Genetic information is nearly worthless in terms of energy (sperm are produced in the millions) and in terms of overall reproductive risk. Pregnancy in terms of a woman is massively expensive metabolically, potentially life threatening for a wide variety of reasons, dramatically affects their mobility and ability to work AND alters all of their bodies physiology (sometimes permanently).
It has shit all to do with you compared to the woman involved, whom it is directly sustaining its life from. It is a part of her tissues (not yours) and you cannot get closer to something than it being a direct part of your body. Seriously, this argument is so insipid I'm not even sure what compels me to respond to it.
Tell you what, when pregnancy can directly affect your bodies physiology beyond the several minutes you're actually involved (maybe less) this point would have some substance.
I'd get yelled at so much if I posted that.
That sealed it for me. There really isn't any reason whatsoever for the man to have a choice in the matter. And with that out of the way, I can see no practical rationale behind "saving" a fetus if the host doesn't want the damn thing. One less issue to be conflicted about. Thanks, guys.
Genetic information is nearly worthless in terms of energy (sperm are produced in the millions) and in terms of overall reproductive risk. Pregnancy in terms of a woman is massively expensive metabolically, potentially life threatening for a wide variety of reasons, dramatically affects their mobility and ability to work AND alters all of their bodies physiology (sometimes permanently).
It has shit all to do with you compared to the woman involved, whom it is directly sustaining its life from. It is a part of her tissues (not yours) and you cannot get closer to something than it being a direct part of your body. Seriously, this argument is so insipid I'm not even sure what compels me to respond to it.
Tell you what, when pregnancy can directly affect your bodies physiology beyond the several minutes you're actually involved (maybe less) this point would have some substance.
I'd get yelled at so much if I posted that.
That sealed it for me. There really isn't any reason whatsoever for the man to have a choice in the matter. And with that out of the way, I can see no practical rationale behind "saving" a fetus if the host doesn't want the damn thing. One less issue to be conflicted about. Thanks, guys.
I swear to god I yelled this in this thread earlier. To be fair I was yelling though and then got distracted by how many times I could use the word 'fuck' in a sentence.
So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
Attempting to characterise this debate as anything other than science vs belief is (imo) highly disingenous.
Face it, if you want to draw it back to science, there are million and one causal reasons why a baby may be aborted, from the aforementioned 'falling down the stairs' accident, to spontaneous abortion to stress related abortions etc etc etc...
Sometimes this are completely unavoidable (spontaneous abortion) of which the woman has no control, sometimes there is an element of contribution by the woman (eg, walking down the stairs instead... well, I don't know, not?), and sometimes it is completely voluntary (medical abortion).
Of this 'completely voluntary' area, it too can be split down into several subcategories; abortion due to possible risk, abortion due to circumstance (ie poor as dirt and can't afford to bring it up), or finally, completely voluntary abortion in its purest sense (ie I don't feel like having a child today).
I am sure I have missed some categories. The point is that considering the myriad events that can percipitate an abortion, pro-lifers have drawn an almost arbitrary category based on their conception of 'what constitutes life' and when this life 'can't be harmed'. Furthermore, they only punish certain types of abortion, and even then they can't come to a consensus as to an absolute prohibition (abortion in the case of rape/incest anyone?).
A pro-lifer has absolutely no science to hide behind whatsoever. In my opinion, this whole debate has striking parallels to the evolution vs intelligent design debate... and I know who is being intellectually dishonest there as well.
So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
He has the bolded one.
Well, sort of.
He still has to pay maintenance for the child and mother until the kid is 18.
So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
He has the bolded one.
Well, sort of.
He still has to pay maintenance for the child and mother until the kid is 18.
Ahhh, so he has no choice in the matter, but the mother has all the choice. Interesting.
So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
He has the bolded one.
Well, sort of.
He still has to pay maintenance for the child and mother until the kid is 18.
That's more a consequence of the way we conduct our economy and working lives than anything else, though. As it stands, large sections of society are simply unwilling to sacrifice goals like maximum profit and productivity in order to make it possible for one person to reasonably easily raise a family if that need arises (remember, that's not always a voluntary choice, and the burden falls as heavily on widows/widowers and the like as single mums. not to mention the increasing number of grandparents acting as primary carer). So long as that's the case, some kind of additional input is required in order to buffer kids from the effects of great need.
All that said, the median child-support payment in this country is $5 a month. 'bout 40% of cases. Oh, and cases where men are the primary carer and receive support from the mother are much less rare than they used to be,so y'know, cuts both ways.
So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
He has the bolded one.
Well, sort of.
He still has to pay maintenance for the child and mother until the kid is 18.
Ahhh, so he has no choice in the matter, but the mother has all the choice. Interesting.
Pretty much. Next time he should wear a condom.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
My thing is we've decided a woman can choose to abort a baby due to whatever reasons (financial, maturity level, etc.), but if a man can't financially support the mother/baby he has no choice in the matter if the woman goes through with it.
Seems to be a double standard we've setup here. Shouldn't it be that if women get to choose if a baby is aborted or born, then men can choose whether or not to support such a child if the mother goes through with the birth.
So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
He has the bolded one.
Well, sort of.
He still has to pay maintenance for the child and mother until the kid is 18.
That's more a consequence of the way we conduct our economy and working lives than anything else, though. As it stands, large sections of society are simply unwilling to sacrifice goals like maximum profit and productivity in order to make it possible for one person to reasonably easily raise a family if that need arises (remember, that's not always a voluntary choice, and the burden falls as heavily on widows/widowers and the like as single mums. not to mention the increasing number of grandparents acting as primary carer). So long as that's the case, some kind of additional input is required in order to buffer kids from the effects of great need.
All that said, the median child-support payment in this country is $5 a month. 'bout 40% of cases. Oh, and cases where men are the primary carer and receive support from the mother are much less rare than they used to be,so y'know, cuts both ways.
there are 1.9 million single parents as of 2005, with 3.1 million children.[3] About 1 out of 4 families with dependent children are single-parent families. According to a survey done by the United Kingdom, 9% of single parents in the UK are fathers
As much as I support your view in general on this topic Cat, I don't think you are right about the male-single parent part of it. I know those are UK figures, but imo I think it would generally hold for Australia and America.
Plus I think this is dangerous close to being derailed into a "is maintenance right?" topic... which is another can of worms that we definately don't need to add to this debate!!!!
Docken on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
He has the bolded one.
Well, sort of.
He still has to pay maintenance for the child and mother until the kid is 18.
Ahhh, so he has no choice in the matter, but the mother has all the choice. Interesting.
The money he pays is an attempt to even out the playing field a little (though it's still heavily in his favor): if the guy doesn't want to have the baby, he can split - downside is that the law might track him down and make him pay child support. If the woman doesn't want to have the baby, she can't split, but she can have the abortion - downside is that she has to go through horrible surgery, physical and emotional trauma, and the potential for social castigation.
The thing is, like most of my other world views these days, I don't care about the man's side of the argument. The reason is, because in a thread like this, the man's side is stupidly over-represented to the point that if it were to ever become a problem remotely approaching that of the women's side then my god what a glorious world we would be living in.
The thing is, like most of my other world views these days, I don't care about the man's side of the argument. The reason is, because in a thread like this, the man's side is stupidly over-represented to the point that if it were to ever become a problem remotely approaching that of the women's side then my god what a glorious world we would be living in.
My thing is we've decided a woman can choose to abort a baby due to whatever reasons (financial, maturity level, etc.), but if a man can't financially support the mother/baby he has no choice in the matter if the woman goes through with it.
Seems to be a double standard we've setup here. Shouldn't it be that if women get to choose if a baby is aborted or born, then men can choose whether or not to support such a child if the mother goes through with the birth.
(Again, I'm playing the devil's advocate)
My feeling is, the man's choice comes at the beginning of the issue, way back at conception. After that, he's stuck with whatever choice he made then.
Frankly, I don't really see the problem there.
Also, Electricity=Limed
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
My thing is we've decided a woman can choose to abort a baby due to whatever reasons (financial, maturity level, etc.), but if a man can't financially support the mother/baby he has no choice in the matter if the woman goes through with it.
Seems to be a double standard we've setup here. Shouldn't it be that if women get to choose if a baby is aborted or born, then men can choose whether or not to support such a child if the mother goes through with the birth.
(Again, I'm playing the devil's advocate)
My feeling is, the man's choice comes at the beginning of the issue, way back at conception. After that, he's stuck with whatever choice he made then.
Frankly, I don't really see the problem there.
Also, Electricity=Limed
What if he didn't make a decision to get a girl pregnant? (Broken Condom, other birth control method failed)
saint2e on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
They already do in places like sub-Saharan Africa, Brazil and many third world countries, which also have some of the worst stats for just about everything like STDs, birth mortality, women dying during pregnancy, availability of contraceptives and more.
It's just in developed countries, which are totally out to oppress men I assure you, laws are set up in place so that if a woman gets pregnant and has the child, the father does have to bear some responsibility in raising it. That can just amount to payments per month (or week), but does not go anywhere near having to raise a child by yourself as a solo mom, with lower wages on average and fewer career opportunities in high paying jobs for 18 years.
Edit: People will be claiming I'm a feminazi at this rate.
My thing is we've decided a woman can choose to abort a baby due to whatever reasons (financial, maturity level, etc.), but if a man can't financially support the mother/baby he has no choice in the matter if the woman goes through with it.
It seems you're a little unclear on how those laws work. They are tailored to the man's income, and there's enough flexibility in most of them that setbacks like job loss mean you can put a hold on payments until you're on your feet again. Its not designed to be a crippling burden, which is more than one can say for the burden on the primary carer.
t Docken: the point is, the numbers are a lot higher than they were years ago - and its actually the case that when a man willingly sues for custody he's very much likely to get it. The lack of single fathers in most countries is because many just don't apply- either they don't want to be the carer, or think they won't be allowed to, or think they'll suck at it. What I'm saying is that thankfully those attitudes are fading, and being a single male parent is slowly normalising compared to being a single mother. The rate of women in employment is also becoming comparable to male rates, although the structural patterns of employment are still quite different, and maybe always will be. I'm saying its less bizarre for the carer/payer roles to reverse now, and that child support looks a lot more equitable in that light, even to people who don't give a crap about the very real impacts of pregnancy and childbirth on a woman's socioeconomic status and physical body.
but yeah, it is another topic entirely. if you want a split, i'll do it, but I've pretty much said all I want to say myself.
My feeling is, the man's choice comes at the beginning of the issue, way back at conception. After that, he's stuck with whatever choice he made then.
So you agree with the thread title? Because personally I just don't see why the guy should escape all consequences when the woman can't escape any. And I'm sure they don't mandate child-support payments if the dad stays with the mom and helps support her and the child, so the first person to try to pull the "poor innocent boy castrated by the evil wymynists" card can stick their dick in a toaster. He already gets off scott-free if the woman has an abortion, while she has to go through all manner of trauma and bullshit put in place by people like hesthefastest who think girls who get knocked up are guilty of whoredom until proven innocent.
My feeling is, the man's choice comes at the beginning of the issue, way back at conception. After that, he's stuck with whatever choice he made then.
So you agree with the thread title? Because personally I just don't see why the guy should escape all consequences when the woman can't escape any. And I'm sure they don't mandate child-support payments if the dad stays with the mom and helps support her and the child, so the first person to try to pull the "poor innocent boy castrated by the evil wymynists" card can stick their dick in a toaster. He already gets off scott-free if the woman has an abortion, while she has to go through all manner of trauma and bullshit put in place by people like hesthefastest who think girls who get knocked up are guilty of whoredom until proven innocent.
Wow... no, that isn't what I meant at all. I mean, it's the man's choice to use protection or engage in intercourse. After that, it's out of his hands completely, which is how it should be.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Perhaps ignore that men are intrinsically involved in pregnancy too
I missed the part where the man gets spot-welded to the woman's uterus for nine months the instant he accidentally knocks her up.
That's funny, because I missed the part where the man's genetic information gets removed from the uterus in the event she wants to go through it and he doesn't. That's a living piece of my body, and it lives for as long as the fetus does. My body, my choice right? Equality for everyone? As if.
Genetic information is nearly worthless in terms of energy (sperm are produced in the millions) and in terms of overall reproductive risk. Pregnancy in terms of a woman is massively expensive metabolically, potentially life threatening for a wide variety of reasons, dramatically affects their mobility and ability to work AND alters all of their bodies physiology (sometimes permanently).
It has shit all to do with you compared to the woman involved, whom it is directly sustaining its life from. It is a part of her tissues (not yours) and you cannot get closer to something than it being a direct part of your body. Seriously, this argument is so insipid I'm not even sure what compels me to respond to it.
Tell you what, when pregnancy can directly affect your bodies physiology beyond the several minutes you're actually involved (maybe less) this point would have some substance.
The argument is indeed so easily defeatable it's barely worth mentioning. I said as much before gitrump took me out of context. There is a kernal of truth to it, that abortion technology and the rights associated with it effectively remove the man from the decisions surrounding his progeny, and another small hit of truth that he can found legally responsible (ie child support) if she gives birth, even though he has no legal recourse in controlling the matter. In the end though, he won't be as directly impacted, and the negatives of giving him those rights far outweigh the positives.
Sarcastro on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
My feeling is, the man's choice comes at the beginning of the issue, way back at conception. After that, he's stuck with whatever choice he made then.
So you agree with the thread title? Because personally I just don't see why the guy should escape all consequences when the woman can't escape any. And I'm sure they don't mandate child-support payments if the dad stays with the mom and helps support her and the child, so the first person to try to pull the "poor innocent boy castrated by the evil wymynists" card can stick their dick in a toaster. He already gets off scott-free if the woman has an abortion, while she has to go through all manner of trauma and bullshit put in place by people like hesthefastest who think girls who get knocked up are guilty of whoredom until proven innocent.
Wow... no, that isn't what I meant at all. I mean, it's the man's choice to use protection or engage in intercourse. After that, it's out of his hands completely, which is how it should be.
I figured that's what you meant, because you aren't one of the stupid ones.
My feeling is, the man's choice comes at the beginning of the issue, way back at conception. After that, he's stuck with whatever choice he made then.
So you agree with the thread title? Because personally I just don't see why the guy should escape all consequences when the woman can't escape any. And I'm sure they don't mandate child-support payments if the dad stays with the mom and helps support her and the child, so the first person to try to pull the "poor innocent boy castrated by the evil wymynists" card can stick their dick in a toaster. He already gets off scott-free if the woman has an abortion, while she has to go through all manner of trauma and bullshit put in place by people like hesthefastest who think girls who get knocked up are guilty of whoredom until proven innocent.
Wow... no, that isn't what I meant at all. I mean, it's the man's choice to use protection or engage in intercourse. After that, it's out of his hands completely, which is how it should be.
I don't know that "how it should be" is the right way to put it, so much as "how it is, considering our biology".
@ sarcastro: I can see better where you're coming from now, but man you want to be more clear in future, because right up until that post you came across very clearly as a traditional ban-it-and-punish-them-sluts pro-lifer.
Intentionally so. Otherwise its just nine guys gangbanging the conception=life dude. Oppositional arguments force a respondant to uncover more than just the same old 'on the surface' issues in play. In this case, my own personal goal is simply to achieve awareness and consistancy, so it doesn't actually matter which side of the argument I take. Since people generally come here to argue, it is often more effective to rally them against something then to try and persuade them to agree with you. I enjoy drawing the arguments out of intelligent people with preset agendas, what good is that brainpan if it just sits on its laurels? I only clarified out of respect, personally I'd rather be hip-deep in the middle of Round Two.
Alot of these threads just turn into Fundie bitch fests, or gangbangs, as Sarcastro pointed out above. Hence the reason I choose to play the devil's advocate in alot of these things.
Is it ironic that a Christian is playing the devil's advocate? *Cue Alanis Morissette*
Alot of these threads just turn into Fundie bitch fests, or gangbangs, as Sarcastro pointed out above. Hence the reason I choose to play the devil's advocate in alot of these things.
Is it ironic that a Christian is playing the devil's advocate? *Cue Alanis Morissette*
The true irony of that song is that almost none of the things she mentions are actually ironic.
sanstodo on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
@ sarcastro: I can see better where you're coming from now, but man you want to be more clear in future, because right up until that post you came across very clearly as a traditional ban-it-and-punish-them-sluts pro-lifer.
Intentionally so. Otherwise its just nine guys gangbanging the conception=life dude.
Sounds hot. Were do I sign up? Can anyone get pregnant?
So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
He has the bolded one.
Not really, though, and I don't think arguments like "things are already naturally slanted in favor of men" do anything to hide the legal lopsided-ness of this.
If it is indeed a woman's choice, 100%, to go through with a pregnancy and have the resultant baby (which I believe is, and should certainly be, the case), and a man has 0% say in it (which I also believe is, and should certainly be, the case), then the woman should have no ability to force a man to comply to wishes she makes, and that he officially has nothing to do with once he gets up from the bed to take a shower.
Anything else is legally unjust. A roll in the hay does not, and should not be allowed to constitute 18 years of theft, and I don't believe we should be allowing a government to say otherwise through the legal system.
I think equality should be just that. In this case, I see no way to be equal unless we allow a woman 100% control of her own body - following that, she should also bear 100% of the responsibility for whatever she chooses to do with her body, up to and including making and supporting another body.
EDIT: I would be in favor of being able to legally force a man to fund an abortion, or the hospital cost of birthing the baby. At either point, the physical consequence of the act of intercourse has been dealt with, and as such I think his culpability has been addressed. I think that whether or not a woman decides to keep and raise a baby, at that point, doesn't differ fantastically from her decision to adopt a baby, and this decision should be made without the input or assistance of any man.
So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
He has the bolded one.
Not really, though, and I don't think arguments like "things are already naturally slanted in favor of men" do anything to hide the legal lopsided-ness of this.
If it is indeed a woman's choice, 100%, to go through with a pregnancy and have the resultant baby (which I believe is, and should certainly be, the case), and a man has 0% say in it (which I also believe is, and should certainly be, the case), then the woman should have no ability to force a man to comply to wishes she makes, and that he officially has nothing to do with once he gets up from the bed to take a shower.
Anything else is legally unjust. A roll in the hay does not, and should not be allowed to constitute 18 years of theft, and I don't believe we should be allowing a government to say otherwise through the legal system.
I think equality should be just that. In this case, I see no way to be equal unless we allow a woman 100% control of her own body - following that, she should also bear 100% of the responsibility for whatever she chooses to do with her body, up to and including making and supporting another body.
Just so I understand you, you're saying that despite the fact that it takes both the man and the woman to initially make the baby, because the woman has sole rights to unmaking the baby, anything that follows from her continue pregnancy/abort pregnancy decision is her responsibility 100%?
So if the man has no choice in the matter whatsoever about the decision to abort or have the baby, does that mean conversely he also has the choice to leave the woman to her own devices if she has the baby? Or does he have no choice in that, either?
He has the bolded one.
Not really, though, and I don't think arguments like "things are already naturally slanted in favor of men" do anything to hide the legal lopsided-ness of this.
If it is indeed a woman's choice, 100%, to go through with a pregnancy and have the resultant baby (which I believe is, and should certainly be, the case), and a man has 0% say in it (which I also believe is, and should certainly be, the case), then the woman should have no ability to force a man to comply to wishes she makes, and that he officially has nothing to do with once he gets up from the bed to take a shower.
Anything else is legally unjust. A roll in the hay does not, and should not be allowed to constitute 18 years of theft, and I don't believe we should be allowing a government to say otherwise through the legal system.
I think equality should be just that. In this case, I see no way to be equal unless we allow a woman 100% control of her own body - following that, she should also bear 100% of the responsibility for whatever she chooses to do with her body, up to and including making and supporting another body.
Just so I understand you, you're saying that despite the fact that it takes both the man and the woman to initially make the baby, because the woman has sole rights to unmaking the baby, anything that follows from her continue pregnancy/abort pregnancy decision is her responsibility 100%?
I really don't see why it wouldn't be. I mean, it's not connected to him, logically there is little to no reason for him to have any emotional attachment/investment in the child anyway beyond the initial deposit. Forcing him to be financially responsible goes back to the initial decision, which is fine because the father and mother will both be financially responsible for the baby. As for carrying it, there's no way for a man to "pull his weight" in this regard, therefore he shouldn't really have a say in it.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Because in real-life that means taking the choice back out of the woman's hands.
... what side of this debate do you think I'm on?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Because in real-life that means taking the choice back out of the woman's hands.
... what side of this debate do you think I'm on?
Well, that particular line of reasoning strikes me as coming from the third side. Pro-Abortion.
Here is my stance:
When it comes to fucking: Both have an equal say in terms of protection and whether or not to do it.
After procreation: The woman has exclusive say over whether or not she carries the baby. The man can't share equal weight in the process, therefore he is put in an advisor role. He can voice his wishes, but they carry zero weight outside whatever consideration the woman gives them.
After birth: Again, this splits to a 50/50 role. They each have to contribute to the raising of the child, at the very least financially.
There. Done. Hope that clears something up.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
EDIT: I would be in favor of being able to legally force yet more women to have abortions due to financial troubles.
You should attribute yourself to things when you change people's words to match what you think they said, instead of what they did say. The way it is now, it looks like you're just liming me for truth, when in reality you changed what I said considerably.
Why is no one advocating adoption? Its a perfectly acceptable option.
Posts
That sealed it for me. There really isn't any reason whatsoever for the man to have a choice in the matter. And with that out of the way, I can see no practical rationale behind "saving" a fetus if the host doesn't want the damn thing. One less issue to be conflicted about. Thanks, guys.
I swear to god I yelled this in this thread earlier. To be fair I was yelling though and then got distracted by how many times I could use the word 'fuck' in a sentence.
He has the bolded one.
Face it, if you want to draw it back to science, there are million and one causal reasons why a baby may be aborted, from the aforementioned 'falling down the stairs' accident, to spontaneous abortion to stress related abortions etc etc etc...
Sometimes this are completely unavoidable (spontaneous abortion) of which the woman has no control, sometimes there is an element of contribution by the woman (eg, walking down the stairs instead... well, I don't know, not?), and sometimes it is completely voluntary (medical abortion).
Of this 'completely voluntary' area, it too can be split down into several subcategories; abortion due to possible risk, abortion due to circumstance (ie poor as dirt and can't afford to bring it up), or finally, completely voluntary abortion in its purest sense (ie I don't feel like having a child today).
I am sure I have missed some categories. The point is that considering the myriad events that can percipitate an abortion, pro-lifers have drawn an almost arbitrary category based on their conception of 'what constitutes life' and when this life 'can't be harmed'. Furthermore, they only punish certain types of abortion, and even then they can't come to a consensus as to an absolute prohibition (abortion in the case of rape/incest anyone?).
A pro-lifer has absolutely no science to hide behind whatsoever. In my opinion, this whole debate has striking parallels to the evolution vs intelligent design debate... and I know who is being intellectually dishonest there as well.
Well, sort of.
He still has to pay maintenance for the child and mother until the kid is 18.
Ahhh, so he has no choice in the matter, but the mother has all the choice. Interesting.
That's more a consequence of the way we conduct our economy and working lives than anything else, though. As it stands, large sections of society are simply unwilling to sacrifice goals like maximum profit and productivity in order to make it possible for one person to reasonably easily raise a family if that need arises (remember, that's not always a voluntary choice, and the burden falls as heavily on widows/widowers and the like as single mums. not to mention the increasing number of grandparents acting as primary carer). So long as that's the case, some kind of additional input is required in order to buffer kids from the effects of great need.
All that said, the median child-support payment in this country is $5 a month. 'bout 40% of cases. Oh, and cases where men are the primary carer and receive support from the mother are much less rare than they used to be,so y'know, cuts both ways.
Pretty much. Next time he should wear a condom.
Seems to be a double standard we've setup here. Shouldn't it be that if women get to choose if a baby is aborted or born, then men can choose whether or not to support such a child if the mother goes through with the birth.
(Again, I'm playing the devil's advocate)
As much as I support your view in general on this topic Cat, I don't think you are right about the male-single parent part of it. I know those are UK figures, but imo I think it would generally hold for Australia and America.
Plus I think this is dangerous close to being derailed into a "is maintenance right?" topic... which is another can of worms that we definately don't need to add to this debate!!!!
The money he pays is an attempt to even out the playing field a little (though it's still heavily in his favor): if the guy doesn't want to have the baby, he can split - downside is that the law might track him down and make him pay child support. If the woman doesn't want to have the baby, she can't split, but she can have the abortion - downside is that she has to go through horrible surgery, physical and emotional trauma, and the potential for social castigation.
I think the guy still has the edge here.
My feeling is, the man's choice comes at the beginning of the issue, way back at conception. After that, he's stuck with whatever choice he made then.
Frankly, I don't really see the problem there.
Also, Electricity=Limed
What if he didn't make a decision to get a girl pregnant? (Broken Condom, other birth control method failed)
They already do in places like sub-Saharan Africa, Brazil and many third world countries, which also have some of the worst stats for just about everything like STDs, birth mortality, women dying during pregnancy, availability of contraceptives and more.
It's just in developed countries, which are totally out to oppress men I assure you, laws are set up in place so that if a woman gets pregnant and has the child, the father does have to bear some responsibility in raising it. That can just amount to payments per month (or week), but does not go anywhere near having to raise a child by yourself as a solo mom, with lower wages on average and fewer career opportunities in high paying jobs for 18 years.
Edit: People will be claiming I'm a feminazi at this rate.
t Docken: the point is, the numbers are a lot higher than they were years ago - and its actually the case that when a man willingly sues for custody he's very much likely to get it. The lack of single fathers in most countries is because many just don't apply- either they don't want to be the carer, or think they won't be allowed to, or think they'll suck at it. What I'm saying is that thankfully those attitudes are fading, and being a single male parent is slowly normalising compared to being a single mother. The rate of women in employment is also becoming comparable to male rates, although the structural patterns of employment are still quite different, and maybe always will be. I'm saying its less bizarre for the carer/payer roles to reverse now, and that child support looks a lot more equitable in that light, even to people who don't give a crap about the very real impacts of pregnancy and childbirth on a woman's socioeconomic status and physical body.
but yeah, it is another topic entirely. if you want a split, i'll do it, but I've pretty much said all I want to say myself.
So you agree with the thread title? Because personally I just don't see why the guy should escape all consequences when the woman can't escape any. And I'm sure they don't mandate child-support payments if the dad stays with the mom and helps support her and the child, so the first person to try to pull the "poor innocent boy castrated by the evil wymynists" card can stick their dick in a toaster. He already gets off scott-free if the woman has an abortion, while she has to go through all manner of trauma and bullshit put in place by people like hesthefastest who think girls who get knocked up are guilty of whoredom until proven innocent.
Wow... no, that isn't what I meant at all. I mean, it's the man's choice to use protection or engage in intercourse. After that, it's out of his hands completely, which is how it should be.
The argument is indeed so easily defeatable it's barely worth mentioning. I said as much before gitrump took me out of context. There is a kernal of truth to it, that abortion technology and the rights associated with it effectively remove the man from the decisions surrounding his progeny, and another small hit of truth that he can found legally responsible (ie child support) if she gives birth, even though he has no legal recourse in controlling the matter. In the end though, he won't be as directly impacted, and the negatives of giving him those rights far outweigh the positives.
I figured that's what you meant, because you aren't one of the stupid ones.
I don't know that "how it should be" is the right way to put it, so much as "how it is, considering our biology".
Intentionally so. Otherwise its just nine guys gangbanging the conception=life dude. Oppositional arguments force a respondant to uncover more than just the same old 'on the surface' issues in play. In this case, my own personal goal is simply to achieve awareness and consistancy, so it doesn't actually matter which side of the argument I take. Since people generally come here to argue, it is often more effective to rally them against something then to try and persuade them to agree with you. I enjoy drawing the arguments out of intelligent people with preset agendas, what good is that brainpan if it just sits on its laurels? I only clarified out of respect, personally I'd rather be hip-deep in the middle of Round Two.
Is it ironic that a Christian is playing the devil's advocate? *Cue Alanis Morissette*
The true irony of that song is that almost none of the things she mentions are actually ironic.
Sounds hot. Were do I sign up? Can anyone get pregnant?
Not really, though, and I don't think arguments like "things are already naturally slanted in favor of men" do anything to hide the legal lopsided-ness of this.
If it is indeed a woman's choice, 100%, to go through with a pregnancy and have the resultant baby (which I believe is, and should certainly be, the case), and a man has 0% say in it (which I also believe is, and should certainly be, the case), then the woman should have no ability to force a man to comply to wishes she makes, and that he officially has nothing to do with once he gets up from the bed to take a shower.
Anything else is legally unjust. A roll in the hay does not, and should not be allowed to constitute 18 years of theft, and I don't believe we should be allowing a government to say otherwise through the legal system.
I think equality should be just that. In this case, I see no way to be equal unless we allow a woman 100% control of her own body - following that, she should also bear 100% of the responsibility for whatever she chooses to do with her body, up to and including making and supporting another body.
EDIT: I would be in favor of being able to legally force a man to fund an abortion, or the hospital cost of birthing the baby. At either point, the physical consequence of the act of intercourse has been dealt with, and as such I think his culpability has been addressed. I think that whether or not a woman decides to keep and raise a baby, at that point, doesn't differ fantastically from her decision to adopt a baby, and this decision should be made without the input or assistance of any man.
Just so I understand you, you're saying that despite the fact that it takes both the man and the woman to initially make the baby, because the woman has sole rights to unmaking the baby, anything that follows from her continue pregnancy/abort pregnancy decision is her responsibility 100%?
I really don't see why it wouldn't be. I mean, it's not connected to him, logically there is little to no reason for him to have any emotional attachment/investment in the child anyway beyond the initial deposit. Forcing him to be financially responsible goes back to the initial decision, which is fine because the father and mother will both be financially responsible for the baby. As for carrying it, there's no way for a man to "pull his weight" in this regard, therefore he shouldn't really have a say in it.
Because in real-life that means taking the choice back out of the woman's hands.
... what side of this debate do you think I'm on?
Well, that particular line of reasoning strikes me as coming from the third side. Pro-Abortion.
Can I be anti-baby?
Here is my stance:
When it comes to fucking: Both have an equal say in terms of protection and whether or not to do it.
After procreation: The woman has exclusive say over whether or not she carries the baby. The man can't share equal weight in the process, therefore he is put in an advisor role. He can voice his wishes, but they carry zero weight outside whatever consideration the woman gives them.
After birth: Again, this splits to a 50/50 role. They each have to contribute to the raising of the child, at the very least financially.
There. Done. Hope that clears something up.
You'd be the first. Someone has already started up the Pro-Women-As-Forced-Labor side.
I don't follow. Are you saying that people should not be held individually responsible for thier choices?
You should attribute yourself to things when you change people's words to match what you think they said, instead of what they did say. The way it is now, it looks like you're just liming me for truth, when in reality you changed what I said considerably.
Why is no one advocating adoption? Its a perfectly acceptable option.