I confess to not have read the 10 pages of this debate, but it does interest me a great deal.
I always felt that the man should have the right to a “legal” abortion, which means that if he decides that he doesn’t want to be a father, he gives up all parental rights, can never retract them, and goes along his way.
I understand the woman has the burden of carrying a child to term, however if she decides that she wants an abortion and the man wants to have the child, too bad for him. If I were to sleep with a woman and get her pregnant, I would want to have the child. But as it stands, I get no say. That’s decidedly unfair to the man, who has no real recourse.
I know it’s not a clean way to do it, but it’s been said many times. It takes two to tango, and both parties are responsible for their actions. The power of the woman in this is way out of proportion to the consequences involved.
I’m actually glad a legal case has come up and I’ll be curious as to its outcome.
In case anyone is interested in accuracy, my suggestion cannot effect the woman’s responsibility to ensure a condom is used, because she has that responsibility whether or not the man is similarly interested; it is certainly not going to affect the burden of pregnancy on the woman (though an abortion does - but abortions and who decides to do them are entirely unaffected by my suggestion); and of course the woman would only have an increased responsibility to the child only if she elected not to abort - exactly the same way a man would only have an increased responsibility to the child if he elected not to surrender parental rights.
And the term “birth control” has a meaning in this discussion - actions taken to prevent conception, be they a condom, the pill, or deusching with mountain dew. Merely being an opt-out isn’t enough to qulify - no matter how “casually” one points out that abortion (especially elective abortion) is, in fact, and undoubtedly, an opt-out and nothing but.
Ah, the old “impugn the reading comprehension of my opponents makes my argument magically better” canard. All the more amusing when you tell me that I don’t understand my own words.
As for the argument itself - do you think that this is somehow compelling? You’re talking about curtailing an equality of actual legal rights on the rather flimsy argument that it’s terribly arduous to say, “Do you have a condom?”
Suppose I concede right out that there will be a shift of incentive in men, from carrying a condom because you want not to have a kid and don’t want an STD and don’t want the woman to tell you to shove off - to because you don’t want an STD and don’t want the woman to tell you to shove off. Matched by an increase incentive in women in their already “unfairly” larger incentive not to get pregnant (the biology, remember) that will, in my calculation, largely or entirely compensate for the men’s loss of incentive, when it comes to the practical outcome of birth control use frequency.
And then suppose I point out that you’re arguing that a shift in the balance of incentives is justification for unequally withholding a legal option. And then suppose I just dismiss that argument as laughable on the face of it - the incentivizing effects of rights only matter to the degree they change the results, and it’s not been demonstrated that these would.
How so? I just explained why it’s laughable.
Ridiculous how? I mean, other than by your assumed conclusion that the very idea of giving sluttly men those ‘equal rights’ thingies is ridiculous on the face of it.
So, in your opinion, it’d be perfectly equal to disenfranchise women or blacks, because there’s a chance that the guy they like might be voted in by those allowed to vote, and that’s close enough to count as having a vote yourself?
'Cause that’s the precise argument you’re making - it counts as a choice not to have one if there’s a chance that the people actually making the choice might choose your way.
Of course that’s why they’re the ones that are allowed to make the choice to abort - but the choice itself has zippo to do with biology. Precisely as I said. (So yeah, no incorrectness on my part here.)
In order: hogwash - there’s nothing about the biology that dictates what laws are made - especially ones that have nothing to do with the biology! Nobody is arguing that the man should be able to force the woman to abort, after all.
Next: What responsibility are you referring to? You put this in the present tense, so apparently you’re not talking about the argument above regarding impetesus to use birth control, and if you don’t conspicuously and conviently forget abortion (again), then no responsibility at all is forced on the woman regarding child support.
Next: the opt-out in question is the choice to abort - which belongs to women only. If the opt(ion) isn’t yours to trigger, the opt-out isn’t yours either.
Final: You know what they say about conclusions drawn from faulty premises…
I don’t think it’s oversimplifying to clearly point at the difference in legally available options at all. It’s just not sufficently obfuscated for your tastes.
Okay, you’re not pretending - you’re just conspicuously avoiding admitting that we are explicitly talking about a legal option that is being given to only one gender.
What you’re currently pretending is that the act of listing the available opt-outs is somehow a crime of “oversimplification” - when it’s actually an extremely relevent detail given that the entire discussion is based on the inequity in legally-offered opt-outs.
Precisely as defrayed as if I took your right to vote away, ‘defraying’ it with the fact that sometimes the vote would still turn out how you like it despite your lack of participation.
And there’s zippo about the biology that makes the man necessarily obligated to his spawn - if there was it would apply to women too, and abortions would not be permitted. (Abortions, again, being the entire basis for the discussion…)
I like the flat assertion “Wrong,” followed by its flat assertion of disbalanced paternal responsibility. (The women may opt out by aborting, but men, no, men are committed from the moment they dropped their pants, forevermore after!) It’s very cute. Argumentive garbage, mind you, but still quite cute.
And the woman who chooses to not to abort, and to have a child with the foreknowledge that they (not society) would be totally financially responsible for the child…should allowed to do this because we don’t consider it right to force the woman to abort regardless of her circumstances.
If we ever divested men of automatic responsibility for any children birthed by their sperm, this would change the decision women have to make from the start. It would not be something that sneaks up on women later, catching them by surprise after the child is birthed and it’s too late to abort. So characterizing it like that is erroneous.
The second point trumps the first, and puts the entire control for whether the child is actually born in the hands of the woman. She has all the power over the final result, and as they say, “with great power comes great responsibility”.
2 was originally “if pregnancy occurs, it’s up to God to decide whether the baby will be born alive or stillborn.”
You’re suggesting that because change in the biological reality of 2 caused by abortion that number 1 and 3 be drastically changed in an attempt to give women more control over their own bodies. Women no longer face an equal risk in 1 because they are provided with an opt out and no longer have a compelling reason to take equal precautions, and the child in 3 cannot expect to survive to birth because of the same.
In your attempt to make one portion more equitable you make the other 2 less resulting in decreased equity.
…except of course, that’s already happened. I’m just trying to level the scales.
And you’re the one deliberately ignoring the effect of abortion on the situation. And only by not admitting that women have a legal opt-out of responsibility can you pretend that it would be unfair to give men a reasonable legal equivalent, or that it’s not unequal to deny them one.
Who needs to twist? You forgot abortion again - which kills your argument. Due entirely to abortion, woman have less of that “responsibility for the welfare of the child” responsibility that’s the responsibility you’re talking about when you talk about men’s responsibility. So when we stick with one goalpost, then it’s complete and total bunk that women have more responsibility. They have more power, is what they have. More power, less responsibility.
I just want equal responsibility for men - actually equal, not your ignoring-the-relevent-facts “equality”. Which means: she has a way to opt out of the results; so should he have one.
You’re trying to paint the current situation as fair. Twist away. It won’t work - you’re not going to make me forget that women can get an abortion.
I just went through our posts again to try and locate the main points.
Your point seems to be captured in this post
and
So, in the issue of things being as equitable as reality permits you feel men should have an opt out equal to abortion, leaving women to choose whether to have the child or not and being 100% responsible for the consequences of that choice.
I’m trying to get this correct without unnecessary snark.
My position is our current laws which hold men legally financially responsible for helping to support the children they sire is best for the people involved and society based on biological reality. spelled out in this post
point 1;
and
to this point you have stated several times that women can insist on a condom.
I’ve pointed out that this only supports my argument. A women insisting on a condom is her taking the responsibility.
you have recently argued.
I’d say this also supports my argument rather than yours. Women have always born the greater risk and greater concern about an unwanted -pregnancy. Changing the laws to hold men financially responsible was an attempt to do something about that inequity and even at that, due to difficulties in implementation it’s far from perfect. You want to take away what little effectiveness it has. I’d call that a regression for society.
your response to this is,
So, realistically, your suggestion removes what little motivation men have to avoid unwanted pregnancies and has the children they sire do without their financial support in order to try and give men some choice equal to the one biology dictates must be made by women.
I completely disagree with your thinking here,
The fact that it is not unfair to be raised poor, or biology dictating that mother’s have the choice rather than men, does not change the fact that the father is directly responsible for the creation of that child. The question is should the mother be given and even greater burden of responsibility because biology has dictated that she has the greater burden to start with and is the only one who can ultimately choose to terminate or carry to term.
That’s what your proposing.
The other question is should the child be deprived of the available financial support of one of it’s biological parents for those same reasons? What’s in the best interest of the child and the society that will have to help support that child?
Clearly it’s having the biological parents both offer what support they are able to.
Now on to some of your more recent points.
an invalid comparison. There is no biological imperative to consider. I repeat, the laws have to be as equitable as possible within the bounds of biological reality and dealing with the 3 individual citizens involved and the interests of society.
You have not established this to be true. Clearly the law considers the biology and feels the fact that the woman must be the one to choose does not free men from their responsibility. You seem to be arguing that since women start with an even greater responsibility biologically men should have even less.
Obviously wrong. It’s the biology that only women get pregnant that influences the laws concerning abortion. It’s the biology that influences the law making the genetic father financially responsible to support children he sires. You’ll have to explain this argument in a much more compelling way to have it be anything near convincing.
I understand your point. Since she can avoid the responsibility of supporting a child through abortion she is not being forced to do so. You’re missing a question or two.
Should the woman or the resulting child be penalized because biology dictates she is the only one who can make the choice to abort or not? Since she bears this additional responsibility and choice that a man cannot make should she make it with the understanding that she can be legally financially abandoned by the father. If so, then she is being forced to bear an additional responsibility.
Should the child be denied the financial benefits of one of it’s biological parents for the same reasons.
This is exactly what I mean by equitable laws within the bounds of biological reality. This is why a simple counting of options for men and women doesn’t cut it. The discussion isn’t about equity for two individuals who start out equally. Women start with a greater responsibility to begin with. The abortion option and the laws holding the father financially responsible for his own children are a means to try and address that imbalance of responsibility. Your suggestion “let’s give men a legal way out of their responsibilities” is regressive and does not restore equity in the big picture.
Let’s put this to rest. I’m not avoiding it either. In post 502 you accused me of ignoring abortion while I was talking about it in the part you quoted. I insist on talking about realistic consequences rather than a simplistic numeric comparison. I’m not claiming it’s irrelevant. Just very incomplete and not leading to an informed realistic conclusion.
Do you not see the double standard you’re promoting? According to you it’s reasonable to have women make the decision to abort or not based on their own finances only since they know ahead of time , but it’s not reasonable to make men financially responsible for the children they sire even if they know that potential ahead of time.
[QUOTE]
they have more choices, one in particular that we’re talking about. How exactly does that give them less responsibility? I think you’re wrong.
options have consequences that affect responsibility in other areas. What you’re suggesting does not result in equal responsibility. When you change things to make one aspect of responsibility more equitable you affect other areas in the big picture.
So, while in simple numeric terms your approach appears equitable it is not. It’s shifts too much responsibility away from men and onto women and society in general, and is financially punitive to children. You’ve tried to justify or explain away the shift as irrelevant. You’ve failed to offer any convincing argument
aside from the Spiderman philosophy I don’t disagree. Ultimately the woman must make the choice. The reason your argument fails is because these are not the only two points to consider.
your responnse
interesting although a little WTF? of course women do have a compelling reason to take precautions just as they always have. The compelling reason is to avoid a surgical procedure at least. I’d remind you again that the same thing that reduces the risk for women in #1 also reduces it for men.
While I think your voting analogy is invalid I agree that even though men are benefited by the safety and availability of abortion the fact that women alone have the final say still leaves that specific point inequitable.
Remember “as equitable as reality and consequences allow”.
As the laws stand the choice given to women benefits both men and women and financial responsibility benefits the child. You propose changing it to something that benefits only men. My point stands.
and really? the child in three cannot expect to survive? Ludicrous and unnecessary. Obviously we are talking about children that are born and survive. They are the only ones with needs that have to be met. Don’t cloud the discussion by referring to a fertilized egg as a child.
I stress again, the law must consider reality. We know men and women will continue to screw and unwanted pregnancies will occur. Because it is the woman’s body it is her choice and you agree that’s how it should be. Where you and I and the current laws part is how the woman’s necessary right to make that decision affects the child born if she decides to carry to term.
The law considers the child as a separate citizen who needs to be protected and cared for. Who should be financially responsible for that person? You claim that because of the woman’s choice it should be her alone. It seems the law does not tie the woman’s right to make choices about her own body to needs of the child. The needs of the child and who is responsible are a separate entity from the woman’s right to choose. To treat it otherwise is punitive to the child and to the woman as well as ultimately encouraging irresponsibility in men.