Vasovasectomy isn't always successful, and I can't imagine that the state would say "get a vasectomy and we'll pay for the vasovasectomy" if they can't guarantee that the man in question will be able to have children in the future.
Wiki doesn't have any numbers, but they agree that vasovasectomy isn't always successful and that patients shouldn't think of vasectomy as an easily reversible operation. Wikipedia - Vasectomy: Reversal
Plus, its actually very difficult in practice for either gender to get their tubes tied if they haven't had kids already, or are under a certain age. Most doctors get all paternalistic and "you'll change your mind" on anyone who asks. Oh, and hospitals often still ask husbands to consent to their wives getting their tubes tied right after a birth :x
I know of at least one case where the doctor asked the wife to consent to a vasectomy....not to mention the reaction I get from my friends' wives when I suggest it (I'm a big supporter of vasectomy after having a couple kids).
It's odd how many guys get looked at funny for advocating vasectomy over hysterectomy. It's the same end result with a less invasive surgery. Probably costs a fair amount less, too. Vasectomy is out-patient; you just need somebody to drive you home.
Any others? Given those choices, I'd personally vote to leave things the way they are...
Legally mandate that $man pays for woman's $procedure and call it even there.
so your solution to possibly being a father without wanting to be is to require the man to pay for the abortion and be done with it? mandated abortion when men disagree with their partners carrying their child?
Any others? Given those choices, I'd personally vote to leave things the way they are...
Legally mandate that $man pays for woman's $procedure and call it even there.
so your solution to possibly being a father without wanting to be is to require the man to pay for the abortion and be done with it? mandated abortion when men disagree with their partners carrying their child?
O_o
I so hope I am misunderstanding you
He's including the cost of delivery. So $procedure could = abortion or it could = delivery.
Any others? Given those choices, I'd personally vote to leave things the way they are...
Legally mandate that $man pays for woman's $procedure and call it even there.
so your solution to possibly being a father without wanting to be is to require the man to pay for the abortion and be done with it? mandated abortion when men disagree with their partners carrying their child?
Any others? Given those choices, I'd personally vote to leave things the way they are...
Legally mandate that $man pays for woman's $procedure and call it even there.
so your solution to possibly being a father without wanting to be is to require the man to pay for the abortion and be done with it? mandated abortion when men disagree with their partners carrying their child?
O_o
I so hope I am misunderstanding you
Well, no, it's practically the same argument. If a woman isn't willing to face the possibility that she will get pregnant, choose not to abort, and have the father choose not to support the child, she should not have sex.
I think that to carry a child to conception you should have a permit.
No, Im not joking.
This permit would require that:
-You have two people willing to care for the child, both the physical(money) and social(caring) needs.
-You are an adult.
-You have proven a desire to have an actual human being in your life, not a fashion statement or status symbol.
-The child will not be a product of incest. Bad for genetic pool and all that.
So, for the two people, any two people would do. As long as they are adult. If a woman becomes pregnant by her boyfriend, and her mother and she decide she wants to keep the baby, they get to sign the papers saying they will be responsible. Yes, it would be a lot like adopting your own fetus, I don't care.
We need to stop this stupid myth that sticking your penis in something and creating a kid is some great accomplishment. Big goddamn deal, your sperm worked. Having seven kids isn't some macho symbol... especially when they get shit out on society all at once for us to support.
==================================Below is a rant. I apologize.
You know those families that have double quintuplets? Yeah, the ones that are on dozens of hormones and in-vitro fertilization treatments? Stop that shit, right now.
It pisses me off when people say no to adoption, because they "want one of their own". There are hundreds of thousands of kids out there who need homes, sticking your dick in something doesn't make you a father. Deciding to carry a baby to term because you want to ensnare the sperm donor (boyfriend) doesn't make you a mother.
I think the idea that the responsibility with the decision ends for EITHER party involved based on abortion or not is silly. I think the responsibility sits pretty squarely on society in general and our self-centered view of what a child is.
I've seen plenty of people, gay and straight, married and single... who think of a baby as an accessory, or an accomplishment. I've seen a pair of gay doctors do everything they could to adopt a baby, and another gay couple go shopping for one as if it were a trophy.
Somewhat famously Dr. Phil (no, I don't like him) tried to explain to a 15 year old girl that having a baby was a decision that would affect her entire life. He gave her a doll that would cry and require supervision, she found it annoying and took the batteries out.
Whether or not you have an abortion is a big decision, I don't expect many people to take it lightly, it's the womans decision, it's her body. However, giving that child up for adoption because you are young or incapable of raising it, should be the choice of all parties involved, including society at large who will have to decide between supporting your hellspawn indirectly through aid that really doesn't help a whole lot to improve the family dynamics or indirectly by requiring the child be put up for adoption.
I'm sure that will anger some folks, and it is indeed a bit of a crooked answer.
I guess my answer in short is:
I'm in favor of whatever results in the fewest unsupported births. You can't milk child support out of someone who has no money. I am sorry if this makes you unhappy, I'm especially sorry if it means that child protective services confiscates your baby but as long as it gives the BABY a better shot once it's here, your sadness means nothing to me.
As well, I want to focus on the whole notion that "The man had a choice in the pregnancy/abortion when he decided to have sex". That's bullshit. If you stick in "woman" for "man" in that sentence, you're an unwashed sexist pig, yet I've seen that sentence (or variations of it) repeated by 4-5 people in this thread.
I think the use of that sentence alone shows the double standard, and my point has been proven.
We're not talking about a man's right to control what happens in a woman's body. I think that's outside of this debate. We're talking about a man's CHOICE on how to respond to a pregnancy. Does he have the choice to not support the child, should the woman deliver, just as the woman has the choice to abort or deliver. I just got up, so I hope that's articulate.
I think that to carry a child to conception you should have a permit.
No, Im not joking.
This permit would require that:
-You have two people willing to care for the child, both the physical(money) and social(caring) needs.
-You are an adult.
-You have proven a desire to have an actual human being in your life, not a fashion statement or status symbol.
-The child will not be a product of incest. Bad for genetic pool and all that.
So, for the two people, any two people would do. As long as they are adult. If a woman becomes pregnant by her boyfriend, and her mother and she decide she wants to keep the baby, they get to sign the papers saying they will be responsible. Yes, it would be a lot like adopting your own fetus, I don't care.
We need to stop this stupid myth that sticking your penis in something and creating a kid is some great accomplishment. Big goddamn deal, your sperm worked. Having seven kids isn't some macho symbol... especially when they get shit out on society all at once for us to support.
==================================Below is a rant. I apologize.
You know those families that have double quintuplets? Yeah, the ones that are on dozens of hormones and in-vitro fertilization treatments? Stop that shit, right now.
It pisses me off when people say no to adoption, because they "want one of their own". There are hundreds of thousands of kids out there who need homes, sticking your dick in something doesn't make you a father. Deciding to carry a baby to term because you want to ensnare the sperm donor (boyfriend) doesn't make you a mother.
I think the idea that the responsibility with the decision ends for EITHER party involved based on abortion or not is silly. I think the responsibility sits pretty squarely on society in general and our self-centered view of what a child is.
I've seen plenty of people, gay and straight, married and single... who think of a baby as an accessory, or an accomplishment. I've seen a pair of gay doctors do everything they could to adopt a baby, and another gay couple go shopping for one as if it were a trophy.
Somewhat famously Dr. Phil (no, I don't like him) tried to explain to a 15 year old girl that having a baby was a decision that would affect her entire life. He gave her a doll that would cry and require supervision, she found it annoying and took the batteries out.
Whether or not you have an abortion is a big decision, I don't expect many people to take it lightly, it's the womans decision, it's her body. However, giving that child up for adoption because you are young or incapable of raising it, should be the choice of all parties involved, including society at large who will have to decide between supporting your hellspawn indirectly through aid that really doesn't help a whole lot to improve the family dynamics or indirectly by requiring the child be put up for adoption.
I'm sure that will anger some folks, and it is indeed a bit of a crooked answer.
I guess my answer in short is:
I'm in favor of whatever results in the fewest unsupported births. You can't milk child support out of someone who has no money. I am sorry if this makes you unhappy, I'm especially sorry if it means that child protective services confiscates your baby but as long as it gives the BABY a better shot once it's here, your sadness means nothing to me.
I agree 100%. Our society would never go for it, but I certainly agree.
It's odd how many guys get looked at funny for advocating vasectomy over hysterectomy. It's the same end result with a less invasive surgery. Probably costs a fair amount less, too. Vasectomy is out-patient; you just need somebody to drive you home.
Do you really mean tubal ligation instead of hysterectomy? As far as I know, hysterectomies are more invasive than either and aren't used merely for sterilization. (Hysterectomy is removal of the uterus, which is a pretty big deal.)
It's odd how many guys get looked at funny for advocating vasectomy over hysterectomy. It's the same end result with a less invasive surgery. Probably costs a fair amount less, too. Vasectomy is out-patient; you just need somebody to drive you home.
Do you really mean tubal ligation instead of hysterectomy? As far as I know, hysterectomies are more invasive than either and aren't used merely for sterilization. (Hysterectomy is removal of the uterus, which is a pretty big deal.)
Eh, tubals still involve a general knockout plus opening up the abdomen last I heard, though. Unless they've figured out a better way, but even keyhole surgery that deep in the body is no laughing matter.
I keep hearing about this reversible chemical vasectomy technique being researched in India, but I've no idea how its progressing. They just use some kind of goo to block the tubes. It'd be nice if it works, but it sounded too simple and cheap for drug companies to get behind :?
We're not talking about a man's right to control what happens in a woman's body. I think that's outside of this debate. We're talking about a man's CHOICE on how to respond to a pregnancy. Does he have the choice to not support the child, should the woman deliver, just as the woman has the choice to abort or deliver. I just got up, so I hope that's articulate.
No, he doesn't.
Men and women share equal responsibility for a pregnancy because the sexual participation of each is required for conception to occur.
If a man "chooses" to not support a child, he's failing to fulfill his 50% responsibility for that child regardless of whether or not he wanted the child in the first place.
If you flip it around, a woman also bears responsibility for support any child she births unless she wants to give it up for adoption (or is a surrogate), in which case isn't the father's input required by law? And if a woman left her child with the child's father, would she not still be required to pay child support to account for her 50% responsibility in the child's rearing?
Hang on I am confused here. I was under the impression the vasectomy was what we did to men? Is this not the case? Am I an idiot? Fill in the blanks for me:
I am going to get a *blank* because then I'll have true peace of mind.
We're not talking about a man's right to control what happens in a woman's body. I think that's outside of this debate. We're talking about a man's CHOICE on how to respond to a pregnancy. Does he have the choice to not support the child, should the woman deliver, just as the woman has the choice to abort or deliver. I just got up, so I hope that's articulate.
No, he doesn't.
Men and women share equal responsibility for a pregnancy because the sexual participation of each is required for conception to occur.
If a man "chooses" to not support a child, he's failing to fulfill his 50% responsibility for that child regardless of whether or not he wanted the child in the first place.
If you flip it around, a woman also bears responsibility for support any child she births unless she wants to give it up for adoption (or is a surrogate), in which case isn't the father's input required by law? And if a woman left her child with the child's father, would she not still be required to pay child support to account for her 50% responsibility in the child's rearing?
So because there's equal responsibility for pregnancy, you agree that the choice to abort or carry to pregnancy must be equal amongst the partners?
We're not talking about a man's right to control what happens in a woman's body. I think that's outside of this debate. We're talking about a man's CHOICE on how to respond to a pregnancy. Does he have the choice to not support the child, should the woman deliver, just as the woman has the choice to abort or deliver. I just got up, so I hope that's articulate.
No, he doesn't.
Men and women share equal responsibility for a pregnancy because the sexual participation of each is required for conception to occur.
If a man "chooses" to not support a child, he's failing to fulfill his 50% responsibility for that child regardless of whether or not he wanted the child in the first place.
If you flip it around, a woman also bears responsibility for support any child she births unless she wants to give it up for adoption (or is a surrogate), in which case isn't the father's input required by law? And if a woman left her child with the child's father, would she not still be required to pay child support to account for her 50% responsibility in the child's rearing?
So because there's equal responsibility for pregnancy, you agree that the choice to abort or carry to pregnancy must be equal amongst the partners?
Therein lies te problem. I agree that both partners share responsibility for the child post-birth, but obviously regarding the pregnancy, the idea that a man has the right to make demands of the woman is pretty distasteful.
I have trouble wrapping my head around the issue. I aggree with this, but what happens when a pregnancy occurs and the parties disagree? If the woman wants the birth, is that ok - because its her body?
Is this just a situation where the woman has more rights than the man due to the biological nature of childbirth?
Which then sounds like a logical progression into "Do men have a right to higher pay because women require time off for childbirth, and it's more of a risk for a company to higher a woman?"
It's odd how many guys get looked at funny for advocating vasectomy over hysterectomy. It's the same end result with a less invasive surgery. Probably costs a fair amount less, too. Vasectomy is out-patient; you just need somebody to drive you home.
Do you really mean tubal ligation instead of hysterectomy? As far as I know, hysterectomies are more invasive than either and aren't used merely for sterilization. (Hysterectomy is removal of the uterus, which is a pretty big deal.)
Eh, tubals still involve a general knockout plus opening up the abdomen last I heard, though. Unless they've figured out a better way, but even keyhole surgery that deep in the body is no laughing matter.
I keep hearing about this reversible chemical vasectomy technique being researched in India, but I've no idea how its progressing. They just use some kind of goo to block the tubes. It'd be nice if it works, but it sounded too simple and cheap for drug companies to get behind :?
Ah, I was under the impression that a hysterectomy was much more invasive and isn't usually done for sterilization.
Ah, I was under the impression that a hysterectomy was much more invasive and isn't usually done for sterilization.
Its way invasive. And yeah, usually only done if cancer is involved, or stuff like really really heavy crippling periods, or bad endometriosis. I know a couple of women who had them around menopause too, but I'm not sure what the deal was there. Hormonal wackiness, I guess.
Which then sounds like a logical progression into "Do men have a right to higher pay because women require time off for childbirth, and it's more of a risk for a company to higher a woman?"
I actually studied this a while back. We were looking at the "glass ceiling" and looked into the reasons for pay discrepencies.
The majority were due to child raising. Basically the roles that paid the top salaries (the ones that drag all the stats up) we dominated by men, and when women were interviewed regarding this - it was found that most shifted their priorities towards the family, both because they are obviously the ones that give birth, but also because women are more likely to take on a more nuturing role in the family. High management jobs usually made quite tough demands on a person - and women seemed less likely to accept those demands.
I dont know how far a trend needs to continue for before it becomes an accepted norm and people start letting it affect their decision making.
Which then sounds like a logical progression into "Do men have a right to higher pay because women require time off for childbirth, and it's more of a risk for a company to higher a woman?"
I actually studied this a while back. We were looking at the "glass ceiling" and looked into the reasons for pay discrepencies.
The majority were due to child raising. Basically the roles that paid the top salaries (the ones that drag all the stats up) we dominated by men, and when women were interviewed regarding this - it was found that most shifted their priorities towards the family, both because they are obviously the ones that give birth, but also because women are more likely to take on a more nuturing role in the family. High management jobs usually made quite tough demands on a person - and women seemed less likely to accept those demands.
I dont know how far a trend needs to continue for before it becomes an accepted norm and people start letting it affect their decision making.
Ah, I was under the impression that a hysterectomy was much more invasive and isn't usually done for sterilization.
Its way invasive. And yeah, usually only done if cancer is involved, or stuff like really really heavy crippling periods, or bad endometriosis. I know a couple of women who had them around menopause too, but I'm not sure what the deal was there. Hormonal wackiness, I guess.
I did a bit of research, and found a number like 1 in 3 women over here have it done. That seemed high though. In any case, that's way off topic really.
True - to be fair, the emphasis was more on how much was genuine bias. That and it was a long time ago - those points are pretty broad brush strokes.
Well, I was more trying to point out that "Oh, women just do that" isn't an explanation. Pays no attention to underlying social pressures, partner's expectations, or even pay disparities pushing mothers out of the workforce in the first place, as in "my husband earns more, I may as well pack it in". And there's only a basic attempt to frame what's going on - from which angle do we look at this? Are women crappy competitors whose ovaries sap their commitment to paid work? Do men disparage life outside paid work and hyperfocus on their jobs to the neglect of their families' non-monetary needs? Is our society feeding on old stereotypes about family roles in order to avoid making the effort to provide a life more pleasant for both genders? Is it all of those things at different times and places?
Just seems like those questions weren't really examined, is all. OT, though >.>
There is a double standard, but, as a taxpayer and a man who isn't a fucktard, its to my benefit that there is one, so I'm quite fine with it.
So, you never once had sex before you were financially capable of supporting a child? Just curious. That goes for everybody else, too.
I did until I found out my ex lied about being on the pill, which I shelled out money for. That was a long time ago mind you.
People need to stop having sex with crazy people. Jus' sayin'.
Well sometimes, it takes a bit of time to gauge someone, especially when you're young, stupid and in love with them.
It's a lot easier now that I'm wiser, although some might disagree with me there but no matter. Basically I don't go bareback unless we've both had recent tests and I'm in the mood for a kid.
I think the thing I'm worried about the most is being a good parent.
I don't see a reason to absolve the guy from his responsibilities to the child.
And the guy does have a choice in the matter. Maybe not the last part of it, but he definitely has a choice.
So consenting to sex = consenting to fatherhood? I know many people here get a little angry when that standard is applied to motherhood. I mean, this very same logic could be used to take away the woman's right to an abortion, no?
Yes, it is consenting to the risk fatherhood. I'm ok with eliminating this risk, though, as soon as a practical solution becomes available. Haven't heard one, though.
I don't believe that consenting to fatherhood is necessarily implied by having sex. People can have sex without any intention of becoming parents.
But you cant deny that it's a possibility. People dont intend to crash a car, but you cant just turn around and say "I didnt mean to"
DISCLAIMER:
I dont mean to compare a pregnancy to a crash... but it was just the point I was making about responsibility.
Legally mandate that $man pays for woman's $procedure and call it even there.
so your solution to possibly being a father without wanting to be is to require the man to pay for the abortion and be done with it? mandated abortion when men disagree with their partners carrying their child?
O_o
I so hope I am misunderstanding you
You are. $Procedure could be an abortion, or it could be the birthing procedure. Whichever the woman is allowed to choose. I used a variable 'cause I defined it somewhere earlier, and got lazy (didn't feel like repeating it).
Now you have to tell us why we should make a drastic change, besides the one I suggested.
Equality.
So you're planning to forcibly replicate the physical and emotional trauma that the women can't escape no matter what on all the men? Or when you said "equality" did you mean "equality ;-)"?
Now you have to tell us why we should make a drastic change, besides the one I suggested.
Equality.
So you're planning to forcibly replicate the physical and emotional trauma that the women can't escape no matter what on all the men? Or when you said "equality" did you mean "equality ;-)"?
I thought that's what "paying for the $procedure" is for.
But you know what? In all total honesty? If you wanted to replace "paying for the $procedure" with "replicating the pain of the procedure" and calling it even after either? I would completely not be opposed to that. I would rather that, as it is more fitting and more equal than 18 years of monetary compensation.
EDIT: But I want access to all the painKILLERS that women get during either procedure, also.
EDIT: On second thought, a man should still pay for the $procedure, as there is no way to replicate the emotional trauma involved.
I don't see a reason to absolve the guy from his responsibilities to the child.
And the guy does have a choice in the matter. Maybe not the last part of it, but he definitely has a choice.
So consenting to sex = consenting to fatherhood? I know many people here get a little angry when that standard is applied to motherhood. I mean, this very same logic could be used to take away the woman's right to an abortion, no?
Yes, it is consenting to the risk fatherhood. I'm ok with eliminating this risk, though, as soon as a practical solution becomes available. Haven't heard one, though.
I don't believe that consenting to fatherhood is necessarily implied by having sex. People can have sex without any intention of becoming parents.
But you cant deny that it's a possibility. People dont intend to crash a car, but you cant just turn around and say "I didnt mean to"
Man what? I was going to respond but this analogy sucks ass, because it's an analogy.
well this thread sure took a turn for the retarded fast...
I was impressed with the discussion we had in the first 10 pages. Seemed like both sides have pertinant points. But yeah, now it's gotten bogged down in people rehashing the same points over and over, and the other side re-iterating the same counter-points over and over.
Because I did enjoy reading this debate for the first few pages, I will ask a few general questions.
It seems that some people are arguing that child support is due because it is the legal way to balance out the suffering that women went through in having the birth. This not only seems to fly in the face of the intention of child support (to, you know, support the child), but is also inconsistent with the fact that women can be legally held to pay child support if they lose custody of the child. (This is a good breakdown of showing child support owed to both mothers and fathers. It is staggering, to me, how many people are receiving child support. )
Also, there seems to be an argument that men consent to being fathers simply by having sex. How does this argument not hold when it is the man that wants to be the father? That is, wouldn't this also be a legit argument for when the man wants the child, but the woman decides against it? To be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with the end result, but that seems like a bad way to argue it.
Also.... if it is prefered that this topic just die.... well, pretend I never posted.
Because I did enjoy reading this debate for the first few pages, I will ask a few general questions.
It seems that some people are arguing that child support is due because it is the legal way to balance out the suffering that women went through in having the birth.
I'm not sure about everybody else, but I'm pro-child support (be it from the father or the state) because the child needs to be taken care of and in current US society most single parents can't do it on their own.
Whatever new system we implement I'm okay with - even if it means more taxes for me - as long as somebody, be it the mother, the father, or society at large - is responsible for the child.
It'd never fly, but I like the "two must sign-off on wanting the child or else its put up for adoption" idea posited above. It'd never fly, but it's an interesting idea, and I think it could work.
Posts
It's odd how many guys get looked at funny for advocating vasectomy over hysterectomy. It's the same end result with a less invasive surgery. Probably costs a fair amount less, too. Vasectomy is out-patient; you just need somebody to drive you home.
so your solution to possibly being a father without wanting to be is to require the man to pay for the abortion and be done with it? mandated abortion when men disagree with their partners carrying their child?
O_o
I so hope I am misunderstanding you
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
He's including the cost of delivery. So $procedure could = abortion or it could = delivery.
Paying for poor parents is just too crazy, man.
Far out!
Well, no, it's practically the same argument. If a woman isn't willing to face the possibility that she will get pregnant, choose not to abort, and have the father choose not to support the child, she should not have sex.
No, Im not joking.
This permit would require that:
-You have two people willing to care for the child, both the physical(money) and social(caring) needs.
-You are an adult.
-You have proven a desire to have an actual human being in your life, not a fashion statement or status symbol.
-The child will not be a product of incest. Bad for genetic pool and all that.
So, for the two people, any two people would do. As long as they are adult. If a woman becomes pregnant by her boyfriend, and her mother and she decide she wants to keep the baby, they get to sign the papers saying they will be responsible. Yes, it would be a lot like adopting your own fetus, I don't care.
We need to stop this stupid myth that sticking your penis in something and creating a kid is some great accomplishment. Big goddamn deal, your sperm worked. Having seven kids isn't some macho symbol... especially when they get shit out on society all at once for us to support.
==================================Below is a rant. I apologize.
You know those families that have double quintuplets? Yeah, the ones that are on dozens of hormones and in-vitro fertilization treatments? Stop that shit, right now.
It pisses me off when people say no to adoption, because they "want one of their own". There are hundreds of thousands of kids out there who need homes, sticking your dick in something doesn't make you a father. Deciding to carry a baby to term because you want to ensnare the sperm donor (boyfriend) doesn't make you a mother.
I think the idea that the responsibility with the decision ends for EITHER party involved based on abortion or not is silly. I think the responsibility sits pretty squarely on society in general and our self-centered view of what a child is.
I've seen plenty of people, gay and straight, married and single... who think of a baby as an accessory, or an accomplishment. I've seen a pair of gay doctors do everything they could to adopt a baby, and another gay couple go shopping for one as if it were a trophy.
Somewhat famously Dr. Phil (no, I don't like him) tried to explain to a 15 year old girl that having a baby was a decision that would affect her entire life. He gave her a doll that would cry and require supervision, she found it annoying and took the batteries out.
Whether or not you have an abortion is a big decision, I don't expect many people to take it lightly, it's the womans decision, it's her body. However, giving that child up for adoption because you are young or incapable of raising it, should be the choice of all parties involved, including society at large who will have to decide between supporting your hellspawn indirectly through aid that really doesn't help a whole lot to improve the family dynamics or indirectly by requiring the child be put up for adoption.
I'm sure that will anger some folks, and it is indeed a bit of a crooked answer.
I guess my answer in short is:
I'm in favor of whatever results in the fewest unsupported births. You can't milk child support out of someone who has no money. I am sorry if this makes you unhappy, I'm especially sorry if it means that child protective services confiscates your baby but as long as it gives the BABY a better shot once it's here, your sadness means nothing to me.
As well, I want to focus on the whole notion that "The man had a choice in the pregnancy/abortion when he decided to have sex". That's bullshit. If you stick in "woman" for "man" in that sentence, you're an unwashed sexist pig, yet I've seen that sentence (or variations of it) repeated by 4-5 people in this thread.
I think the use of that sentence alone shows the double standard, and my point has been proven.
We're not talking about a man's right to control what happens in a woman's body. I think that's outside of this debate. We're talking about a man's CHOICE on how to respond to a pregnancy. Does he have the choice to not support the child, should the woman deliver, just as the woman has the choice to abort or deliver. I just got up, so I hope that's articulate.
I agree 100%. Our society would never go for it, but I certainly agree.
Eh, tubals still involve a general knockout plus opening up the abdomen last I heard, though. Unless they've figured out a better way, but even keyhole surgery that deep in the body is no laughing matter.
I keep hearing about this reversible chemical vasectomy technique being researched in India, but I've no idea how its progressing. They just use some kind of goo to block the tubes. It'd be nice if it works, but it sounded too simple and cheap for drug companies to get behind :?
No, he doesn't.
Men and women share equal responsibility for a pregnancy because the sexual participation of each is required for conception to occur.
If a man "chooses" to not support a child, he's failing to fulfill his 50% responsibility for that child regardless of whether or not he wanted the child in the first place.
If you flip it around, a woman also bears responsibility for support any child she births unless she wants to give it up for adoption (or is a surrogate), in which case isn't the father's input required by law? And if a woman left her child with the child's father, would she not still be required to pay child support to account for her 50% responsibility in the child's rearing?
I am going to get a *blank* because then I'll have true peace of mind.
So because there's equal responsibility for pregnancy, you agree that the choice to abort or carry to pregnancy must be equal amongst the partners?
Therein lies te problem. I agree that both partners share responsibility for the child post-birth, but obviously regarding the pregnancy, the idea that a man has the right to make demands of the woman is pretty distasteful.
I have trouble wrapping my head around the issue. I aggree with this, but what happens when a pregnancy occurs and the parties disagree? If the woman wants the birth, is that ok - because its her body?
Is this just a situation where the woman has more rights than the man due to the biological nature of childbirth?
Ah, I was under the impression that a hysterectomy was much more invasive and isn't usually done for sterilization.
I actually studied this a while back. We were looking at the "glass ceiling" and looked into the reasons for pay discrepencies.
The majority were due to child raising. Basically the roles that paid the top salaries (the ones that drag all the stats up) we dominated by men, and when women were interviewed regarding this - it was found that most shifted their priorities towards the family, both because they are obviously the ones that give birth, but also because women are more likely to take on a more nuturing role in the family. High management jobs usually made quite tough demands on a person - and women seemed less likely to accept those demands.
I dont know how far a trend needs to continue for before it becomes an accepted norm and people start letting it affect their decision making.
That's a pretty shallow analysis though.
I did a bit of research, and found a number like 1 in 3 women over here have it done. That seemed high though. In any case, that's way off topic really.
I did until I found out my ex lied about being on the pill, which I shelled out money for. That was a long time ago mind you.
Well, I was more trying to point out that "Oh, women just do that" isn't an explanation. Pays no attention to underlying social pressures, partner's expectations, or even pay disparities pushing mothers out of the workforce in the first place, as in "my husband earns more, I may as well pack it in". And there's only a basic attempt to frame what's going on - from which angle do we look at this? Are women crappy competitors whose ovaries sap their commitment to paid work? Do men disparage life outside paid work and hyperfocus on their jobs to the neglect of their families' non-monetary needs? Is our society feeding on old stereotypes about family roles in order to avoid making the effort to provide a life more pleasant for both genders? Is it all of those things at different times and places?
Just seems like those questions weren't really examined, is all. OT, though >.>
Equality. Right now, things are not equal and are unjust.
Well sometimes, it takes a bit of time to gauge someone, especially when you're young, stupid and in love with them.
It's a lot easier now that I'm wiser, although some might disagree with me there but no matter. Basically I don't go bareback unless we've both had recent tests and I'm in the mood for a kid.
I think the thing I'm worried about the most is being a good parent.
But you cant deny that it's a possibility. People dont intend to crash a car, but you cant just turn around and say "I didnt mean to"
DISCLAIMER:
I dont mean to compare a pregnancy to a crash... but it was just the point I was making about responsibility.
You are. $Procedure could be an abortion, or it could be the birthing procedure. Whichever the woman is allowed to choose. I used a variable 'cause I defined it somewhere earlier, and got lazy (didn't feel like repeating it).
So you're planning to forcibly replicate the physical and emotional trauma that the women can't escape no matter what on all the men? Or when you said "equality" did you mean "equality ;-)"?
I thought that's what "paying for the $procedure" is for.
But you know what? In all total honesty? If you wanted to replace "paying for the $procedure" with "replicating the pain of the procedure" and calling it even after either? I would completely not be opposed to that. I would rather that, as it is more fitting and more equal than 18 years of monetary compensation.
EDIT: But I want access to all the painKILLERS that women get during either procedure, also.
EDIT: On second thought, a man should still pay for the $procedure, as there is no way to replicate the emotional trauma involved.
It took a turn for the retarded a long, long time ago, IMO.
EDIT: In my defense, it was kind of a retarded question.
I was impressed with the discussion we had in the first 10 pages. Seemed like both sides have pertinant points. But yeah, now it's gotten bogged down in people rehashing the same points over and over, and the other side re-iterating the same counter-points over and over.
(You did it earlier in the thread as well) :-P
It seems that some people are arguing that child support is due because it is the legal way to balance out the suffering that women went through in having the birth. This not only seems to fly in the face of the intention of child support (to, you know, support the child), but is also inconsistent with the fact that women can be legally held to pay child support if they lose custody of the child. (This is a good breakdown of showing child support owed to both mothers and fathers. It is staggering, to me, how many people are receiving child support. )
Also, there seems to be an argument that men consent to being fathers simply by having sex. How does this argument not hold when it is the man that wants to be the father? That is, wouldn't this also be a legit argument for when the man wants the child, but the woman decides against it? To be clear, I don't necessarily disagree with the end result, but that seems like a bad way to argue it.
Also.... if it is prefered that this topic just die.... well, pretend I never posted.
I'm not sure about everybody else, but I'm pro-child support (be it from the father or the state) because the child needs to be taken care of and in current US society most single parents can't do it on their own.
Whatever new system we implement I'm okay with - even if it means more taxes for me - as long as somebody, be it the mother, the father, or society at large - is responsible for the child.
It'd never fly, but I like the "two must sign-off on wanting the child or else its put up for adoption" idea posited above. It'd never fly, but it's an interesting idea, and I think it could work.