yes, a woman is expected to be the responsible adult & take all the pills, injections etc to stop getting pregnant but if she should get pregnant she suddenly is no longer considered responsible enough to decide whether or not to have an abortion?

I agree, the ultimate responsibly is on a woman when it comes to her own fertility my own objection is when women are told that ending an unwanted pregnancy is wrong. Try being pregnant then tell me how you feel. Oh wait, not possible. As I said, must be nice to have a stance when you know it is something you will never have to experience.

Somewhat of a double standard really. But I really am not all the surprised. I am 100% convinced that if men were the child bearers that not only would abortion be legal everywhere & to a much later term but tampons, contraceptives & all the other gumph we have to buy during our periods would be free or at a massively reduce cost.

And Humphrey, my husband was the one bugging me to get pregnant & would love to have more children, he'd have 4+ if he could. I on the other hand don't, so we have one, so I don't really think you speak for all men in this..

Not for one moment, Boo. Of course the man is equally responsible, and should (but often doesn't) take that responsibility. Nevertheless, the last-ditch decision must be the woman's, because the embryo is in her body, not his. And yes, I think the woman should be given every possible support in terms of reducing the cost of the things she has to buy.

So by the argument you are making here, only the woman should take on all the responsibility to not get pregnant but if she does is given no chance to end the pregnancy?

What you seem to be saying is that yes, a woman is expected to be the responsible adult & take all the pills, injections etc to stop getting pregnant but if she should get pregnant she suddenly is no longer considered responsible enough to decide whether or not to have an abortion?

........

And Humphrey, my husband was the one bugging me to get pregnant & would love to have more children, he'd have 4+ if he could. I on the other hand don't, so we have one, so I don't really think you speak for all men in this..

Boo - on your first two paragraphs - no, that's not what I'm saying. Where sex is concerned there is a different outlook on it from men and from women. The old Mars/Venus syndrome.

Men are mainly interested in chasing and conquering, whilst women are seeking to use it as a lock on a longer-term association - or that's my old-fashioned take on the subject. But due to these differing approaches to sex, I wholly support your attitude that women have the problems and should have the available solutions to those problems. Sex within marriage and sex outside marriage are different animals, but women should have the over-riding rights in either case.

On the last point - yes, there are men interested in having a family and having children. As they don;t have to go through childbirth they should be more eager than the woman, but not all that many are. When I was working in Libya one of my clients was one of twenty-four brothers (he didn't mention sisters) and told me that his father had over 140 grandchildren. Now he was interested in his wives following in the same tradition, whether they wanted to or not. That is the way in some cultures, but not mine.

At puberty most boys are not men, indeed many never grow to be men. And at puberty you would probably find that all would elect to be snipped if it meant freedom from responsibility. Very few men that I know have set out to create babies. They may sincerely love their offspring after birth, but deliberately trying to start a family? I don't know.

I went along with all the procedures because my wife wanted children, but I would have been quite happy without.

That's rather sad, HB (though I know that, as a gay, I shouldn't criticise).

The attitude which I find repellant is that sex is just for fun, and does not carry any responsibility.

Sex has three clear functions, the first being to have children, the second to bond a pair, and the third for pleasure. It would be silly to deny the last, but I suspect most people in late youth (like you and I, HB; we're the same age) have learnt that rights go hand-in-hand with responsibilities. Too many people in our Western society want all the rights they can get.... but without the attached responsibilities..

No no no. Unless you are some religious sectarian, the main purpose of sex is not to produce children. Sex is not a chore.

The main purpose of sex to to have fun, and even if you are a Christian (which I know you are), keep in mind the God made it fun, so that we practice it. Multiplying is a desired side-effect, which happens only to straight people.

Otherwise you are saying that child-less couples (straight or gay) are bad people, because they make sex without their duty in mind! I wager that most sex in the world is done without having the purpose of multiplying in mind. Some people are even said use condoms or other contraceptives...

Oh, I agree with sex creating a bond between two people.

I hope you're being sarcastic, Tom, but as so often in forums, I can't tell.

Man is a mammal by descent, and like other mammals, he has a reproductive system. The purpose of that reproductive system is just that, reproduction. It is also used in some mammals for pair bonding. Humans are, I think, unique in being able to have sex just for fun, and there's nothing wrong with that. Need I say more?