That’s correct. So what?
I don’t think that at all. I can’t stand women who have baby after baby with one absent loser after another. My concern is for the children, not their mothers. That’s who the fathers’ obligations belong to – their children. The mothers of their children are neither here nor there.
And it hasn’t occurred to any of you deep thinkers yet that this is why society used to frown on non-marital sex?
In case someone needs a cite that fear of pregnancy is the biggest motivator for condom use:
Pretty much, yes. You see, one of the most important social functions of marriage is getting young men to accept responsibility for the children they father, and integrating them into society by integrating them into families. Two things you don’t want in any community are lots of fatherless children and lots of unattached young men.
So your “you accepted to be a father when you porked her” rationale works just as well for “you accepted to be a mother when you spread 'em”. As has been answered to you ad nauseam. SCOTUS rejected it, and that’s a good thing.
OK. What measures would you suggest to curb that behavior ?
And there we agree, in case you haven’t noticed yet.
No, a mother accepts it when she gives birth. The man’s choice stops at ejaculation because that’s when his BODY stops being involved.
None. I’m also not proposing any measure to stop men from being Johnny Appleseeds. Both partners just need to be responsible for the consequences, that’s all.
The true statement is “you accepted to be a mother or father when your necessary biological involvement with the production of the child ended.”
And that is true for men and women. Once the woman stops incubating the fetus, and there is a child, she has responsibilities to that child. Once the man donates his DNA, and once there is a child, he has responsibilities to that child. Equal.
Given that SHE will have HIS money, of course she’s better off. And SHE is the one doing what she wants, as opposed to him being forced into it.
Nonsense. She’ll get all the sex she likes from men who are less prudent. He won’t get any sex at all, from any woman. I’m strongly reminded of the argument from some feminists that men should not have sex with women without having them sign a consent form, which ALSO would mean no sex for them.
Just like a man saying he’s not interested in having a child before there’s a kid to support.
By society, you mean the same people who were having pre-marital sex in a different decade?
Perhaps it hasn’t occurred to you, as a shallow thinker, that there were kids born out of wedlock back then, too.
I don’t know why you say that. It’s not unimaginable that a guy can have a relationship with someone who has listened to his views, respects his position, and is willing to sign such a contract. If pre-nups don’t prevent marriages from taking place, I’m not sure why a similiar arrangement spells automatic doom.
Proscriptions against extramarital sex have historically only really been applied to women, and was motivated not by concern for babies, but by the lack of paternity testing. The only way a man could ensure that his kids were his own was by making sure that his chattel wives were only having sex with him.
Historically, there has not been much cultural concern about babies that men create outside of marriage, nor has extramarital sex by men been particularly frowned upon.
It’s silly that you keep denying the Court’s plain language in Roe v. Wade that makes your ad nauseum assertions untrue.
And as long as you do, we’ve got nothing to discuss. When you acknowledge the facts before you, I’m on board.
Unless and until someone demonstrates with evidence that Roe v. Wade was decided exclusively for reasons that have zero to do with reproductive freedom, all arguments that dismiss the words of the court and assert something different are pointless.
This is GD. Back up your assertions. You don’t, you aren’t debating and you need to head over to IMHO.
More than now, as I recall the 50’s were a peak period for “illegitimate” children. What’s changed now is that people admit it; and for that matter are much more likely to live together without being married.
Because marriages aren’t at all the same thing. Because women tend to want sex to be at least somewhat romantic, and a consent form isn’t romantic. Because such a set up requires men to treat every woman as if she was the worst sort of woman, which they naturally would find insulting ( if I insisted that everyone who came to my home sign a statement that they wouldn’t steal my silverware, do you think I’d get many guests ? ). Because women want men to trust them, despite our system being set up so that men trusting women is stupid.
And somehow still managed not to have nearly as many illegitimate children as we have today? Yes.
Not nearly as many. It would be a very good thing for society to restore strong social pressure on women not to give birth out of wedlock. But that gets in the way of the left’s asinine, adolescent free love fantasies.
I assume you’re speaking *ex cathedra *again?
What assertion is untrue? That women’s decisions affect men’s decisions as an indirect consequence of pregnancy taking place inside a woman’s body? You think this is contestable, really?
REALLY?
And do you have evidence of that ? Hiding it as was the practice in the past does not mean the rate was lower.