Personal thoughts on abortion and parenthood

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

chaosord:

It depends. For instance, a one night stand. They never meet again until years later where the woman is suing for years of child-support. If a woman chooses to be a mother, good for her, but she has no right to choose if a man becomes a father, finical or otherwise. Remember the woman can choose to keep it, abort it, or put it up for adoption.

A one night stand is actually a bad example as most people can't even remember the persons name the next day, let alone in 3-4 months when they find out they're pregnant. Many a child is born with the the 'fathers name' section left blank due to things like this (I know at least 4 personally)

The problem with deciding what constitutes a non recreational encounter is that it puts the onus on the woman to prove there was a more substantive relationship than just sex; all the guy has to say is "I thought it was just a bit of harmless fun" and he can argue that he should bear no responsibility for the result.

For example say 2 people start seeing each other for 2 weeks, they have sex and she gets pregnant, the guy can argue that they weren't serious and it was just a casual fling. Or say you have a one night stand with your ex, there's no relationship there any more so the man can argue that it was just sex.

That's why a blanket 'you fucked it, you pay' rule is better as it removes all the hassle of a court case that would 99.9% of the time rule in favour of the child (and by proxy the mother). Even the legal wrangling of today is ridiculous; if you dispute that it's yours; DNA test, if it's yours you pay (and the cost of the test for wasting court time), if not the mother pays for the test and back-pays anything for a child.[1]

[1] This is a personal one that I find annoying. My father refutes that my brother is his but refuses to submit to a DNA test because he knows he's the dad and once it's proven he can't try and delay payment through appeals.

adamsaccount:
You should be able to do what you like with your body, be it shooting it full of heroin or evicting an unwanted squatter.

There are enough humans beings on the earth
I dont like the thought of killing another human being any more than the next person but if it hasnt developed sentience yet then is it really so cruel?

Theres a lot i dont understand about this (along with everything else) but i think fundamentally it should all be underpinned by the right to choose

The responibility lies in knowing that you have stopped a potential human being. This isnt a good or bad thing, it is what it is. That human could have been the next hitler or the next jesus

Contraceptives can fail and rape happens far too often to just push all this aside and say everyone should be forced to care for unwanted kids especially when a lot of people dont have the resources or inclination. Better to not be born than to be born unwanted in my opinion

It's arguable whether any human under the age of 2-3 years of age has sentience in the sense that the term is usually understood.

Vegosiux:

al4674:

adamsaccount:
Thing is though, i view a fetus as a potential human being, in the same way that sperm and eggs are potential human beings and the same way that the desire to screw is a potential human being. Sure its further down the line but still the same concept.

The only way you can view a fetus as a potential human being is if you disregard the general scientific consensus on the matter. In no way can you say that a fetus is not a biological human being, as in a living distinct member of the Homo Sapien race. This is something that is undeniable and taking an opposite view is in my book no different from creationists disregarding evolution for the sake of their ideology.

I'm sorry, but do you have a source for that? I'm not wishing to dispute your post, but I really wasn't aware there was a scientific consensus on the fact, so I'd like to read up on that. Since you brought it up I assumed you can point me directly to the relevant info instead of me having to go with google prospecting.

Pick pretty much any medical text out there. They all agree on the zygote being the beginning of human life.

Seanchaidh:

chaosord:
She can not demand money from the man who had sex with her (even if it a rapist, sorry two wrongs do not make a right. maybe create a support system where proven cases get aid, another topic for another time

Mmm, yes, and for the same reason all torts from wrongful death and assault to negligence and trespass pay no damages because "two wrongs don't make a right".

Are you for real?

In those cases the victim makes no choice after the fact. A raped woman can choose to abort, put up for adoption, or keep it. The rapist is already being punished for his choice, raping. So why should the rapist also pay for a choice that wasn't theirs?

Sorry about the poor phrasing.

Karma168:

chaosord:

It depends. For instance, a one night stand. They never meet again until years later where the woman is suing for years of child-support. If a woman chooses to be a mother, good for her, but she has no right to choose if a man becomes a father, finical or otherwise. Remember the woman can choose to keep it, abort it, or put it up for adoption.

A one night stand is actually a bad example as most people can't even remember the persons name the next day, let alone in 3-4 months when they find out they're pregnant. Many a child is born with the the 'fathers name' section left blank due to things like this (I know at least 4 personally)

The problem with deciding what constitutes a non recreational encounter is that it puts the onus on the woman to prove there was a more substantive relationship than just sex; all the guy has to say is "I thought it was just a bit of harmless fun" and he can argue that he should bear no responsibility for the result.

For example say 2 people start seeing each other for 2 weeks, they have sex and she gets pregnant, the guy can argue that they weren't serious and it was just a casual fling. Or say you have a one night stand with your ex, there's no relationship there any more so the man can argue that it was just sex.

That's why a blanket 'you fucked it, you pay' rule is better as it removes all the hassle of a court case that would 99.9% of the time rule in favour of the child (and by proxy the mother). Even the legal wrangling of today is ridiculous; if you dispute that it's yours; DNA test, if it's yours you pay (and the cost of the test for wasting court time), if not the mother pays for the test and back-pays anything for a child.[1]

So if a man chooses to have sex he is also responsible for the choices the woman makes as well?

[1] This is a personal one that I find annoying. My father refutes that my brother is his but refuses to submit to a DNA test because he knows he's the dad and once it's proven he can't try and delay payment through appeals.

Karma168:
That's why a blanket 'you fucked it, you pay' rule is better as it removes all the hassle of a court case that would 99.9% of the time rule in favour of the child (and by proxy the mother). Even the legal wrangling of today is ridiculous; if you dispute that it's yours; DNA test, if it's yours you pay

That leaves one criticial problem unsolved: It strips men of all rights in regards to paternity, and leaves everything wide open to manipulation.

It would create the situation where you can legally extort someone money.

I also think that a 'right to walk away' would cause especially no court hassle. Because if that exists, people will take care to make arrangements if they wanted absentee fathership, lest they end up in court over it otherwise.

But I don't think many such cases will occur. A woman wanting to be a single parent, I can see that happening on some occasions, like when age starts to play a role but no partner is present. But a man wanting to be be an absentee father? Naah. So abolishing the dictatorial rule that if you're the father you always have to pay whether you like it not will improve most cases by far. I'm surprised such a thing even survived into modern times. I thought society had moved past the point where it felt entitled to dictate your sexlife.

Plus it's created another legal hornet's nest: What about sperm donors? These can be forced to pay for being a father too. That's why their identity is a secret. But in some cases like in the Netherlands, that secrecy has been abolished. It's actually went to court and someone won a case that demanded the identity of their sperm donor, and then tried to take the guy to court to extort money from him.

Of course the number of sperm donors since then has become zero and the Netherlands actually has to import sperm from Belgium and Germany these days, but creating the 'right to walk away' would also solve that problem, or prevent it ever happening.

lowhat:
Pick pretty much any medical text out there. They all agree on the zygote being the beginning of human life.

And now a medical text that speaks of them as concious autonomous human beings?

I always thought abortion is best discussed in relation to other topics. For example, Mississippi is in the last stages of closing their last abortion clinic, how many of those people outside praying are willing to adopt, support a foster child, or pay more taxes so children can have insurance and an education? It's easy to say abortion is murder or I'm pro-choice, it's much more difficult to consider the ramifications of those positions. IMO if you want to regulate sex you need to go the whole way and regulate how parents are raising their children. If you absolutely must ensure a baby is born, then you absolutely must ensure that baby has access to medical care, education, safety, etc.

chaosord:

So if a man chooses to have sex he is also responsible for the choices the woman makes as well?

I plant a bomb on a tube train, somebody sees it but decides not to disarm it/throw it out the train, it blows up and kills everyone, I go to jail.

If you created the mess you should be responsible for the result. Doesn't matter what the woman decided, your kid, your responsibility.

Blablahb:

I also think that a 'right to walk away' would cause especially no court hassle. Because if that exists, people will take care to make arrangements if they wanted absentee fathership, lest they end up in court over it otherwise.

And we end up with thousands of single parents claiming benefits because they get nowhere near enough money to look after kids. Honestly if you give people the choice to just walk away how many do you think will agree to pay of their own volition? I'd be amazed if it was more than 25%; people only agree to pay now because they know if they refuse they'll get forced to later, if you give them a free pass nobody but couples that have split amicably is going to broker a deal, the person being sued for child support will just walk away. If you bring in a 'right to walk away' then you might as well dismantle the entire system because nobody is going to use it.

Karma168:
And we end up with thousands of single parents claiming benefits because they get nowhere near enough money to look after kids.

I doubt it. Why would anyone choose that over better alternatives? Sure, there'll be a few indecisive people who end up doing that, but that's worth it to abolish something which is basically something from a fascist era.

I mean, you're talking about reasoning that's based on that the state decides who you can and can't sleep with. Forcing absent fathers to pay even if they never wanted (because if someone wants it first and then changes their mind, now that's a different story) children is basically the male equivalent of banning abortion and forcing a woman to have a child she doesn't want.
One very important aspect is that a man can never decide if he wants a child or not: Not only is it possible to conceal it from him, but that decision falls to the woman alone based on reasons of self-determination and human rights. A situation I fully support.

But if the alternative is that the other gender gets into the very same situation of being forced to pay for something sexual they never ever wanted, something needs to be done.

The only alternative is to give the father a veto right and thus a right to force a child on the mother, and that has downsides which are obvious and too large to ever consider it.


So basically the way I see it, there's only two logically consistent viewpoints possible here:

-Respecting the woman's right of self-determination, and a fatherly 'right to walk away'. (both genders are equal and are free)

-Wanting to ban abortion and contraceptives and forcing men to pay for whomever is their offpsirng. (both genders are equal, and nobody has any freedom)

With the note that I'm obviously going to criticise the second option as being highly unethical, but it is consistent at least.

Karma168:

chaosord:

So if a man chooses to have sex he is also responsible for the choices the woman makes as well?

I plant a bomb on a tube train, somebody sees it but decides not to disarm it/throw it out the train, it blows up and kills everyone, I go to jail.

If you created the mess you should be responsible for the result. Doesn't matter what the woman decided, your kid, your responsibility.

Blablahb:

I also think that a 'right to walk away' would cause especially no court hassle. Because if that exists, people will take care to make arrangements if they wanted absentee fathership, lest they end up in court over it otherwise.

And we end up with thousands of single parents claiming benefits because they get nowhere near enough money to look after kids. Honestly if you give people the choice to just walk away how many do you think will agree to pay of their own volition? I'd be amazed if it was more than 25%; people only agree to pay now because they know if they refuse they'll get forced to later, if you give them a free pass nobody but couples that have split amicably is going to broker a deal, the person being sued for child support will just walk away. If you bring in a 'right to walk away' then you might as well dismantle the entire system because nobody is going to use it.

A baby is not a bomb. Its also her kid, HER responsibility. She made that choice knowing that she was going to be on her own raising that kid. She has either barred the father from the child's life or knew that the father wasn't going to be in the picture.

It is interesting that you bring up the system. It does need to be looked at and redone. You can then define a "right to walk away" and put limits on it. As it stands now its "he got her pregnant, so its his fault, so he must pay for it" which belittles women.

Oh God...this issue.

I have no problem with anyone that gets an abortion. I think any act that pertains to a person's own body shouldn't be up to outside forces(government).

You do bring up a good point about who has to take responsibility once it's born. If the female does decide to keep it, and the male disagrees, he should be allowed to walk away. Through you may have gone too far with the rapist thing. That was just...for lack of a term I want that doesn't insult you, silliness.

chaosord:

Karma168:

chaosord:

So if a man chooses to have sex he is also responsible for the choices the woman makes as well?

I plant a bomb on a tube train, somebody sees it but decides not to disarm it/throw it out the train, it blows up and kills everyone, I go to jail.

If you created the mess you should be responsible for the result. Doesn't matter what the woman decided, your kid, your responsibility.

Blablahb:

I also think that a 'right to walk away' would cause especially no court hassle. Because if that exists, people will take care to make arrangements if they wanted absentee fathership, lest they end up in court over it otherwise.

And we end up with thousands of single parents claiming benefits because they get nowhere near enough money to look after kids. Honestly if you give people the choice to just walk away how many do you think will agree to pay of their own volition? I'd be amazed if it was more than 25%; people only agree to pay now because they know if they refuse they'll get forced to later, if you give them a free pass nobody but couples that have split amicably is going to broker a deal, the person being sued for child support will just walk away. If you bring in a 'right to walk away' then you might as well dismantle the entire system because nobody is going to use it.

A baby is not a bomb. Its also her kid, HER responsibility. She made that choice knowing that she was going to be on her own raising that kid. She has either barred the father from the child's life or knew that the father wasn't going to be in the picture.

It is interesting that you bring up the system. It does need to be looked at and redone. You can then define a "right to walk away" and put limits on it. As it stands now its "he got her pregnant, so its his fault, so he must pay for it" which belittles women.

So it's her fault that she can't an abortion, but can't get money from the rapist father? Since you said a rapist should not necessarily have to pay money. I'm not making this up. That's what I'm hearing.

You can't say that the kid is her responsibility if you refuse to allow her to have an abortion. You can't have your cake and eat it. You might say she had a waiting period where she can abort her fetus where it's not a "being", but thanks to people like al4674, you have people who will categorize a recently fertilized egg as a fetus. Ignoring times when the news might only come to light months after the act. You are pretty much leaving people with no real choice, but when pushed on how these unwilling parents are going to take care of their kids, your only response is " it's their responsibility". People can't be at fault if they have no control and no choice.

Right now I think you're advocating that she has to make nice with the father even if she hates him. Otherwise she will be left destitute or reliant on welfare to survive.

Look the system is not ideal, but what you're advocating is going to cause no end of problems. Control of a women over her body is also a bit part of human rights. If you're going to say that women receiving alimony is somehow sexist, then I'll have to repeat the tired old argument that trying to impose what happens to another person's body is controlling.

Having control of your own body is essential to advancing in life.

chaosord:

Seanchaidh:

chaosord:
She can not demand money from the man who had sex with her (even if it a rapist, sorry two wrongs do not make a right. maybe create a support system where proven cases get aid, another topic for another time

Mmm, yes, and for the same reason all torts from wrongful death and assault to negligence and trespass pay no damages because "two wrongs don't make a right".

Are you for real?

In those cases the victim makes no choice after the fact. A raped woman can choose to abort, put up for adoption, or keep it. The rapist is already being punished for his choice, raping. So why should the rapist also pay for a choice that wasn't theirs?

Because if it weren't for the rapist's abhorrent actions, that choice couldn't have been made at all and wouldn't have needed to be dealt with. He can pray that the woman aborts and spares him some costs, but it's really all on him. He has absolutely no right to expect that the consequences of his criminal behavior be dumped on the victim just because she "made a choice": she made a choice based on being pregnant, a condition which she was in no measure responsible for. At all. She could terminate the pregnancy, but that carries additional costs physically, emotionally, financially, in a way that makes doing so substantially different from just never being pregnant by a rapist in the first place.

Frission:

chaosord:

Karma168:

I plant a bomb on a tube train, somebody sees it but decides not to disarm it/throw it out the train, it blows up and kills everyone, I go to jail.

If you created the mess you should be responsible for the result. Doesn't matter what the woman decided, your kid, your responsibility.

And we end up with thousands of single parents claiming benefits because they get nowhere near enough money to look after kids. Honestly if you give people the choice to just walk away how many do you think will agree to pay of their own volition? I'd be amazed if it was more than 25%; people only agree to pay now because they know if they refuse they'll get forced to later, if you give them a free pass nobody but couples that have split amicably is going to broker a deal, the person being sued for child support will just walk away. If you bring in a 'right to walk away' then you might as well dismantle the entire system because nobody is going to use it.

A baby is not a bomb. Its also her kid, HER responsibility. She made that choice knowing that she was going to be on her own raising that kid. She has either barred the father from the child's life or knew that the father wasn't going to be in the picture.

It is interesting that you bring up the system. It does need to be looked at and redone. You can then define a "right to walk away" and put limits on it. As it stands now its "he got her pregnant, so its his fault, so he must pay for it" which belittles women.

So it's her fault that she can't an abortion, but can't get money from the rapist father? Since you said a rapist should not necessarily have to pay money. I'm not making this up. That's what I'm hearing.

You can't say that the kid is her responsibility if you refuse to allow her to have an abortion. You can't have your cake and eat it. You might say she had a waiting period where she can abort her fetus where it's not a "being", but thanks to people like al4674, you have people who will categorize a recently fertilized egg as a fetus. Ignoring times when the news might only come to light months after the act. You are pretty much leaving people with no real choice, but when pushed on how these unwilling parents are going to take care of their kids, your only response is " it's their responsibility". People can't be at fault if they have no control and no choice.

Right now I think you're advocating that she has to make nice with the father even if she hates him. Otherwise she will be left destitute or reliant on welfare to survive.

Look the system is not ideal, but what you're advocating is going to cause no end of problems. Control of a women over her body is also a bit part of human rights. If you're going to say that women receiving alimony is somehow sexist, then I'll have to repeat the tired old argument that trying to impose what happens to another person's body is controlling.

Having control of your own body is essential to advancing in life.

I am sorry for being unclear.

Yes a woman can get an abortion. I just believe it has to do done either before the fetus can feel pain or done in such a way it causes none.

As for the rapist, the woman is more than welcome to sue the pants off him in a civil case. However, she has not right to force him to pay for the child if she chooses to keep it.

I am not implying that a woman has to make "nice" with the father. After all a woman can make enough to support herself and her family. She may need help from friends and family or the state. You are implying that a woman can not raise a child on her own without some form of help from a man. Something rather sexist. My implication is a woman is just as capable as a man in getting funds/childcare.

Seanchaidh:

chaosord:

Seanchaidh:

Mmm, yes, and for the same reason all torts from wrongful death and assault to negligence and trespass pay no damages because "two wrongs don't make a right".

Are you for real?

In those cases the victim makes no choice after the fact. A raped woman can choose to abort, put up for adoption, or keep it. The rapist is already being punished for his choice, raping. So why should the rapist also pay for a choice that wasn't theirs?

Because if it weren't for the rapist's abhorrent actions, that choice couldn't have been made at all and wouldn't have needed to be dealt with. He can pray that the woman aborts and spares him some costs, but it's really all on him. He has absolutely no right to expect that the consequences of his criminal behavior be dumped on the victim just because she "made a choice": she made a choice based on being pregnant, a condition which she was in no measure responsible for. At all. She could terminate the pregnancy, but that carries additional costs physically, emotionally, financially, in a way that makes doing so substantially different from just never being pregnant by a rapist in the first place.

But she can give up the child for adoption at no cost to her self.

And the crime of rape is not a cut and dry matter. Due varying legal definitions. For instance two people get drunk and have sex, it is sometimes considered rape (drunk means lack of consent. Though both parties were drunk so double rape but only the man gets charged). So the "rapist" in this case was not "abhorrent". The whole subject of rape is for another thread, another time.

Abortion (other than for vital reasons, not for convenience sake) is most definitely murder. Why? Its the death of a person. Those "set of replicating cells" are going to become a person one day. Who are we to say they don't have a right to life?

And the government should be funding birth control and giving out condoms instead of funding abortions.(I know the US government doesn't, but just here me out) I hate how some fellow conservatives hate abortion but also equally hate public schools teaching sex ed. So they hate dead babies but also equally hate preventing dead babies. Great job GOP.

chaosord:

But she can give up the child for adoption at no cost to her self.

Yeah, because giving birth is totally painless, never has any complications or leaves any permanent injuries... Not to mention the emotional trauma of giving away a child you've given birth too.

Seriously, get real. You show a stunning lack of ability to show empathy for women or understanding the situations women might be in. It is kind of ironic that you call Evilthecat sexist in the thread on domestic abuse when you yourself keep making borderline (sometimes outright) misogynistic statements. I am sure you don't really hate women, but you'd benefit from at least trying to understand how we might feel or think before making statements about situations happening to our bodies, that you will never have to experience.

Things the left does wrong:
1) Abortion is equated with ALL women's rights, which is wrong. It is used as political blackmail. "If you're pro-life, you're anti-woman." Only idiots believe this.
2) Do not give a fuck about fathers' rights.
3) Thinks abortions should be encouraged by the government through subsidies and forced health insurance coverage.
4) Is unable to come up with a valid counter-argument to the idea of "Women's rights? What about the young woman you just killed?"
5) Thinks of unborn babies as "material", not the separate entity inside the woman that they are.

Things the right does wrong:
1) Doesn't realize that abortions will be done anyway and thus making them illegal only throws gasoline on a fire.
2) A minority of social conservatives believe that abortion should be outlawed even in extreme (though statistically insignificant) situations like rape, incest, and health risks to the mother.
3) Fails to sell the idea of pro-life to the public, who more readily believe Republicans are actually "anti-woman".

Gethsemani:

chaosord:

But she can give up the child for adoption at no cost to her self.

Yeah, because giving birth is totally painless, never has any complications or leaves any permanent injuries... Not to mention the emotional trauma of giving away a child you've given birth too.

Seriously, get real. You show a stunning lack of ability to show empathy for women or understanding the situations women might be in. It is kind of ironic that you call Evilthecat sexist in the thread on domestic abuse when you yourself keep making borderline (sometimes outright) misogynistic statements. I am sure you don't really hate women, but you'd benefit from at least trying to understand how we might feel or think before making statements about situations happening to our bodies, that you will never have to experience.

Finical costs. Please don't go putting words in my mouth.

Seriously, get real. You show a stunning lack of ability to show empathy for men or understanding the situations men might be in. It is kind of ironic that you call me misogynistic in this thread, when in the thread on domestic abuse when you yourself keep making borderline (sometimes outright) misandric statements.
And I'm sure you don't hate men, but you'd benefit from at least trying to understand how we might feel or think before making statements about situations happening to our right to choose, that you will never have to experience.

harmonic:
1) Abortion is equated with ALL women's rights, which is wrong. It is used as political blackmail. "If you're pro-life, you're anti-woman." Only idiots believe this.

Oh come on, the only reason to be against abortion is if one wants to impose their religious values by force. The whole 'pro-life' stuff is rubbish, demonstrated because of the hypocrisy surrounding that.

It requires an extreme lack of empathy to be anti-abortion. Quite frankly, since I've seen a few victims of sexual abuse and rape, I'd sooner class being anti-abortion as a personality disorder than buy into the idea; if someone can be that devoid of empathy as people who are against abortion are, how can they be mentally sound?

That's a rhetorical statement of course. I know that everybody who is against abortion hasn't got the foggiest idea what they're talking about. If they knew, they wouldn't be anti-abortion.

harmonic:
2) Do not give a fuck about fathers' rights.

Big assumption there buddy. I look forward to proof.

harmonic:
3) Thinks abortions should be encouraged by the government through subsidies and forced health insurance coverage.

That's rubbish. Making something available is not the same as encouraging it. Now making it impossible to afford by taking away insurance however, that's the same as banning it, and just as malicious.

harmonic:
4) Is unable to come up with a valid counter-argument to the idea of "Women's rights? What about the young woman you just killed?"

Is this misplaced perhaps? Abortion doesn't kill any women. Side-effects are rare, it's a safe procedure. Deadly side-effects are nearly unheard of and require a pre-existing condition, like an allergy to an anaesthetic used in the procedure.

So where does this point come from?

harmonic:
5) Thinks of unborn babies as "material", not the separate entity inside the woman that they are.

Maybe that's because they're not. Clumps of cells are not people. Either prove that clumps of cells are concious autonomous human beings or deal with it.

harmonic:
2) A minority of social conservatives believe that abortion should be outlawed even in extreme (though statistically insignificant) situations like rape, incest, and health risks to the mother.

And having those people for bedfellows, I'd scratch myself behind the ears if my point of view was correct. If someone sees a young rape victim and their first response is to consider them a slut and force them to have a child, I'd say they're a very disturbed person, and whatever dogma lead them to that point of view must be wrong.

If only the rest of the anti-abortion peeps saw it that way...

They're not really 'the right' either are they? I'm a right winger but I loathe that sort of thinking. They're mostly just subscribers to moralistic authoritarianism. They don't believe in freedom or modern values, they consider imposing their own (religious) views by force to be the best way to run a society.

One can't strip half the population of the most essential freedom; the integrity of the own body, and not describe oneself as a bitter enemy of freedom, nobody can pull that kind of hypocrisy.

harmonic:
3) Fails to sell the idea of pro-life to the public, who more readily believe Republicans are actually "anti-woman".

It happens all the time that ideas that are pure lies and hypocrisy don't get sold.

Firstly, Any religious background or reasoning is a moot point, your books dont mention abortion, so stop right there.

Secondly, The ONLY way to combat poverty is to give women FULL control over their reproductive rights.

NOW, overall Abortion is a net positive for humanity. Though we should be considering as much as possible the life of the POTENTIAL member of the human race. We should be making efforts when possible to provide other options, but NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE forcing them on the woman involved.

We kill lots of organisms that can feel pain and consider that moral. I don't think feeling pain can be the cut-off point. But I think it's along the right lines. It should definitely be tied to neurological development.
That said, even if we find a cut-off point where we consider the fetus far enough developed, does that really automatically mean the woman loses all rights from that cut-off point onwards? Doesn't there still need to occur a weighing after that?
That's why I kind of like the way we handle it here. If physical, but also emotional, psychological or other significant harm may come due to a problematic, unwanted pregnancy, that pregnancy can still be terminated after our (pretty early) cut-off point (around 12 weeks). Frankly, it leaves further options open. It's not an absolutist rule.

chaosord:

Finical costs. Please don't go putting words in my mouth.

Seriously, get real. You show a stunning lack of ability to show empathy for men or understanding the situations men might be in. It is kind of ironic that you call me misogynistic in this thread, when in the thread on domestic abuse when you yourself keep making borderline (sometimes outright) misandric statements.
And I'm sure you don't hate men, but you'd benefit from at least trying to understand how we might feel or think before making statements about situations happening to our right to choose, that you will never have to experience.

You said "at no costs to herself", that you fail to be precise in your terminology is no fault of mine. I think the rest of your post really shows what level you are on though, since you don't even address my argument but instead resort to the kind of thing five year olds do to piss each other off.

If you feel like addressing my point, I'm right here. But please don't reply to me unless you will.

al4674:

Yes, keep making your emotional arguments like the pro-choice crowd always does. For every ''raped 13 yeard old'' there's a ''I want an abortion because otherwise I won't fit into this dress'' or ''time for an abortion because I wanted a boy, not a girl.''

Please provide sources that state that a substancial amount of women go through abortion because of this reasons (as in at least 33%). I'm pretty sure you won't be able to back up your 95% claim so I won't try to nail you on that one.

Gethsemani:

chaosord:

Finical costs. Please don't go putting words in my mouth.

Seriously, get real. You show a stunning lack of ability to show empathy for men or understanding the situations men might be in. It is kind of ironic that you call me misogynistic in this thread, when in the thread on domestic abuse when you yourself keep making borderline (sometimes outright) misandric statements.
And I'm sure you don't hate men, but you'd benefit from at least trying to understand how we might feel or think before making statements about situations happening to our right to choose, that you will never have to experience.

You said "at no costs to herself", that you fail to be precise in your terminology is no fault of mine. I think the rest of your post really shows what level you are on though, since you don't even address my argument but instead resort to the kind of thing five year olds do to piss each other off.

If you feel like addressing my point, I'm right here. But please don't reply to me unless you will.

And thinly veiled personal attacks are somehow okay? Because 1) I have never made a statement that hates women, misogyny means hatred of women. 2) The closest thing you made to a point was that my views are somehow less valid because I have a penis.

Next time, have a real point that is not attacking me personally, or devaluing my views on subject because of my gender. Thank you.

chaosord:

And thinly veiled personal attacks are somehow okay? Because 1) I have never made a statement that hates women, misogyny means hatred of women. 2) The closest thing you made to a point was that my views are somehow less valid because I have a penis.

Next time, have a real point that is not attacking me personally, or devaluing my views on subject because of my gender. Thank you.

Your initial post in this thread displays it suitably enough: You suggest that if a man and a woman have sex and the woman ends up pregnant that she is to be entirely responsible for the child and that the man should not be obligated to do anything for the child should he not specifically wish to do so.

This is quite basic misogyny in that you probably don't intend to be misogynistic, but the end result of your suggestion is that women are unduly "punished" for an act in which men and women are equally involved. Meanwhile men get off without a hitch, because "the woman choose to have sex". Hence you are putting the blame of the intercourse on the woman ("She wanted to have sex, she has to deal with", but the man gets no similar judgement) and she had to solely accept the outcome of both her and the man's choice, while he can move on and forget about it all if he wishes.

This is pretty much as close to everyday misogyny as it comes.

Gethsemani:

chaosord:

And thinly veiled personal attacks are somehow okay? Because 1) I have never made a statement that hates women, misogyny means hatred of women. 2) The closest thing you made to a point was that my views are somehow less valid because I have a penis.

Next time, have a real point that is not attacking me personally, or devaluing my views on subject because of my gender. Thank you.

Your initial post in this thread displays it suitably enough: You suggest that if a man and a woman have sex and the woman ends up pregnant that she is to be entirely responsible for the child and that the man should not be obligated to do anything for the child should he not specifically wish to do so.

This is quite basic misogyny in that you probably don't intend to be misogynistic, but the end result of your suggestion is that women are unduly "punished" for an act in which men and women are equally involved. Meanwhile men get off without a hitch, because "the woman choose to have sex". Hence you are putting the blame of the intercourse on the woman ("She wanted to have sex, she has to deal with", but the man gets no similar judgement) and she had to solely accept the outcome of both her and the man's choice, while he can move on and forget about it all if he wishes.

This is pretty much as close to everyday misogyny as it comes.

No its not misogyny. There is a large difference between holding someone accountable and hatred. However if you define holding a woman accountable for her choices and actions as misogyny, then it is. Which personally I find belittling to women.

When you have forced child support payments are you not "placing the blame of the intercourse" solely on the man? Please try to remember, legally speaking, a man can not force a woman to bare his child nor can he force her to abort it or to even keep it. The woman is also under no legal obligation to even inform the man if she is pregnant. So she can, very readily, make the choice to be a mother on her own. I am saying she should have no legal right to remove the man's right to consent to being a parent.

If two people consent to have sex, just sex(i.e. sex for fun,), and unless there is consent from both parties, to be a parent, then neither party can consent on the other's behalf, in regards to parenthood. To do otherwise is equal to rape, in my opinion.

Also, a woman can move on, abortion and adoption, and forget about it all if she wishes.

chaosord:

No its not misogyny. There is a large difference between holding someone accountable and hatred. However if you define holding a woman accountable for her choices and actions as misogyny, then it is. Which personally I find belittling to women.

Holding women to a different and more strict standard than men can surely count as misogyny. Not all misogyny is of the "I want to punch every woman I meet in the face"-kind.

chaosord:

When you have forced child support payments are you not "placing the blame of the intercourse" solely on the man?

Not in any way no. I am expecting him to owe up to his part of the intercourse and the consequences of it. While the mother takes care of the child, spends her energy, time and money to take care of it the man is expected to contribute, in at least a financial way, to care for the child he helped conceive. He made a choice to sleep with the (would-be) mother, he gets to contribute towards taking care of a child that is his.

chaosord:

Please try to remember, legally speaking, a man can not force a woman to bare his child nor can he force her to abort it or to even keep it. The woman is also under no legal obligation to even inform the man if she is pregnant. So she can, very readily, make the choice to be a mother on her own. I am saying she should have no legal right to remove the man's right to consent to being a parent.

He gave his consent to possibly being a parent the moment he decided to have sex with the woman. The cut-off point is at "Want to have sex?" not "I am pregnant". Just like the chance of getting an STD is a part of the risks of having sex, so is the woman becoming pregnant. Don't want to risk becoming a parent? Don't have sex. This isn't rocket science, it is basic responsibility.

chaosord:

If two people consent to have sex, just sex(i.e. sex for fun,), and unless there is consent from both parties, to be a parent, then neither party can consent on the other's behalf, in regards to parenthood. To do otherwise is equal to rape, in my opinion.

That's not how sex works though. Both participants are equally responsible for the consequences of intercourse, the woman (in a heterosexual encounter) just has to carry the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. When you decide to have sex you should be aware of the possible consequences, if you aren't you shouldn't have sex. It is not even remotely similar to rape.

chaosord:

Also, a woman can move on, abortion and adoption, and forget about it all if she wishes.

And as I pointed out before and you promptly chose to ignore, it isn't this easy. There's a reason why depressions are much more prevalent in woman who performed an abortion or put their newborn out for adoption. It is a physical and emotional trauma to choose either of the options you put forth.

This is why I believe you are skirting the line of misogyny, because you are so completely unaware of what happens in these situations (and what it means to the woman who has to go through it) that you keep spouting out nonsense that belittles the severity of the situation of an unwanted pregnancy. All so that you can score a point for men wanting to have more casual sex and less responsibility.

Gethsemani:

chaosord:

No its not misogyny. There is a large difference between holding someone accountable and hatred. However if you define holding a woman accountable for her choices and actions as misogyny, then it is. Which personally I find belittling to women.

Holding women to a different and more strict standard than men can surely count as misogyny. Not all misogyny is of the "I want to punch every woman I meet in the face"-kind.

chaosord:

When you have forced child support payments are you not "placing the blame of the intercourse" solely on the man?

Not in any way no. I am expecting him to owe up to his part of the intercourse and the consequences of it. While the mother takes care of the child, spends her energy, time and money to take care of it the man is expected to contribute, in at least a financial way, to care for the child he helped conceive. He made a choice to sleep with the (would-be) mother, he gets to contribute towards taking care of a child that is his.

chaosord:

Please try to remember, legally speaking, a man can not force a woman to bare his child nor can he force her to abort it or to even keep it. The woman is also under no legal obligation to even inform the man if she is pregnant. So she can, very readily, make the choice to be a mother on her own. I am saying she should have no legal right to remove the man's right to consent to being a parent.

He gave his consent to possibly being a parent the moment he decided to have sex with the woman. The cut-off point is at "Want to have sex?" not "I am pregnant". Just like the chance of getting an STD is a part of the risks of having sex, so is the woman becoming pregnant. Don't want to risk becoming a parent? Don't have sex. This isn't rocket science, it is basic responsibility.

chaosord:

If two people consent to have sex, just sex(i.e. sex for fun,), and unless there is consent from both parties, to be a parent, then neither party can consent on the other's behalf, in regards to parenthood. To do otherwise is equal to rape, in my opinion.

That's not how sex works though. Both participants are equally responsible for the consequences of intercourse, the woman (in a heterosexual encounter) just has to carry the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. When you decide to have sex you should be aware of the possible consequences, if you aren't you shouldn't have sex. It is not even remotely similar to rape.

chaosord:

Also, a woman can move on, abortion and adoption, and forget about it all if she wishes.

And as I pointed out before and you promptly chose to ignore, it isn't this easy. There's a reason why depressions are much more prevalent in woman who performed an abortion or put their newborn out for adoption. It is a physical and emotional trauma to choose either of the options you put forth.

This is why I believe you are skirting the line of misogyny, because you are so completely unaware of what happens in these situations (and what it means to the woman who has to go through it) that you keep spouting out nonsense that belittles the severity of the situation of an unwanted pregnancy. All so that you can score a point for men wanting to have more casual sex and less responsibility.

While I do agree with you on the fact both parties are equally at fault for the pregnancy, unless its rape (there have been cases of a woman raping and man and then suing for child support, and winning). However you and I differ on who is responsible for the birth, if there is one.
Lets break this down:
2 people consent to sex.
1 person gets pregnant.
2 people had a part in that.
1 person makes a series of choices on their own and of their own accord.
Does that 1 person have a right to make choices for both of them?

Moving on;
You are arguing that since for some women its not an option (basically saying they are too weak to do it), its not an option period. Also your contention that women don't do it is bunk. Some of them are downright evil about it. Think "dumpster babies".
I am not trying to score "points" for casual sex or less male responsibility.
I am simply stating that no one should be held liable for someone else's choice, in this case it keeping the baby. A choice which is completely up to the woman. Consider it a part of the "Her body, her choice" you know that part where we treat women like adults and hold them accountable for their choice.

Also please stop trying to warp the meaning of a word to suit your needs. Especially one so loaded.

PS. If both parties consent to be parents and one tries to bail. Then yes, forced child support should be used. However if consent is not present in both parties, for whatever reason before the birth, then any and all child support must be done of the parties free will. Otherwise you are violating one parties free will, largely, in favor of one gender. You can not honestly call yourself for equality and still support such a system. And if you consider that view as misogynistic, then you do not know what that word means.

Gethsemani:

That's not how sex works though. Both participants are equally responsible for the consequences of intercourse, the woman (in a heterosexual encounter) just has to carry the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. When you decide to have sex you should be aware of the possible consequences, if you aren't you shouldn't have sex. It is not even remotely similar to rape.

This could easily be interpreted as an anti-abortion argument; after all, woman consented, accepted the risks of pregnancy and is now responsible for that, so why should she get to back away from that responsibility? Note I'm not making that argument, but it could easily be seen as such (and you'll inevitably run into someone making it sometime...).

A man cannot force a choice on a woman whether to be a mother or not, which is, of course, the way it should be. However, if we want to talk equality, the reversal must also be true. We can argue whether or not "equality" in this case should pe pursued, but if it should, then it is necessary to make sure a woman cannot force a choice on a man whether to be a father or not either.

It's an iffy ground and I'm trying to tread lightly here, but the "cut-off" point should be, as I see it, the same for both participants of the intercourse; not the act of sex for the man and the actual childbirth (or well, legal limit on abortion) for the woman. Yes, I know women have a biologically much more complicated situation...iffy ground, as I said, bleh. I don't hate women you know, but sometimes I think the "male point of view" (for the lack of a better expression) isn't understood well enough and is too easily dismissed as "misogyny".

Vegosiux:

This could easily be interpreted as an anti-abortion argument; after all, woman consented, accepted the risks of pregnancy and is now responsible for that, so why should she get to back away from that responsibility? Note I'm not making that argument, but it could easily be seen as such (and you'll inevitably run into someone making it sometime...).

A man cannot force a choice on a woman whether to be a mother or not, which is, of course, the way it should be. However, if we want to talk equality, the reversal must also be true. We can argue whether or not "equality" in this case should pe pursued, but if it should, then it is necessary to make sure a woman cannot force a choice on a man whether to be a father or not either.

It's an iffy ground and I'm trying to tread lightly here, but the "cut-off" point should be, as I see it, the same for both participants of the intercourse; not the act of sex for the man and the actual childbirth (or well, legal limit on abortion) for the woman. Yes, I know women have a biologically much more complicated situation...iffy ground, as I said, bleh. I don't hate women you know, but sometimes I think the "male point of view" (for the lack of a better expression) isn't understood well enough and is too easily dismissed as "misogyny".

It could be used as an anti-abortion argument, but I think it is more of an argument about thinking through sexual encounters (which does not necessarily imply I think casual sex is wrong).

But yeah, I agree with you. It is iffy ground and the entire situation is complicated by the disproportionate distribution of responsibility for a pregnancy. I'd be happy to hear more about the male point of view, honestly. But I think that if the "MPOV" is that men should not be held (partially) responsible for getting a woman pregnant then we are pretty much saying that women only have themselves to blame for getting pregnant.

Ideally, both parts in an unwanted pregnancy will get together and discuss their options. Shutting the man out and demanding his money is unethical and, in my mind anyway, is one of the times when I can feel that child support payments might be cutting close to extortion. On the other hand, if the father gets to have his say and doesn't want to take care of the baby, then I see child support as a good compromise. Much of it really breaks down to individual cases.

Vegosiux:

This could easily be interpreted as an anti-abortion argument; after all, woman consented, accepted the risks of pregnancy and is now responsible for that, so why should she get to back away from that responsibility? Note I'm not making that argument, but it could easily be seen as such (and you'll inevitably run into someone making it sometime...).

I've certainly heard that argument used before, more than once.

Vegosiux:
It's an iffy ground and I'm trying to tread lightly here, but the "cut-off" point should be, as I see it, the same for both participants of the intercourse; not the act of sex for the man and the actual childbirth (or well, legal limit on abortion) for the woman. Yes, I know women have a biologically much more complicated situation...iffy ground, as I said, bleh. I don't hate women you know, but sometimes I think the "male point of view" (for the lack of a better expression) isn't understood well enough and is too easily dismissed as "misogyny".

To be fair, with adoption and abandonment as options, the point at which a woman can revoke the rights and responsibilities of parenthood extends beyond birth. In both cases, they can even do so without paternal consent.

Gethsemani:
But yeah, I agree with you. It is iffy ground and the entire situation is complicated by the disproportionate distribution of responsibility for a pregnancy. I'd be happy to hear more about the male point of view, honestly. But I think that if the "MPOV" is that men should not be held (partially) responsible for getting a woman pregnant then we are pretty much saying that women only have themselves to blame for getting pregnant.

I think men and women should have identical rights and responsibilities where possible, and as equitable as possible ones where not. In the case of pregnancy, that means supporting men being able to revoke all the rights and responsibilities of parenthood, just like a woman can. I think that right should only be able to be exercised by men up to a point that still leaves the woman opportunity to abort if she desires, or a minimum period after the man in question is accused of paternity, whichever is later (in order to keep one party from "running out the clock" as it were to the detriment of the other party).

Gethsemani:
Ideally, both parts in an unwanted pregnancy will get together and discuss their options. Shutting the man out and demanding his money is unethical and, in my mind anyway, is one of the times when I can feel that child support payments might be cutting close to extortion. On the other hand, if the father gets to have his say and doesn't want to take care of the baby, then I see child support as a good compromise. Much of it really breaks down to individual cases.

So, in essence, your perspective is that inescapable responsibility for a child should be assigned to men before the child is conceived (let's not forget some of the relatively recent examples where sperm donors have been on the hook for child support) and can and should be enforced by force of law, which as his rights to a child are entirely conditional on a woman's choices, while a woman's responsibility is entirely optional and of her own volition, completely revocable both during pregnancy or after the birth of the child. I don't think equitable is the word to use there...

I suppose it's at least not as bad as the one article I'd read that described paternity testing as "an anti-feminist appliance of science" that "removes from women a powerful instrument of choice" -- at least you seem to believe that maybe they should at least be required to have biologically fathered the child to be on the hook for it.

chaosord:
No its not misogyny.

Actually, it basically is. The remit of misogyny is sufficient to cover advocacy of gross sexual discrimination. Advocacy of discrimination is frequently based in an underlying dislike for the discriminated against: after all, it's what makes the discrimination seem so reasonable.

The OP is quite telling, for instance, for a shift in the bases of the argument. In the case of abortion you talk about the importance of the good of the child to be considered against those of the mother - okay. However, when you talk about a woman choosing to continue to birth, any perspective of the child is suddenly absent. Here, your argument is purely about the mother and father, and more precisely punishing the mother for disobeying the father (even if he raped her).

At core, you're really just saying that all the negative consequences and responsibilities of pregnancy must be borne by the woman. On the other hand, the man can just skip away free as it suits him: he has no responsibility and faces no risks after sex. The rest is fluff to make this poisonous core notion seem palatable.

Gethsemani:

Ideally, both parts in an unwanted pregnancy will get together and discuss their options. Shutting the man out and demanding his money is unethical and, in my mind anyway, is one of the times when I can feel that child support payments might be cutting close to extortion. On the other hand, if the father gets to have his say and doesn't want to take care of the baby, then I see child support as a good compromise. Much of it really breaks down to individual cases.

Pretty much, yeah, sitting down and having a mature discussion should be the first step. If one side stubborn and refuses to compromise, things will get really ugly really fast, and there are all kinds of men and women out there. Some are...downright despicable (a woman getting pregnant in order to "trap" the man, a man vanishing into thin air the moment the woman mentions she's pregnant without as much as sitting down to talk...), but I generally think that's not the norm and at least some kind of compromise is reached in most cases (wishful thinking, maybe?).

But, well I'm not going to call this a "male point of view", since it's going to be my personal one. Hypothetically, if I got a woman pregnant, and didn't feel fit to be a father, I'd rather not have the role pushed on me, because the last thing I would want my kid to have is a lousy father. Child support to my ability (meaning, not to the point when it would make me skip meals so I can pay for it) would sound like the sensible choice to me, along with staying in touch so that I don't end up being just some nameless dude sending money every now and then, but still not taking a real "parent" role...okay, so much for my musings.

Whether or not "no parent" is better than "lousy parent" is a whole different can o' worms though...

Still, one problem I see with forcing parenthood on anyone is that if they didn't want to be a parent, they're likely going to be a bad one when pushed into the role. Beh, I'll just repeat one of my life's mottos here - Communication is key. So many of our problems could be solved or not even become problems if we just communicated more honestly.

boots:

Karma168:

If you mean casual and 'not planning to have kids' sex then 99.99% of people use protection. Unless the woman lied about being on the pill or holed a condom (trying to trap him) then neither is to blamed and they share equal responsibility.

Hahahaha oh man I would love to see where you pulled the "99.99% of recreational sex involves contraception" stat from. Actually, maybe not, because I'm fairly sure that you pulled it from a certain orifice on your own body. I have no idea how you'd even begin to form that idea. There's sheltered, and then there's living in a fantasy world.

That's not to say that your fantasy world is undesirable. I'd vastly prefer it if only one in every thousand acts of recreational sex didn't involve contraception.

Kudos for managing to out-ridiculous yourself a second later by perpetuating the "women are secretly conniving sperm-hijackers who poke holes in condoms and lie about being on the pill in order to steal our precious white seed and concoct a baby in their witch cauldron" stereotype. If you truly think that this is the only way that unwanted pregnancies happen, I think you might be beyond help.

Well done you worked out that 99.9% is a bullshit figure, it's really not that hard. All it meant was the vast majority of people use protection. According to the CDC(pie chart on page 5):

Of the women surveyed:

62% are using some form of protection (condom, pill, implant, etc.)
38% are not

Of that 38%, 28% would not be using contraceptive anyway (no need, planning to/currently/recently pregnant) so 10% are the risk group. So I was less than 10% out, not too shabby a guess.

And if you'd bothered to read the comment in full you would have seen the context of the 'trapping' comment rather than just jumping on it. Chaoslord states that if it was 'recreational' sex then the man is entirely not at fault for any pregnancy and should not be held accountable for it. My response was that since the woman is equally not at fault then they share equal responsibility for the result unless he could prove the woman lied about/damaged contraceptives in an effort to trap him (and thus be at fault for the pregnancy).

2 partners equally at fault - equally responsible
1 partner more responsible than the other - not equally responsible.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked