Personal thoughts on abortion and parenthood

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Vegosiux:
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.

It's worth noting that the reality of child support is that it's typically set to ~30% of your total income, and that it's extremely difficult to reduce if that income goes down, but comparatively easy to increase if that income goes up.

In reference to my previous post, I almost forgot the handy chart I'd once seen posted on reddit, of all places: https://www.lucidchart.com/publicSegments/view/4f664321-f86c-4d52-b644-3dc00a582300/image.png

boots:

Where the choice is shared, the responsibility is shared. Your "system" would have single mothers forced to raise kids with no financial support from the father because, "Hey, it's your own fault for not getting an abortion!"

Responsibility is shared, but rights are not, because any setup in which men aren't forced to live by women's choices is inherently misogynistic?

I find it bizarre that you feel that a setup in which men have only responsibilities and no rights, and women have potential responsibility and significant rights (including the right to revoke that responsibility entirely) is essentially the only solution that isn't sexist.

I'm still waiting for a man to "safe harbor" abandon a child (in one of the few places that don't explicitly require the one abandoning to be the mother) without the mother's consent. That would erupt an interesting shitstorm, especially since the mother has the right to do exactly that in many jurisdictions.

Schadrach:

Responsibility is shared, but rights are not, because any setup in which men aren't forced to live by women's choices is inherently misogynistic?

I find it bizarre that you feel that a setup in which men have only responsibilities and no rights, and women have potential responsibility and significant rights (including the right to revoke that responsibility entirely) is essentially the only solution that isn't sexist.

Where did I say that men shouldn't have any rights? As it happens, I think that the current system is flawed since it is based on the sexist assumption that the woman is always the most natural caregiver, because a woman's place is in the home raising children, and a man's job is to "bring home the bacon" with only a tangential role in child-rearing.

I never said that the current system is perfect, only that taking away the man's responsibility is a step in the stupid direction.

chaosord:
After reading some comments on the forums here I thought I would give my two cents on these issues. Feel free to do the same.

Abortion, to me, has become a grey area. While I agree that a person's body is theirs to do with what they please, I also believe that they can not do the same with another's. So there has to be a cut off point. And the abortion must not cause undo suffering to the fetus. Which is a bit of a quagmire, because if it can feel pain then it already is a "being". And I am sorry but if it has reached a point where it is a "being" then you have no right to kill, unless it is putting a life at risk.

And this ties into my next train of thought. "Her body, her choice." should be extended to, "Her body, her choice, her responsibility." If a person has sex, gets peggers, keeps it, then that is all on her. 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), if that relationship was no one where both parties expressed a desire to have children. You make a choice, you pay for it.

Some of my thoughts, what are yours?

Go get raped, impregnated and tell me that again.

Try bleeding out of your vagina for five days with bloating, cramps, headaches and whatever else and tell me that again.

Be pregnant for nine months and tell me that again.

Go through labor and child birth and tell me that again.

Be a woman for the rest of your life and tell me that again.

Until then, no. As a female AND a rape victim, how dare you or anyone else say what I can and cannot do with my body after someone violated mine.

bleys2487:

chaosord:
After reading some comments on the forums here I thought I would give my two cents on these issues. Feel free to do the same.

Abortion, to me, has become a grey area. While I agree that a person's body is theirs to do with what they please, I also believe that they can not do the same with another's. So there has to be a cut off point. And the abortion must not cause undo suffering to the fetus. Which is a bit of a quagmire, because if it can feel pain then it already is a "being". And I am sorry but if it has reached a point where it is a "being" then you have no right to kill, unless it is putting a life at risk.

And this ties into my next train of thought. "Her body, her choice." should be extended to, "Her body, her choice, her responsibility." If a person has sex, gets peggers, keeps it, then that is all on her. 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), if that relationship was no one where both parties expressed a desire to have children. You make a choice, you pay for it.

Some of my thoughts, what are yours?

Go get raped, impregnated and tell me that again.

Try bleeding out of your vagina for five days with bloating, cramps, headaches and whatever else and tell me that again.

Be pregnant for nine months and tell me that again.

Go through labor and child birth and tell me that again.

Be a woman for the rest of your life and tell me that again.

Until then, no. As a female AND a rape victim, how dare you or anyone else say what I can and cannot do with my body after someone violated mine.

Been raped. So that's one.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. Calm down and re-read my OT and the rest of my posts please.

chaosord:

bleys2487:

chaosord:
After reading some comments on the forums here I thought I would give my two cents on these issues. Feel free to do the same.

Abortion, to me, has become a grey area. While I agree that a person's body is theirs to do with what they please, I also believe that they can not do the same with another's. So there has to be a cut off point. And the abortion must not cause undo suffering to the fetus. Which is a bit of a quagmire, because if it can feel pain then it already is a "being". And I am sorry but if it has reached a point where it is a "being" then you have no right to kill, unless it is putting a life at risk.

And this ties into my next train of thought. "Her body, her choice." should be extended to, "Her body, her choice, her responsibility." If a person has sex, gets peggers, keeps it, then that is all on her. 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), if that relationship was no one where both parties expressed a desire to have children. You make a choice, you pay for it.

Some of my thoughts, what are yours?

Go get raped, impregnated and tell me that again.

Try bleeding out of your vagina for five days with bloating, cramps, headaches and whatever else and tell me that again.

Be pregnant for nine months and tell me that again.

Go through labor and child birth and tell me that again.

Be a woman for the rest of your life and tell me that again.

Until then, no. As a female AND a rape victim, how dare you or anyone else say what I can and cannot do with my body after someone violated mine.

Been raped. So that's one.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. Calm down and re-read my OT and the rest of my posts please.

Oh, no. I understand perfectly. You're suggesting that men could essentially go around, rape women, impregnate them and not have to pay for a child simply because you believe that 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Ever been pregnant?

I made it pretty clear how I feel about 'your thoughts'. And I don't misunderstand you. Perhaps you should reread what you wrote.

If I want an abortion, I'll have one. Just because you feel as if the fetus is suffering, doesn't mean I do. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. You don't have the right to deny someone that simply because of your beliefs.

bleys2487:

Oh, no. I understand perfectly. You're suggesting that men could essentially go around, rape women, impregnate them and not have to pay for a child simply because you believe that 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

No offense, but you seem to be completely overlooking one rather important fact there.

The reason those men are not going to be paying for the child is that they'll be in prison for rape, so there won't be any income from which they could pay.

I had a discussion with my friend about this.

So, before I dig in, four assumptions:

1. The sex that conceived the child was between two consenting adults

2. The adults were mentally capable of understanding the consequences of sexual intercourse.

3. Both adults were either both intoxicated by their own choice or neither one was.

4. That both adults understood through their actions that they risked a pregnancy (forgoing a condom, etc.)

So in this case we have two adults who are entirely responsible for the result of their action. In this case, not rape, not forced, not roofied, in this case with two consenting adults of sound mind and body, one of the adults, how it is now, has total and absolute control over the fate of something that required an equal share of effort on both parties part.

This has the shape of being wrong, doesn't it? It feels like this is not the correct thing, but it's been accepted as the right thing.

Is there a way we can improve the situation to make it seem more right?

To give a direct scenario (NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE SCENARIO JUST AN EXAMPLE). THe classic highschool sweetheart scenario. Two adults (assume both are 18 please, let's not argue over stupid shit like that), have sexual intercourse. They are sober. They choose not to use a condom. As a result, the female becomes pregnant. The male says he will do the right thing and support the child. The female decides that she will have an abortion. The male has absolutely -nothing- he can do to prevent this from happening in a legal sense. Not to my knowledge. Can he sue for the custody of the child before it's born? I'm not actually sure.

Doesn't this seem slightly wrong? It feels like it should be wrong but according to our society this is how it absolutely must be. Otherwise tyranny.

bleys2487:

chaosord:

bleys2487:

Go get raped, impregnated and tell me that again.

Try bleeding out of your vagina for five days with bloating, cramps, headaches and whatever else and tell me that again.

Be pregnant for nine months and tell me that again.

Go through labor and child birth and tell me that again.

Be a woman for the rest of your life and tell me that again.

Until then, no. As a female AND a rape victim, how dare you or anyone else say what I can and cannot do with my body after someone violated mine.

Been raped. So that's one.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. Calm down and re-read my OT and the rest of my posts please.

Oh, no. I understand perfectly. You're suggesting that men could essentially go around, rape women, impregnate them and not have to pay for a child simply because you believe that 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Ever been pregnant?

I made it pretty clear how I feel about 'your thoughts'. And I don't misunderstand you. Perhaps you should reread what you wrote.

If I want an abortion, I'll have one. Just because you feel as if the fetus is suffering, doesn't mean I do. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. You don't have the right to deny someone that simply because of your beliefs.

You really don't.

On abortion, to me its a grey area. Yes you can still get one, just not all of them. I know of one, its name escapes me, its late term. The baby is forcibly delivered early, but stopped when the head crowns. A spike is then driven into the skull and the brain removed. That is what am I saying should be off the table.

On forced child support. Its finical slavery, largely in favor of women. For at least 18 years.

And as it stands now, women can go around raped men, get pregnant then legally extort money from them for the next 18 years. Yes this has happened https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=male+rape+victim+forced+to+pay+child+support&oq=male+rape+victims+forced&gs_l=hp.3.0.0i22.976.7659.0.8767.15.15.0.0.0.0.74.937.15.15.0.les%3Bcpsugrpq2high..0.0...1.1.n3qr_rchpsA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41018144,d.dmQ&fp=6983e3ffe988c46e&biw=1440&bih=799.

Gee wonder why I am against forced child support?

Bentusi16:
I had a discussion with my friend about this.

So, before I dig in, four assumptions:

1. The sex that conceived the child was between two consenting adults

2. The adults were mentally capable of understanding the consequences of sexual intercourse.

3. Both adults were either both intoxicated by their own choice or neither one was.

4. That both adults understood through their actions that they risked a pregnancy (forgoing a condom, etc.)

So in this case we have two adults who are entirely responsible for the result of their action. In this case, not rape, not forced, not roofied, in this case with two consenting adults of sound mind and body, one of the adults, how it is now, has total and absolute control over the fate of something that required an equal share of effort on both parties part.

This has the shape of being wrong, doesn't it? It feels like this is not the correct thing, but it's been accepted as the right thing.

Is there a way we can improve the situation to make it seem more right?

To give a direct scenario (NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE SCENARIO JUST AN EXAMPLE). THe classic highschool sweetheart scenario. Two adults (assume both are 18 please, let's not argue over stupid shit like that), have sexual intercourse. They are sober. They choose not to use a condom. As a result, the female becomes pregnant. The male says he will do the right thing and support the child. The female decides that she will have an abortion. The male has absolutely -nothing- he can do to prevent this from happening in a legal sense. Not to my knowledge. Can he sue for the custody of the child before it's born? I'm not actually sure.

Doesn't this seem slightly wrong? It feels like it should be wrong but according to our society this is how it absolutely must be. Otherwise tyranny.

Well then we would have the opposite situation where a woman would have to give birth even if she doesn't want. Which is ... tyranny.

Look, I'm sorry if I come off the wrong way, but that's a bad argument. He can do "something about it" by communicating. How's that for non-governmental interference? (Yes, I am aware of how that sounds coming from me).

In situations like this you can't really compromise. You can't have half-births half-abortion. If the girl doesn't want it, she doesn't want it and that's final.

The man can try to prove that he's capable. He can try discussing it, he can talk it out, but since it's her body in the end it's her decision. Pregnancy isn't quick and easy. Having a baby is difficult. It's not something you can half-ass.

It might suck for the guy, but if he's willing to use legal measures to prevent the girl from getting an abortion, than he's a bit of an ass.

Frission:

Bentusi16:
I had a discussion with my friend about this.

So, before I dig in, four assumptions:

1. The sex that conceived the child was between two consenting adults

2. The adults were mentally capable of understanding the consequences of sexual intercourse.

3. Both adults were either both intoxicated by their own choice or neither one was.

4. That both adults understood through their actions that they risked a pregnancy (forgoing a condom, etc.)

So in this case we have two adults who are entirely responsible for the result of their action. In this case, not rape, not forced, not roofied, in this case with two consenting adults of sound mind and body, one of the adults, how it is now, has total and absolute control over the fate of something that required an equal share of effort on both parties part.

This has the shape of being wrong, doesn't it? It feels like this is not the correct thing, but it's been accepted as the right thing.

Is there a way we can improve the situation to make it seem more right?

To give a direct scenario (NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE SCENARIO JUST AN EXAMPLE). THe classic highschool sweetheart scenario. Two adults (assume both are 18 please, let's not argue over stupid shit like that), have sexual intercourse. They are sober. They choose not to use a condom. As a result, the female becomes pregnant. The male says he will do the right thing and support the child. The female decides that she will have an abortion. The male has absolutely -nothing- he can do to prevent this from happening in a legal sense. Not to my knowledge. Can he sue for the custody of the child before it's born? I'm not actually sure.

Doesn't this seem slightly wrong? It feels like it should be wrong but according to our society this is how it absolutely must be. Otherwise tyranny.

Well then we would have the opposite situation where a woman would have to give birth even if she doesn't want. Which is ... tyranny.

Look, I'm sorry if I come off the wrong way, but that's a bad argument. He can do "something about it" by communicating. How's that for non-governmental interference? (Yes, I am aware of how that sounds coming from me).

In situations like this you can't really compromise. You can't have half-births half-abortion. If the girl doesn't want it, she doesn't want it and that's final.

The man can try to prove that he's capable. He can try discussing it, he can talk it out, but since it's her body in the end it's her decision. Pregnancy isn't quick and easy. Having a baby is difficult. It's not something you can half-ass.

It might suck for the guy, but if he's willing to use legal measures to prevent the girl from getting an abortion, than he's a bit of an ass.

As long as you admit that the male has no rights in this situation, that's all I care about.

Yeah ok, I know it smacks of 'You have rights is taking away my rights' but yuo know what, in this case it kind of is that. It's his child as much as hers. But he can't have a word about it.

Mind you in the OPPOSITE SITUATION, if the girl wants the child and the man doesn't, he can be held legally responsible for the child and can (but maybe will not be) forced to pay part of his income to the child, for a minimum of 18 years, right?

So let's look at the scenario again...but let's swap the roles. The father wants nothing to do with the child, but the woman doesn't want to have an abortion. Can you tell me how it's right, this situation?

I'm sorry, but that's wrong. It's just wrong. It doesn't even look wrong, it just is wrong.

Bentusi16:

Frission:

Bentusi16:
I had a discussion with my friend about this.

So, before I dig in, four assumptions:

1. The sex that conceived the child was between two consenting adults

2. The adults were mentally capable of understanding the consequences of sexual intercourse.

3. Both adults were either both intoxicated by their own choice or neither one was.

4. That both adults understood through their actions that they risked a pregnancy (forgoing a condom, etc.)

So in this case we have two adults who are entirely responsible for the result of their action. In this case, not rape, not forced, not roofied, in this case with two consenting adults of sound mind and body, one of the adults, how it is now, has total and absolute control over the fate of something that required an equal share of effort on both parties part.

This has the shape of being wrong, doesn't it? It feels like this is not the correct thing, but it's been accepted as the right thing.

Is there a way we can improve the situation to make it seem more right?

To give a direct scenario (NOT THE ONLY POSSIBLE SCENARIO JUST AN EXAMPLE). THe classic highschool sweetheart scenario. Two adults (assume both are 18 please, let's not argue over stupid shit like that), have sexual intercourse. They are sober. They choose not to use a condom. As a result, the female becomes pregnant. The male says he will do the right thing and support the child. The female decides that she will have an abortion. The male has absolutely -nothing- he can do to prevent this from happening in a legal sense. Not to my knowledge. Can he sue for the custody of the child before it's born? I'm not actually sure.

Doesn't this seem slightly wrong? It feels like it should be wrong but according to our society this is how it absolutely must be. Otherwise tyranny.

Well then we would have the opposite situation where a woman would have to give birth even if she doesn't want. Which is ... tyranny.

Look, I'm sorry if I come off the wrong way, but that's a bad argument. He can do "something about it" by communicating. How's that for non-governmental interference? (Yes, I am aware of how that sounds coming from me).

In situations like this you can't really compromise. You can't have half-births half-abortion. If the girl doesn't want it, she doesn't want it and that's final.

The man can try to prove that he's capable. He can try discussing it, he can talk it out, but since it's her body in the end it's her decision. Pregnancy isn't quick and easy. Having a baby is difficult. It's not something you can half-ass.

It might suck for the guy, but if he's willing to use legal measures to prevent the girl from getting an abortion, than he's a bit of an ass.

As long as you admit that the male has no rights in this situation, that's all I care about.

Yeah ok, I know it smacks of 'You have rights is taking away my rights' but yuo know what, in this case it kind of is that. It's his child as much as hers. But he can't have a word about it.

Mind you in the OPPOSITE SITUATION, if the girl wants the child and the man doesn't, he can and will be held legally responsible for the child.

That's different. I don't know about the U.S, but that's where things like child support gets complicated.

It's important to make a distinction between the above situation and the next situation. I doesn't mean that I handle it one way that I would handle it the same way. That would just be stupid.

Please don't assume that, because it might piss people off. I just want to be the most just possible.

I dislike saying he has no rights, but the lady's rights to control over her own body supersedes the man's rights over the fetus. That being said, before there's another misunderstanding (that is so woefully common), that stops after the kid is born. Who gets custody is for another debate.

EDIT: In the last situation you detailed? I think the guy is scot free, although someone should probably to the girl because whatever situation she is getting into is bad. Is she speaking for herself?

I haven't heard about women "entrapping" man, but hey, if it happens than laws should change so that doesn't happen.

Frission:

Bentusi16:

Frission:

Well then we would have the opposite situation where a woman would have to give birth even if she doesn't want. Which is ... tyranny.

Look, I'm sorry if I come off the wrong way, but that's a bad argument. He can do "something about it" by communicating. How's that for non-governmental interference? (Yes, I am aware of how that sounds coming from me).

In situations like this you can't really compromise. You can't have half-births half-abortion. If the girl doesn't want it, she doesn't want it and that's final.

The man can try to prove that he's capable. He can try discussing it, he can talk it out, but since it's her body in the end it's her decision. Pregnancy isn't quick and easy. Having a baby is difficult. It's not something you can half-ass.

It might suck for the guy, but if he's willing to use legal measures to prevent the girl from getting an abortion, than he's a bit of an ass.

As long as you admit that the male has no rights in this situation, that's all I care about.

Yeah ok, I know it smacks of 'You have rights is taking away my rights' but yuo know what, in this case it kind of is that. It's his child as much as hers. But he can't have a word about it.

Mind you in the OPPOSITE SITUATION, if the girl wants the child and the man doesn't, he can and will be held legally responsible for the child.

That's different. I don't know about the U.S, but that's where things like child support gets complicated.

It's important to make a distinction between the above situation and the next situation. I doesn't mean that I handle it one way that I would handle it the same way. That would just be stupid.

Please don't assume that, because it might piss people off. I just want to be the most just possible.

I dislike saying he has no rights, but the lady's rights to control over her own body supersedes the man's rights over the fetus. That being said, before there's another misunderstanding (that is so woefully common), that stop after the kid is born. Who gets custody is for another debate.

EDIT: In the last situation you detailed? I think the guy is scot free, although someone should probably to the girl because whatever situation she is getting into is bad. Is she speaking for herself?

I haven't heard about women "entrapping" man, but hey, if it happens than laws should change so that doesn't happen.

The four assumptions remain, so yes, she's speaking for herself.

And I'm not talking about her setting out SPECIFICALLY to become pregnant; I'm not talking about entrapment.

I'm talking about her choosing to have sex with a man without demanding he wear a condom, and him choosing not to wear a condom, both of them knowing full well the consequences of sex. Sex is for reproduction, remember? And both adults, being sound of mine, not intoxicated, sound of body, consenting, and aware of what sex is for, had sex without choosing any myriad number of ways to prevent pregnancy.

I googled it up a little and I found this little bit by a lawyer ( http://ldgorin.justia.net/ for his credentials I suppose).

Its just when conversations come up like this, I hate to see it tiptoed around that the men have no rights in this scenario. Honesty is really all I ask. Don't paint it as "one side has more rights", just admit one side has no rights when it comes to this stuff. It's absolute tyranny, but the opposite is also absolute tyranny so, what the hell are you going to do right?

Bentusi16:
( http://ldgorin.justia.net/ for his credentials I suppose).

.

Sucks to be him then. He failed "to exercise his right to not be a parent". He has no rights. That's the truth to you. Is that all I need to say?

If he was raped, as I said it's a different topic. He wouldn't have had the chance to exercise the right then, which could change things.Unless he was raped though he doesn't have many rights which does screw him over.

I wonder though. Why doesn't the man take care of the kid leaving the women to pay child support? Surely if you want to have a kid and you don't to have to pay child support, that would be an ideal situation.

Frission:

Bentusi16:
( http://ldgorin.justia.net/ for his credentials I suppose).

.

Sucks to be him then. He failed "to exercise his right to not be a parent". He has no rights. That's the truth to you. Is that all I need to say?

If he was raped, as I said it's a different topic. He wouldn't have had the chance to exercise the right then, which could change things.Unless he was raped though he doesn't have many rights which does screw him over.

I wonder though. Why doesn't the man take care of the kid leaving the women to pay child support? Surely if you want to have a kid and you don't to have to pay child support, that would be an ideal situation.

Yep, that's all you have to admit that the woman has far more rights in this situation then the man does, and all responsibility is laid on the man. If it wasn't there would be more legal balance between the man and the woman; but as it is far more responsibility is set on the male.

Now to me that's wrong, and needs to change, while avoiding going into tyranny in the other direction, but either way you cut it it's wrong, am I right? Even though BOTH adults consented and had full control over the situation, ONLY the man is able to be held responsible against his will.

Bentusi16:

Frission:

Bentusi16:
( http://ldgorin.justia.net/ for his credentials I suppose).

.

Sucks to be him then. He failed "to exercise his right to not be a parent". He has no rights. That's the truth to you. Is that all I need to say?

If he was raped, as I said it's a different topic. He wouldn't have had the chance to exercise the right then, which could change things.Unless he was raped though he doesn't have many rights which does screw him over.

I wonder though. Why doesn't the man take care of the kid leaving the women to pay child support? Surely if you want to have a kid and you don't to have to pay child support, that would be an ideal situation.

Yep, that's all you have to admit that the woman has far more rights in this situation then the man does, and all responsibility is laid on the man. If it wasn't there would be more legal balance between the man and the woman; but as it is far more responsibility is set on the male.

Now to me that's wrong, and needs to change, while avoiding going into tyranny in the other direction, but either way you cut it it's wrong, am I right?

It's either that or tyranny. Remember that.

I don't want some guy crying about how he has no rights. He forfeited them and while it sucks, the alternative is far far worse.

EDIT: Yes, Bentusi it's wrong. While the internet is a horrible horrible place and sociopaths are the norm rather than the exception, I will admit that this isn't nice for the guy.

Frission:

Bentusi16:

Frission:

Sucks to be him then. He failed "to exercise his right to not be a parent". He has no rights. That's the truth to you. Is that all I need to say?

If he was raped, as I said it's a different topic. He wouldn't have had the chance to exercise the right then, which could change things.Unless he was raped though he doesn't have many rights which does screw him over.

I wonder though. Why doesn't the man take care of the kid leaving the women to pay child support? Surely if you want to have a kid and you don't to have to pay child support, that would be an ideal situation.

Yep, that's all you have to admit that the woman has far more rights in this situation then the man does, and all responsibility is laid on the man. If it wasn't there would be more legal balance between the man and the woman; but as it is far more responsibility is set on the male.

Now to me that's wrong, and needs to change, while avoiding going into tyranny in the other direction, but either way you cut it it's wrong, am I right?

It's either that or tyranny. Remember that.

I don't want some guy crying about how he has no rights. He forfeited them and while it sucks, the alternative is far far worse.

How so? Tyranny is tyranny. The woman being the tyrant doesn't make it less tyranny; and it doesn't make it less unfair for the man.

How did he forfeit his rights? By having consensual sex with a woman who did not demand he wear a condom? Why is ALL the responsibility on HIM and nothing on HER?

Their BOTH responsible for what happened, so why is only the man held responsible for his actions at creation of the child?

What I want you to admit is that both situations are tyrannical in nature. Unfair, unbalanced. BOTH. Not one, not the other, BOTH. But one is more acceptable.

Bentusi16:

Frission:

Bentusi16:

Yep, that's all you have to admit that the woman has far more rights in this situation then the man does, and all responsibility is laid on the man. If it wasn't there would be more legal balance between the man and the woman; but as it is far more responsibility is set on the male.

Now to me that's wrong, and needs to change, while avoiding going into tyranny in the other direction, but either way you cut it it's wrong, am I right?

It's either that or tyranny. Remember that.

I don't want some guy crying about how he has no rights. He forfeited them and while it sucks, the alternative is far far worse.

How so? Tyranny is tyranny. The woman being the tyrant doesn't make it less tyranny; and it doesn't make it less unfair for the man.

How did he forfeit his rights? By having consensual sex with a woman who did not demand he wear a condom? Why is ALL the responsibility on HIM and nothing on HER?

"I dislike saying he has no rights, but the lady's rights to control over her own body supersedes the man's rights over the fetus". It's not like she's going to have the easy life being a single mother you know? It's unfair, but the alternative is WORSE. I've been saying that for awhile now and I'm just being pragmatic.

He should have put on a condom. It's simple as that. If she wasn't willing to have sex then, he should have looked for someone else. Have self-control. Abortion isn't pretty and I'm more than willing to say that unless the condom broke or something happened, than someone in the relationship fucked up.

If she's carrying it to term they're both in for hardship. She's going to have to carry something for nine months, possibly suffering from morning sickness and hemorrhoids. She will also get her vagina torn apart by something the size of a small melon and then she will have to take care of a kid for years. It's not going to be easy for her, and if she think so, then she's an idiot and I suggest someone enlightens her to what having a kid is like.

Did I get into enough detail to say that birth and having a kid is never easy and is not a situation for those who are unprepared?

EDIT: Did I add enough to say that the man shouldn't wallow in self-pity? They're both into a world of hurt.

Frission:

Bentusi16:

Frission:

It's either that or tyranny. Remember that.

I don't want some guy crying about how he has no rights. He forfeited them and while it sucks, the alternative is far far worse.

How so? Tyranny is tyranny. The woman being the tyrant doesn't make it less tyranny; and it doesn't make it less unfair for the man.

How did he forfeit his rights? By having consensual sex with a woman who did not demand he wear a condom? Why is ALL the responsibility on HIM and nothing on HER?

"I dislike saying he has no rights, but the lady's rights to control over her own body supersedes the man's rights over the fetus". It's not like she's going to have the easy life being a single mother you know? It's unfair, but the alternative is WORSE. I've been saying that for awhile now and I'm just being pragmatic.

He should have put on a condom. It's simple as that. If she wasn't willing to have sex then, he should have looked for someone else. Have self-control. Abortion isn't pretty and I'm more than willing to say that unless the condom broke or something happened, than someone in the relationship fucked up.

If she's carrying it to term they're both in for hardship. She's going to have to carry something for nine months, possibly suffering from morning sickness and hemorrhoids. She will also get her vagina torn apart by something the size of a small melon and then she will have to take care of a kid for years. It's not going to be easy for her, and if she think so, then she's an idiot and I suggest someone enlightens her to what having a kid is like.

Did I get into enough detail to say that birth and having a kid is never easy and is not a situation for those who are unprepared?

EDIT: Did I add enough to say that the man shouldn't wallow in self-pity? They're both into a world of hurt.

OK let me phrase this another way.

What responsibilities does a woman have. Because from everything you've said, all of it is on the guys head. All of it. The only thing he has no responsibility in is the decision of whether or not the child is born.

Why do we assume that the male is at fault here rather then the woman, automatically? Why is it HIS respnosbility to not have sex with her without a condom, not her responsibility not to say 'No' without a condom? It's on HIS head, not hers, but the thing is, what IS on her head?

Why does the phrase 'consenting adults of sound mind and body' not automatically mean responsibility is equal between the two parties?

Bentusi16:
/snip

After this let's message.

On to the post.

Goddamn it Bentusil, when did I say that? Would you like me to add a few quick quips such as "she shouldn't have slept around THAT WHORE". They both fucked up and I'm talking about how they'll deal with their mess. It's both their fault or neither of them are at fault. Let's say they both agree and then both share responsibility the classic way. Kid or no kid. Support each other in other words. Got it?

Then the woman and man disagree. That's bad. That's not good. Things aren't going to end well. The woman wants an abortion and since she has control of her body it's her decision. After that the two will have to settle it out. The man might be angry or sad.

The man wants to abort. It's still her body and her decision. I won't bother to understand why because it find this to be a dangerous course of action. We assume there's no exterior forces and it's entirely her decision. The guy can stay with her and still "share the responsibility". It's not ideal. It might cause problems down the line.

Or he could leave. He can visit the kid or he can have the kid stay out of his life. He takes the responsibility by providing financial aid and she takes responsibility by taking care of the kid. The kid might have issues and it will be hard on them. In the end though it's the best way to share responsibility.

I think it's simple enough, considering the circumstances.

EDITING IN PROGRESS.

Frission, Bentusi, isn't the above little skirmish a bit about the inconsistency of both positions that you're arguing eachother about?

I mean, if you respect women's rights to decide abortion or not, but nothing else, you're creating a way to fuck over a man against his will bigtime. Bentusi got that right

If you give a man power over abortion or not, the woman's human rights are violated, downsides of which should be obvious. Frission got that right.


But maybe you're both right, but need to adopt a position that entitles both genders to equal reproductive rights? For instance if you respect a woman's rights to abortion, but give a man a right to walk away and not be held responsible against his will if he doesn't want a child but she does?

That's equal rights for both genders, and nobody gets forced into the position of parenting a child they never wanted. I mean, neither of you ever struck me as in favour of being anti-rights on any issue, maybe that's the best middle ground?

Blablahb:
Frission, Bentusi, isn't the above little skirmish a bit about the inconsistency of both positions that you're arguing eachother about?

I mean, if you respect women's rights to decide abortion or not, but nothing else, you're creating a way to fuck over a man against his will bigtime. Bentusi got that right

If you give a man power over abortion or not, the woman's human rights are violated, downsides of which should be obvious. Frission got that right.


But maybe you're both right, but need to adopt a position that entitles both genders to equal reproductive rights? For instance if you respect a woman's rights to abortion, but give a man a right to walk away and not be held responsible against his will if he doesn't want a child but she does?

That's equal rights for both genders, and nobody gets forced into the position of parenting a child they never wanted. I mean, neither of you ever struck me as in favour of being anti-rights on any issue, maybe that's the best middle ground?

Well this is embarrassing. I would be worried about the deadbeat dads, but hey if it makes everyone happy, I'll be willing to settle on this.

Thanks

EDIT:

Bentusi16:
/snip

We also sort of want the same thing. As long as it advances the human condition, I'm happy.

Frission:

Blablahb:
Frission, Bentusi, isn't the above little skirmish a bit about the inconsistency of both positions that you're arguing eachother about?

I mean, if you respect women's rights to decide abortion or not, but nothing else, you're creating a way to fuck over a man against his will bigtime. Bentusi got that right

If you give a man power over abortion or not, the woman's human rights are violated, downsides of which should be obvious. Frission got that right.


But maybe you're both right, but need to adopt a position that entitles both genders to equal reproductive rights? For instance if you respect a woman's rights to abortion, but give a man a right to walk away and not be held responsible against his will if he doesn't want a child but she does?

That's equal rights for both genders, and nobody gets forced into the position of parenting a child they never wanted. I mean, neither of you ever struck me as in favour of being anti-rights on any issue, maybe that's the best middle ground?

Well this is embarrassing. I would be worried about the deadbeat dads, but hey if it makes everyone happy, I'll be willing to settle on this.

Thanks

EDIT:

Bentusi16:
/snip

We also sort of want the same thing. As long as it advances the human condition, I'm happy.

Same, but I don't feel there is any win win situation here. Someone is always going to be trampled by default in this sort of thing.

I agree fully on the part where you said that a women should not be able to demand and receive, forcefully, payments from the person who impregnated them, even if that person was a rapist. However, she would have every right and reason to sue that person in civil court for damages, mental and physical, which would demand monetary compensation. Furthermore, that rapist also should get their day in criminal court.

The funny thing about abortion is...

Okay, that started wrong.

I love with what hypocrisy we've accepted to deal when it comes to abortion.

The most used argument for abortions is that "the child would lead a bad life" and we clear our shitty, easily satisfied conscience upon that notion.

Let me ask you this question: Would you rather be aborted, and NEVER have lived (assuming we get this one chance), or would you take life eventhough it may be hard?

Obviously, you're going to pick the last choice, even if you knew you were signing up for a hard life, because even a hard life can turn itself around and isn't void of happiness.

This is obvious. It doesn't take a philosopher to come to this conclusion.

So what is the real reason a lot of these abortions take place?

(There are some, in my eyes, valid reasons, but those aren't the majority and those are left aside for now.)

AESTHETICS, dear ladies and gentlemen.

We'd rather end a life than see our tight cunt and pristine body leave us, because that's what you're doing. You're robbing a person of the chance to live, because you're not ready to say goodbye to that body you value so much and you base all your confidence on. Well, if you're not f--ing ready, USE A F--ING condom.

Please, spare me the "When it's a fetus, it's not really life yet!" garbage. That's the kind of nonsense that eludes us from what's really going on. Selfishness of the highest degree.

Like I said, exceptions are there. There are "good" reasons for abortion, but those do not cover the majority.

SimpleThunda':
AESTHETICS, dear ladies and gentlemen.

We'd rather end a life than see our tight cunt and pristine body leave us, because that's what you're doing. You're robbing a person of the chance to live, because you're not ready to say goodbye to that body you value so much and you base all your confidence on. Well, if you're not f--ing ready, USE A F--ING condom.

Please, spare me the "When it's a fetus, it's not really life yet!" garbage. That's the kind of nonsense that eludes us from what's really going on. Selfishness of the highest degree.

Like I said, exceptions are there. There are "good" reasons for abortion, but those do not cover the majority.

Using a condom also robs someone of a potential life. Every time a woman has a period, that is a potential life lost to the ages: a baby that could have happened but didn't. Women's eggs are the limiting reagent to produce more people. So it's not that every sperm is sacred, it's that every egg is.

But I have a question: why do we give a shit if the birth rate is 2.1 or 2.2? And if the average quality of life is better at 2.1, why not choose that?

SimpleThunda':

Let me ask you this question: Would you rather be aborted, and NEVER have lived (assuming we get this one chance), or would you take life eventhough it may be hard?

Lets assume I am an antinatalist. What then?

Seanchaidh:

SimpleThunda':
AESTHETICS, dear ladies and gentlemen.

We'd rather end a life than see our tight cunt and pristine body leave us, because that's what you're doing. You're robbing a person of the chance to live, because you're not ready to say goodbye to that body you value so much and you base all your confidence on. Well, if you're not f--ing ready, USE A F--ING condom.

Please, spare me the "When it's a fetus, it's not really life yet!" garbage. That's the kind of nonsense that eludes us from what's really going on. Selfishness of the highest degree.

Like I said, exceptions are there. There are "good" reasons for abortion, but those do not cover the majority.

Using a condom also robs someone of a potential life. Every time a woman has a period, that is a potential life lost to the ages: a baby that could have happened but didn't. Women's eggs are the limiting reagent to produce more people. So it's not that every sperm is sacred, it's that every egg is.

But I have a question: why do we give a shit if the birth rate is 2.1 or 2.2? And if the average quality of life is better at 2.1, why not choose that?

I draw the line when you take the responsibility to get pregnant. What you're saying is exactly the kind of nonsense I was talking about. The kind that lets people avoid responsibility.

"It's okay to have a period, so it's okay to kill a fetus."

What kind a mentality is that? You completely missed the point of my post and if that really is the reason you can sleep at night, I suggest you read my post again for an extra dose of reality.

I don't care about birthrates, I care about hypocrisy and people lying to themselves.

"He or she wouldn't have had a good life if he or she would have been born now."

Oh? So you did the RIGHT thing by aborting him or her? See what I mean? That's the kind of garbage you'll hear from people and they're flat out lying. The real reason (as described in my post) is far more selfish and THAT'S my problem.

Knight Templar:

SimpleThunda':

Let me ask you this question: Would you rather be aborted, and NEVER have lived (assuming we get this one chance), or would you take life eventhough it may be hard?

Lets assume I am an antinatalist. What then?

If you're saying that, given the choice, you would pick non-existence over existence, you're lying to yourself.

SimpleThunda':

Knight Templar:

SimpleThunda':

Let me ask you this question: Would you rather be aborted, and NEVER have lived (assuming we get this one chance), or would you take life eventhough it may be hard?

Lets assume I am an antinatalist. What then?

If you're saying that, given the choice, you would pick non-existence over existence, you're lying to yourself.

There are people who are legitimately antinatalist.

So again, lets assume I am one of them, what then?

Knight Templar:

SimpleThunda':

Knight Templar:

Lets assume I am an antinatalist. What then?

If you're saying that, given the choice, you would pick non-existence over existence, you're lying to yourself.

There are people who are legitimately antinatalist.

So again, lets assume I am one of them, what then?

There are no legitimate antinatalists. The only legitmate thing to do for an antinatalist is to kill him- or herself, since the world would be 0,00000000000000001% better off without you (Less people = more welfare, right?). Or something along those lines. Not doing so would be selfish and hypocritical.

I'm not suggesting for anyone to commit suicide, but you can't call yourself a legitimate antinatalist until you do.

It doesn't make sense either way.

Denying someone else life based on such a flawed philosophy which goes against human nature and reason would be a bad thing to do.

SimpleThunda':

There are no legitimate antinatalists.

I have interacted with a few, they do exist.

The only legitmate thing to do for an antinatalist is to kill him- or herself, since the world would be 0,00000000000000001% better off without you (Less people = more welfare, right?).

Unless they are too scared to do it, or feel that doing so is the cowards way out, or maybe they want to work to lower the number of births thus enduring suffering for themselves to prevent that of others, or any other number of reasons it doesn't really matter.
Not existing in the first place, and ending a life already present are not the same.

I'm not suggesting for anyone to commit suicide, but you can't call yourself a legitimate antinatalist until you do.

You realise how nonsensical what you just said is yes?

Denying someone else life based on such a flawed philosophy which goes against human nature and reason would be a bad thing to do.

The idea is to not have children in the first place, so there is no "somebody" to deny.

You think you can deny something to people that don't exist, talk to people who are dead. Very strange.

TheKasp:
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.

Well of course I can't give you a statistic that make up 33% of the cases involved - that's the goddamn point. This ''13 year old rape victim'' is so rare and statistically irrelevant, that it's absurd trying to use that to justify abortion across the board. Unless of course you can show me that 13 year old rape victims make up the bulk of abortion consumers. There were statistics posted on the previous page and if you would look, the grand majority of abortions are not done because of medical necessity, they are not done because of rape or whatever - they are done because of socio-economic reasons, which is mostly trying to candycoat and euphemize ''convenience''.

My reasons are valid - if you show up to planned parenthood and say you want an abortion, then that's it. No questions asked, you will get your service.

al4674:
Well of course I can't give you a statistic that make up 33% of the cases involved - that's the goddamn point.

You're refering to my post with statistics on the first page that proved this wrong in the very same post...

Gender selection or convenience didn't even appear in that list I copied from Visser et al as reasons. Visser by the way didn't register sexual abuse or other criminological statistics at all, theirs was strictly what users of abortion clinics filled out as motivation.

What played a major role was various factors that you could summarize as not being able to raise a child at that moment, which is a heavily weighing concern that you can't write off as trivial. A rising trend over 1990-2010 time period was an increase in late abortions in the hospital, which was causally linked to the '20 weeks scan' according to the yearly study of which Visser's is one, meaning that discovering severe handicaps in the fetus is the cause there.

And those are all Dutch figures. We have excellent compulsory sexual education at school and a fairly modern culture. I'm betting that it's not curriculum in the US and will lack in many schools, and has more religious traditionalism, so you can expect reasons like rape, norm-crossing behaviour[1], improper use of contraceptives, or not use of contraceptives because these weren't available, or family disapproval of pregnancy to play a larger role in the abortion cause percentages.

al4674:
This ''13 year old rape victim'' is so rare and statistically irrelevant, that it's absurd trying to use that to justify abortion across the board.

Mostly people are just arguing against the peeps who want to ban abortion. Why would you need to justify other people's decisions? That's their call and theirs alone.

And that's easy. It's any argument one can find, against a single-minded cruel wish to impose one's religious rules onto others. You could win from an anti-abortionist by posting 'you're wrong, cuz, freedom'. Not like this is a very complicated matter.

But what we do know as a fact is that rape leads to pregnancy more often than regular sex. Various studies found rates between 6,42% and 7,98% (Human Nature 2003), a little over 7,5% (Journal of Preventive Medicine 2000), and aproximately 6,9% (Rutgers Nisso WPF 2009) although the latter didn't measure on a per-incident basis. That's a higher pregnancy rate than from regular consensual sex.

Religious activists and social conservatives in the US often quote 'a study' from the 80s that found a lower rate, but that was a bunch of rubbish, pseudo-science conjured up to justify them trying to impose their religion in the form of an abortion ban. That was the same that Todd Akin and other Us conservatives, and more recently Dutch politician slash headless idiot Kees Van der Staaij based their attacks on rape victims on.

So if you want to figure out how many rape-abortions there are, multiply that pregnancy percentage with the number of rapes that occured in a country in a year and you have the number of pregnancies after rape, and a good idea of how many abortions it resulted in. I'm going for it being at least thousands each year.

[1] norm-crossing behaviour is a term for 'rape light' as it were, where people were in the wrong, but didn't perpetrate rape in the legal sense, or the choice was made to not press charges

al4674:

TheKasp:
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.

Well of course I can't give you a statistic that make up 33% of the cases involved - that's the goddamn point. This ''13 year old rape victim'' is so rare and statistically irrelevant, that it's absurd trying to use that to justify abortion across the board. Unless of course you can show me that 13 year old rape victims make up the bulk of abortion consumers. There were statistics posted on the previous page and if you would look, the grand majority of abortions are not done because of medical necessity, they are not done because of rape or whatever - they are done because of socio-economic reasons, which is mostly trying to candycoat and euphemize ''convenience''.

My reasons are valid - if you show up to planned parenthood and say you want an abortion, then that's it. No questions asked, you will get your service.

You still fail at providing evidence for your claim that there is a statistically significant amount of women going through an abortion for stated reasons (or equal). I have no burdon of proof, you claim to have insight into reasons for why people go through abortions, provide sources or shut up.

Also, there are more valid reasons for abortions than just the 13y old rape victim. Look 'em up and stop with that bullshit talk to me because I never once said anything about 13y old rape victims.

I also get the slight hunch you failed to understand my post. Provide a source that backs up your claim that the majority of women go through abortions for petty reasons like, and may I quote you:

''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.''

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked