originaly by :**Diogenes the Cynic
**
I present both Bill Gates and Briteny Spears. Bill went to school, got a job and is now rich beyond imagination. Briteny is just some bimbo who can sing, but also filthy stinking rich. If two opposite extremes like Bill and Briteny can get rich ANYONE can. Anyone who says that they cant is either too dumb or too lazy to be a millonare.
I disagree. ‘Allowing’ the baby to come into being involves doing pretty much nothing aside from the initial sexual encounter. In order to prevent the baby from being born, action has to be taken in order to make the natural consequences of the sexual act ‘disappear.’ Most of the time, it isn’t very pleasant action, either.
I’m not a big fan of abortion being used as a way to get out of natural consequences, but you can also see that statement as meaning ‘the possibility of a pregnancy which then may not be terminated, even though the father wants it to be.’ (I also think that abortion has to be legal. I see abortion as largely, but not entirely, a kind of Band-Aid society uses to cover up all kinds of problems with the way we handle sexuality.)
The man gets one chance to decide whether or not he wants to deal with the possibility that he will be tied to the woman for the next twenty years. If he doesn’t like that possibility, then there are other ways for him to get his jollies by himself.
Imagine, if you will … growing up poor, the child of single mother, with no father in sight. You ask Mommy ‘How come I have never heard from my Daddy?’ She answers: ‘Well, once I was pregnant he wanted me to have an abortion. I didn’t, but since he never wanted you in the first place, he has the right to leave without a trace.’
I never ever thought I’d say this but:
‘Won’t somebody please think of the children?’
Okay, you never meant to knock her up, fine. Punish her for not wanting an abortion by making her raise your baby alone, if that’s what you think is right (I think it’s indefensible but we seem to disagree on that). But for the love of God, don’t punish the child for it.
It’s not all about You any more, or even about Her. This is one reason why sex is for grown-ups only.
I see your point , Cowgirl , but I have to ask which is worse, knowing that your mother loves you even though your father is shit OR being abused by a parent who didnt want you to be alive in the first place. Kids are killed all the time by abusive parents, some of whom freely admit that they never wanted children in the first place. I would rather be poor,loved and safe than rich,hated and abused.
Pretty much? Either the woman has the choice between allowing the zygote to become a child or she does not. If she does, then she is responsible for it developing.
A mentally-functioning adult female knows where babies come from. She is also the only person who decides if a baby will be created inside of her. If such a woman is not prepared to accept sole responsibility of the results of her sole choice, then I would suggest that she (to paraphrase Diogenes the Cynic) “keep it in [her] pants”.
This has nothing to do with “jollies”, although from past experience I know that is what most people will assume.
These days, most babies aren’t just born on the kitchen floor (“Ohh! Get that, would you, Deirdre?”). Giving birth involves going to the hospital, entering the delivery room, being seen by a doctor, getting loaded up with drugs, and so on.
I hear childbirth isn’t very pleasant, either.
What if they never want to have any? Should they stay away from sex for nearly the entirety of their lives? What if they’re married but they never, ever want to have children?
Since this thread was about the man’s responsibility or lack thereof, I did not feel it was necessary to point out the obvious fact that the woman is equally responsible with him. The topic under discussion is that Nature is inherently kind of unfair here; the woman has more power over the unborn child than the man does, who gets to control where his spermies land and not much else. He should therefore be pretty careful about where he puts those spermies, since they can turn into babies even when the parents didn’t mean for that to happen and took steps accordingly. She can make the choice to go get an abortion–if she’s willing to make that choice, which some women aren’t once they find themselves in the actual situation.
True enough–I’m looking at it myself in the very near future–but it’s still a pretty natural biological process. Usually, it starts by itself, it doesn’t require a hospital, drugs, or surgical implements to occur, and you don’t even need an appointment. It is perfectly possible to spend months in denial and still wind up with a baby (alive or dead) at the end of it, but getting an abortion requires concrete action to stop a process that has already begun and doesn’t need much more help to move it along.
Then, as you know, there are options–sterilization (vasectomy and/or tubal ligation or, soon, Essure). If careful birth control or sterilization still produce a pregnancy, then it’s up to the mother to decide whether or not to have the child; abortion is still an option, should the mother feel that abortion is acceptable, or adoption, if she does not. But at that point the man does not get as much of the vote, which is, I understand, the topic here.
Very well. But why does it matter? The mother still has a choice, and if she chooses inaction, the consequences of that choice are hers alone.
I can tell you from firsthand experience that surgical sterilization is very nearly impossible for a 25 year old woman to get.
Why that is and whether sterilization should be an on-demand elective operation for an adult of sound mind is probably a whole other thread.
</hijack>
Catsix, I’m not sure what you want from me. I sympathize with your situation, which I’ve read about here, but the biological fact is that sex can lead to pregnancy, and often does despite precautions. I presume that you have a plan in mind for what you will do, should you become pregnant, and the only thing I’m trying to say here is that people have to be careful about sex, because it can result in children with real needs who should not be abandoned. None of that is new information, and all we’re talking about here is whether the father bears responsibility for his offspring–which I happen to think he does.
“The woman owns one hundered percent of her own body, the man owns zero percent.” Diogenes the Cynic
If the man owns zero percent, then how can he have any responsibility towards it? I agree…the man has no ownership of the woman’s body. But it is not the woman’s body that is in question. It is the product of a specialized cell in that body and a specialized cell in the male body that was inside her, making sperm go splat. So…is it only her body, which means that she has ultimate say over it, and also means that the only responsibility that he has to those cells is what the government forces upon him? Or is it a collaborative effort? Does that growth actually belong to both of them? You can’t have it both ways. Either it’s a product of both of them, with both of them having legal and moral responsibilities towards it…or it’s her body. Her decision. And her responsibility.
“A man does not produce children. At most, he produces a zygote.” BlackKnight
“zygote–>embryo–>fetus doesn’t die, it turns right into…a baby! Which the man had 50% to do with, and is responsible for.” Genie
“The man gets one chance to decide whether or not he wants to deal with the possibility that he will be tied to the woman for the next twenty years. If he doesn’t like that possibility, then there are other ways for him to get his jollies by himself.“ Genie
The female gets, at LEAST, 3 months worth of chances to decide whether she wants to deal with the reality of being tied to the man for the next twenty years. If she doesn’t like that outlook, then she can get rid of the pregnancy. Lemme see…given right…given on basis of sex…sexism? Reality? Both? Personally, I think that it’s both. Doesn’t make it right. Just makes it how it is.
“Nature is inherently kind of unfair here; the woman has more power over the unborn child than the man does, who gets to control where his spermies land and not much else” genie
“Why does the woman get to make all of the decision in this case? Is that child only hers? Doesn’t it also belong to the father? Reproductive rights and choice, but only for the woman in the equation?” Me. J
The question has nothing to do with Nature. Although, applying some of this reasoning to other avenues would be interesting. The question is about reproductive rights. In short, why do women get access to a right that men don’t? Because that’s how Nature intended it?
Oh…one more quote from Diogenes and one more from Genie…
“once a man produces children, he’s responsible for them, whether he wants to be or not. It’s no longer about the parent’s needs/wants, it’s about the child. Those needs come first.” Genie
“If a guy has sex with a woman, he assumes the risk of pregnancy. There is absolutely no scenario by which he should be allowed to escape his financial and moral responsibility.” Diogenes
http://www.nas.com/c4m/rape_case.html
Do you two still stand by what you’ve said, unequivocally stating that once the sperm goes splat, he’s responsible?
You posted an extreme example, but I still say yeah, make the horny little shit take responsibility.
genie:
What I’d really like will never happen. I’d really like people (not necessarily you, but those pro-lifers I have talked to IRL) to get the point and not say nonchalantly ‘Well just go get your tubes tied then’ as if it is as easy as ordering a Big Mac.
What I’d really like is for the medical profession to stop deciding that adults can’t make their own permanent decisions, and give me the damned operation.
You’re right in that I do have a plan for what will happen should contraception fail. I suppose this is my soapbox issue, my frustration with medicine, because I wish no doctor ever told me that ‘Oh you’ll change your mind when you get pregnant and realize you really want babies.’
Personally, I could not at all ever say that I’d be in favor of forcing some guy to support a child he doesn’t want provided he got a legal “abortion” where all his rights/responsibilities were legally terminated and the pregnant woman was informed fully of this and she chose to have the kid anyway. I don’t know that I have a logical reason for it, because it’s entirely based on knowing I wouldn’t want to be forced to support or care for a kid I never wanted.
So long as it’s an option for me to abort, it should be an option for a guy to abort himself from fatherhood.
by catsix:
The moral quandry for each side is not equal, though.
First scenario: Unwanted pregnancy occurs. Woman wants abortion but man doesn’t believe in it for moral reasons.
Possible outcomes: If she gets her wish, she wins. If he gets his wish, he wins. If he gets his wish, she loses. If she gets her wish, he loses. But here’s the important thing: He doesn’t have to actively do anything that goes against his moral beliefs. No matter what happens, he is a passive participant.
Second scenario: Unwanted pregnancy occurs. Woman doesn’t want abortion for moral reasons but man does. He says if she doesn’t end her pregnancy, he will disappear from her life and the child’s. That is his form of “abortion”.
Possible outcomes: If he gets his wish (he “aborts”), he wins and she loses. If he gets his wish (she aborts), he wins and she loses. There is no way the woman can win in this particular scenario because no matter what choice she makes an “abortion” will take place. Thus, she has more to lose than the man does.
Did any of that make sense?
For Rodney’s extreme scenario, if I were in charge I would see that case as sexual child abuse. I would want the child adopted out to a family and the girl cited as a sex offender. However, people often see women molesting boys as a great chance for the victim, which skews things when he has been manipulated and taken advantage of.
I pretty much agree with you; after about, oh, age 22, you ought to be able to do that. If by some chance you (collective you) should decide later that you want children after all, well, some other way will have to be found.
No, because I don’t think she ‘loses’ if she gets to not have an abortion and he does. She’s not actively doing anything that goes against her moral beliefs.