You put it so simply and succinctly, wring!
Mr.2001, on page 4 of this thread Nonny Mouse (who is far more articulate than I am) explained it all pretty well. Since you never responded to Nonny Mouse’s points yourself, here, let me remind you of what she wrote:
And then she wrote this:
And then I think she sums up your whole argument in a nutshell (bolding mine):
Why is his position so upsetting to you? Your beef appears to be with female biology in general. Women need to have an abortion because biology causes the fetal parasite to grow in her womb. Just because women have that biological feature is no reason to force men into an equally uncomfortable position. Women have responsibility because of nature, while the current system forces responsibility upon the male that was never intended to exist.
the problem is that your position ignores physical realities. The physical realities that it does indeed take two persons, male and female in order to conceive. and that you wish to allow only one of them to have consequences of the conception, while declaring it somehow more ‘fair’ that way.
two people conceive. they should both be responsible for the life, should it survive.
I disagree: This position fails to acknowledge that conception and birth are two very separate events. After conception, the mother decides whether she wants the pregnancy to result in a child. This choice is entirely up to her, and she is aware of the consequences of both action and inaction.
The fact that inaction leads to birth is irrelevant. If she had to take overt action to cause the pregnancy to result in a child, my position would not change.
The fact that conception would not have occurred without the man’s consent only makes the man liable for the direct consequences of the conception, not the consequences of a choice made by someone else at a later time. Allow me to illustrate:
Suppose I hand a dangerous chemical to a co-worker. I’m responsible for making sure the chemical is safe for him to handle; if it has leaked out of the container and it burns his hands, that’s a direct consequence of my action and I’m at fault.
However, we both know that this chemical is only stable for one hour, and if he hasn’t disposed of it by then, it will burn through its container. In that case, I’m not responsible for his failure to dispose of the chemical; he knew what would happen as a result of his inaction.
You are ignoring the physical reality that conception and childbirth are not the same event, and they are not results of the same decision. The pregnancy requires two people. The birth of a child requires one person.
Just like the co-worker and the chemical: the first action, my handing the chemical to him, requires both of us to participate. The second action, his failure to follow the procedure for working with the chemical, only requires his participation. He wouldn’t have the chemical if I hadn’t given it to him, but that doesn’t matter; once he has it, the decision of what to do with it is up to him, and the consequences of his actions are his alone.
The man is responsible for the direct result of his decision to have sex: he must assist her in safely ending the pregnancy, whether through abortion or delivery. (Whether the woman gets to decide which the man pays for is a separate issue.)
The woman is responsible for the direct result of her decision to deliver a child: she must provide the resources necessary for the child to live and grow, and she must do it by herself if no one else is willing to help her.
the birth of the child cannot happen w/o the conception.
it’s not ‘two seperate events’, but rather a continuum of the same event.
I think what Mr2001 is saying (but not wanting to put words in his mouth) is that when a women finds herself pregnant decisions are taken:
He should have the right to say “Yes, I will support this accidental child when/if it born” or “No, I won’t support this accidental child when/if it is born”
That financial input may, or may not, inform her decision to go ahead with the birth. And his obligations, or otherwise, flow from his early in the pregnancy decision.
Oh, after 5 pages, I assure you that I understand the position. They wish to only look at the decision to abort/not, and not the original decision ‘pregnancy potential sex/not’. And wish to ignore the responsabilities of that first decision by merely saying ‘nope, don’t want to pay’. Our position is that there are two people equally involved in the conception, therefore equally responsible for the child that results should one result. The concept that a woman may elect to take a step in between which would allevieate both parties financial obligations, doesn’t mean that the obligation never existed before or would afterward.
In addition to parenting responsabilities, financial responsabilitiees (which both would be responsible for), there are physical realities, consequences, pain etc, which are the woman’s alone due to the physical realities, which we then argue affords her and only her the right to make that decision (since she alone would have those consequences). but the shared responsabilities for the fertalized egg, and the child, should it result are a two person gig.
wring, you are conflating a fertilized egg and a child. They are different things, according to law and according to popular morality. A man may play a part in creating a fertilized egg. He does not play a part in creating a child any more than a car dealership plays a part in drunk driving incidents involving cars they sold.
really? there’s no part that the father plays in creating a child? well, biologists would certainly disagree, and if what you say is true, than no male can ever demand any rights to any child. Fortunately for society, you’re incorrect. Every child has biologically a male parent and a female parent.
the fertalized egg is merely the beginning of the continuum that results in the child.
Just like the car is the beginning of a continuum that results in a drunk driving accident?
The simple fact that the accident couldn’t have happened without the car dealer’s involvement doesn’t make the dealer responsible for causing the accident.
Similarly, the simple fact that the child couldn’t have been born without the man’s involvement doesn’t make the man responsible for the birth of the child.
The driver had a choice of whether he was going to drive drunk or take a cab, which relieves the dealer of responsibility for the accident. The woman has a choice of whether she wants to bring a child into the world; why would this not relieve the man of responsibility?
neither, the ‘car’ nor the car dealership is the beginning of the continuum of the drunk driver. Please explain how you see this as similar to the fertalized egg => infant line.
You are saying that as if it’s news to me, but I’ve already stated that at least twice in this thread.
Mr2001 has responded to the rest of your post quite well. (Although the point you make has already been addressed in this thread at least twice.)
A mutual decision (the dealer and customer agree on a price and sign over ownership of the car) leads to a decision by one party (the customer chooses to drive drunk) with a result that has consequences (the customer hits a pedestrian and faces jail time).
The parallel: A mutual decision (the man and woman agree to have sex) leads to a decision by one party (the woman chooses to give birth to a child) with a result that has consequences (a child is born and needs decades of financial support).
I think the point you’re getting at is the situations are different because the fertilized egg (result of the mutual decision) and the born child (result of one party’s decision) are the same physical being, correct? To me, this seems beside the point, and I’d appreciate an explanation of why you think it’s a reason for responsibility to be assigned differently.
Which would mean, of course, that even if you ‘opted’ to be a parent, you’d have no rights.
and, your points have been responded to over and over in this thread as well, and IIRC, in the prior thread where you made the same tired unsubstantiated claims.
Well, once again, we’re at an impasse.
Of course. Or at least that would be how it is by default.
(One can imagine senarios where contractual rights and responsibilities could be created. If both the man and woman wished for the man to have rights and responsibilities over the child, I see no reason why they couldn’t or shouldn’t happen. It’s just that such a situation wouldn’t be the default.)
Labeling something unsubstantiated does not make it so. Responding to something with already-rebutted phrases does not mean it has been “responded to” in any substantial way.
If I repeat myself it is because sometimes people say things that have been addressed several times before, as if they haven’t even read the thread. If they were responding to my defense of a particular point, or responding to a critique I made of a point, and they did so by contributing something new or clarifying something old, that would be fine. But if you look at this thread, you’ll see lots of things repeated that were addressed already. Not elaborations or clarifications, but just restatements, sometimes barely in new words. For example, I stated quite early on in this thread that lack of responsibility goes hand in hand with lack of rights. Yet a couple people either didn’t read that or didn’t understand it or something. Note how often some people accused some posters of merely wanting to “get away” with something. It was assumed by many that some posters were in this merely for their own gain, even though that had been addressed (more than) sufficiently already. The reason these arguments never get anywhere is because so many people insist on restating that which has already been rebutted. The thread quickly swells in size, and eventually peters out without having accomplished much of anything at all, other than much repetition and bad feelings. Great, now I sound like a grumpy old man. 
mumble grumble
Only women make zygotes survive. Men help create zygotes and then leave them to die. It is the woman who either allows the zygote to survive or has it killed. Since she is responsible for its making it to the birth stage, she is responsible for its existence.
It is a sequence of two events. It is true you cannot have child birth without conception, but you can have conception without child birth. Not every gun that is sold is used in a murder even though a gun needs to be acquired before a gun murder can occur. When a man has sex there is no reason to assume he is consenting to care for a child just like there is no reason to assume that a gun dealer advocates using the guns he sells to commit murders.
That is the main argument between the two primary factions in this thread. Some of us feel that the first step in the sequence is where responsibility is assigned, and some of us feel that the last step in the sequence is where responsibility is assigned. It is true that you cannot have a child without all the steps occurring, but you can have the first step without the last ever happening. And since most sex does not lead to children, I conclude that there is no reason to think that either person partaking in the sexual act is consenting to raise children. Sex for most people is primarily a recreational activity, so there is no reason for a woman to assume that the man is consenting to take care of a child should one result and there is no reason for the man to assume that she will give birth to a child should a fetus result. These are separate topics that require separate consent.
Oh, you’ve just got to be kidding.
This is wishful thinking at its best. Sex as a “recreational” activity is a side issue—is has been, since the beginning of time, used for procreating. Making it pleasant is Mother Nature’s way of making sure people want to do it.
And just because abortion is now legal does not automatically mean that the man is now completely off the hook for supporting his own children. To declare that because now a woman has a “choice” (and what an easy and attractive “choice” it is :rolleyes: ) that this automatically makes the man completely not responsible for his part of creating the child is absurd. But we’ve repeated this to you, over and over again. We are indeed at an impasse.
And yes, I’ll repeat it here—I do believe that Nonny Mouse put it well when she said that “fair” (to some of you) is whatever works out best for the one who evokes it. What is more “fair” than being completely off the hook? What is more “fair” than expecting the woman to have surgery, instead of the man? Why yes, that sounds far more “fair”—to the man who does not relish surgery, (or who does not want to pay to support his children). But if a woman does not relish surgery? Well, not his problem, is it? She still has the choice, so her feelings or preferences have no bearing on the matter. It’s “fair” that she be expected to have surgery instead of him, just so he won’t have to pony up money to help support his own child.
Wring, I’m weary of repeating myself over and over, glad you’re popping your head in here too. ::sigh::
“This is wishful thinking at its best. Sex as a “recreational” activity is a side issue—is has been, since the beginning of time, used for procreating. Making it pleasant is Mother Nature’s way of making sure people want to do it.”
I think you’ve got to be kidding. What is the #of babies/# of sexual acts ratio? Despite apparent “common knowledge” it is not all that easy to get pregnant and bring a baby to term. It usually takes lots of tries. Many/most “pregnancies” self terminate without even being noticed(as a heavy period). It is not at all unreasonable for someone to not “expect” a baby with every sex act. That is simply unrealistic. Mother Nature made it pleasant so that we would do it recreationally and then accidentally get pregnant.
If one does not “expect” a baby from sex, there is no need for the pill, or other forms of birth control, are there? No need for all these procedures and medications to help prevent unwanted pregnancy—it’s obviously just a remote possibility anyway. And, we all know that no one ever has an “oopsie” pregnancy, where they used birth control, and it still failed, and a pregnancy resulted. So, why are we all having this discussion? Obviously pregnancy is not something that results from sex. Right?
My sister has to be super vigilant with her birth control. She says if she even sits on a toilet seat that her husband has been on, she’ll get pregnant. (OK, not really, but she sweats bullets EVERY month—she’s that fertile.)
hey y-babe - help me out here - which one of these posters was the one who objected so strenuously when you suggested that they merely wanted to ‘get off’ (w/r/t sex) w/o the responsability? and here we have the bald ass statement that “sex is a recreational activity and not necessarily associated w/having babies”, which is asserting that the intent is/was to have sexual relations w/o the responsabilites of a pregnancy.
Perhaps all those sex ed classes they do in H/S need a bit of tweeking. While it is correct that humans do indeed engage in sexual activity for a pleathora of reasons, including ‘fun N games’, it is also a biological fact that pregnancy is a potential (if undesired in some cases) consequence of certain styles of said activity, and pretending it isn’t, or that it takes a ‘lot of effort’ generally a good plan.
as was stated waaaaay back on page 1 - no method of b/c is 100% effective. Best option is to have a discussion w/partner prior to contact about what each would expect/do under the circumstances, or avoid sexual contact that can result in pregnancy. Frankly there’s quite a few options that have a zero chance, it’s only when one allows semen to wander up to the uterus that pregnancy can occur.