In, There you go again! Taking things out of context and ignoring the intent of posts…
Read the whole post I’m referring to. Face is using “the natural consequence” to set up an argument that because it’s “the” “natural” consequence, that’s how it “ought” to be. It’s very clear.
This is quite a stretch. By choosing to have sex with a woman with a condom on there is specific action being taken to prevent a pregnancy. Yet, the pregnancy can still occur.
By choosing to continue to carry the baby to term a woman is choosing to have a child. The father gets no choice.
To the people making the “sex = willingness to pay for 18 years of baby” arguments:
Is it your opinion that sex should only be for procreation? Should only a couple planning on having a child ever have sex in your view? That seems to be the case.
This is quite a stretch. By choosing to have sex with a woman with a condom on there is specific action being taken to prevent a pregnancy. Yet, the pregnancy can still occur.
By choosing to continue to carry the baby to term a woman is choosing to have a child. The father gets no choice.
To the people making the “sex = willingness to pay for 18 years of baby” arguments:
Is it your opinion that sex should only be for procreation? Should only a couple planning on having a child ever have sex in your view? That seems to be the case.
This is just totally detached from reality. People are going to have sex, regardless of the law or consequences. This cannot be controlled. However, women bringing babies into the world that they cannot support: This we have some power over. By letting the fathers “opt-out” we could discourage women from having children that would be a burden on society.
OK, given DrLizardo’s permision I’d like to expand the discussion a little.
Take the situation given the the original post and expand on it. A man and woman get together. They have sex which results in a pregnancy. Let me add that they did so with full knowledge and pre agreed intention that they were compatible parents. That is they did not necessarily want to get pregnatn this time, but they both knew it was a possibility and were willing to raise any child responsibly.
If at this point the woman decides she will not go through with it should the man have no recourse? Obviously I’m not advocating that the woman be forced to go full term and deliver a baby. I’m just asking if the man should have any recourse at all.
That women have a choice after pregnancy is a biological fact. The man can not give to or take anything away from the child during pregnancy excpet through the woman.
I guess what I am asking is if the man has an obligation from conception does that not imply that the woman does also?
Debaser: Despite what most readers/posters here might think, I don’t entirely agree with you on this issue of the “possible outcomes of sex” issue.
I think that anyone having sex should accept that pregnancy is A possible outcome. Doesn’t have to mean you’re looking for it or that sex is ONLY for procreation, but we’re all big boys and girls and know what CAN happen.
Where I differ from most others that tend to support that viewpoint is that I don’t think it’s A) an excuse to throw up your hands and say “oh well, it’s done, shoulda thought of that” and B) those who somehow interpret this as putting the primary responsibility for “shoulda thought of that” on that man.
I basically view it as a moot point to what happens after conception. Both parties knew what could happen. They did it anyway, and here we are… now what are we gonna do…?
Just because something is legal, doesn’t make it “okay”, though. It is legal, for instance, for parents to turn their kids over to the state, but that doesn’t mean they should do so just because they are sick of changing dirty diapers.
And an AWFUL lot of women also get breast implants and liposuction…so what? It is still an elective surgery that comes with risks and costs.
Just because something is legal, doesn’t mean that it automatically becomes a choice.
Interesting how you talk so much about women but very little about the one party who is helpless and weak. What gives?
As someone who made this argument I’d just like to say “Not at all”.
I realize that sex is one of the best forms of recreation ever created. Sex can have many purposes. Quite enjoyably, almost any purpose under the sun can be mirrored in a sexual activity. I believe it was teh author of the Naked Ape who noticed that humans have the most prominant sexual organs of all primates. As my handle suggests, I could go on for some time regarding the absolute incredible variety of sexual practices, purposes, and prizes 
.
My only point about sex for procreation as regards this OP is that procreation is a reasonable possible outcome of the kind of sexual activity described in the original post. Given that, you cannot eliminate the responsibility from either party after the act. Specific responsibilities may differ between the gneders, however. I thought we were discussing wich responsibilities belong to the male and how they relate to the responsibilities that belong to the female.
by DrLizardo
Nope, you read things that weren’t there.
Face: “What gives” is that my OP was not about child support. In my view it’s no more relevant than how the pregnancy occurred. And in fact my question states that it relates specifically to the period during which an abortion can be legally performed – clearly NOT the situation post birth! If I wanted to ask a question that opened the floor to ANY implication of the situation, we’d probably be discussing assisted suicide by now…
HOWEVER, I’ve already indicated I’m open to (hopefully within reason) expansions of the topic and I’m certainly not trying to give you grief for a “hijack” or “going beyond the OP” – I’m not into that: debates should evolve.
So discuss it at will! But don’t criticize ME for not going there. You feel it’s germane to the topic. I simply don’t.
Face: They ARE there. Perhaps you didn’t intend them, but intentionally or not the words you are using and the arguments you bring forth from those words imply it.
by DrLizardo
Where are you getting this idea from? And how does your interpretation of fairness NOT put the primary responsibility for “shoulda thought of that” on the WOMAN?
by DrLizardo
If you are not worried about child support in this discussion, then what is the dilemma? As it is, men don’t have to do anything until after pregnancy is over, which is months after the abortion window has closed. So why would a man want to opt-out if not to prevent 18 years of child support payments? To perserve his manly figure?
OK, DrLizardo, If you restate the question that way I can find more to agree with you.
First of all accepting responsibility for the possiblity of procreation before sex specifically means that after sex you cannot simply “throw up your hands”.
And I agree that some people tend to focus all of the “fault finding” on the man not the woman. This may simply be a remainder of the backlash from when the woman was the only one to bear responsibility soem decades ago. I certainly do not want to be lumped in either catagory.
However, accepting responsibility for the possiblity of procreation does not mean looking for a way out of supporting any child which may result. And I’m afraid that the male “opt-out” is little more than that. While limiting the males responsibility to the woman to the cost of an abortion or medical support during pregnancy may seem reasonable, it does not address the responsibility of the male to the child. And while I might be persuaded that the current legal system is a little one sided in favor of the woman regarding child support, even this does not remove the responsibilities that a man has for his offspring.
My only point regarding the choice before conception is that biologically that is the only place a man has an opportunity to choose wether or not to procreate with a particular woman. After she is pregnant it is too late for him to “opt-out” of the procreation. It is a fact of existence like gravity by then.
Choosing a woman who will not abort your offspring is as important as choosing a woman who will not abuse them. It may also be as difficult. The difference is that once they are born the male has options involving seperating the child from the female that do not exist before then. And once again, I thought we were limiting ourselves to the during pregnancy choices.
Not continue the pregnancy if you don’t have the means to support the child. And if the mother chooses to anyways, then tough luck. The responsabliity of providing for it falls on her due to the choice she made to keep it.
OK, I have to object to that. If we are not limiting our discussion to what men are legally compelled to do, but including what they are morally responsible for, then there is much to discuss regarding the responsibilities of BOTH sexes during the first trimester.
I would argue that the male’s role in pregnancy can be described as “support-staff”. Male primates don’t get pregnant specifically so that they can perform the other duties required to procreate while the woman is. In our modern society this no longer means defending the cave and hunting. But the principle still applies.
I think much of the discussion has been centered on the possibility of discovering a way for the male to abort his responsibility for the child. But what about the possibility of allowing a male to have some imput into the decision to abort the pregnancy?
While I think that Debaser’s proposal that men influence this decision by saying “have an abortion or raise the child without me” is not quite moral, I do agree that men need some input into the decision. The dilemma is that under our legal system. and more importantly by our cultural mores, men have no imput whatsoever into this decision.
It is almost a cliche to say that “this is a desision that every woman must make for herself”. But why does it have to be that way? Of course I’m not proposing that some legal means of “forcing” a woman to abort or not abort be created. Why can’t the desicion to abort require some input from the male? Certainly not veto power, and most certainly not compulsory, but some imput.
Sex can be when ever people want for what ever reason they want.
Both parties know that a women might get pregnant and if that happens then there might be a baby. Babies are entitled to get support from both parents.
There are plenty of ways to avoid getting pregnant. If you are having sex and 100% do not want a child then you should be using two forms of protection. Anyone who is dead set against having a baby and then only uses a condom is taking a risk and they know it.
Once again, women are allowed abortions because they control their own bodies. Not because they get to “back out” of any consequenses of sex.
My arguement is that neither men nor women have an obligation from conception. The obligation comes from actually having a baby.
And women therefore control whether or not a zygote becomes a fetus and if it becomes a child. Therefore, if a child results from pregnancy, it’s their damn fault.
This is the position that I have trouble with. Are you really saying that neither the man nor the woman have any responsibilities to the child until birth? What principle can you base this on?
I can’t see how 2 responsible adults engaging in an activity willingly can claim that they have no responsibility for the result of that activity. Even if they took steps to reduce the risk of said result, they knew it could still happen.
BTW I’m not trying to be facetious I really am curious about the principles you would site to support this position. I’m certainly not trying to say you can’t justify it, I just can’t see it.
by pervert
Because she’s the one who is pregnant. Until humans or nature devise a way for men to become pregnant, then things will remain that way.
And I think that cliche is an oversimplication. Most women probably do not go into pregnancy completely impervious to the other people’s suggestions. Men do have input, they just can’t make the final decision. A woman who is contemplating abortion may change her mind if the man provides a persuasive argument. There’s no law that says she can’t listen to what the dude has to say. He just can’t dictate what happens to her body. There’s no going around that.
If he doesn’t have veto power, how much control does he really have? Giving him anything close to executive privilege over the decision-making process reduces the woman’s autonomy.