OK. I can buy that. But the fact is that just such an obligation is imposed on the mother. Oh, she’s not required by law to bring the child to term. But she is required by biology to deal with the pregnancy.
So if we agree that the woman does have some obligations after conception then the man does too? That is if abortion is removed from the equation you agree that both parties have obligations to the child?
So, the only question, is wether the fact that abortion is a choice changes these obligations?
<possible mischaricterization warning>
Are you suggesting that
The male has some obligations at conception
but during the legal abortion period the woman has none?
You are not required to give up your kidney because, of course, it is your body. You retain ownership of your internal organs and no one can take that from you.
However, if you cause someone to lose their kidney then they can sue you for the cost of their new kidney. (plus pain, suffering…etc.)
OK. I can buy that. But the fact is that just such an obligation is imposed on the mother. Oh, she’s not required by law to bring the child to term. But she is required by biology to deal with the pregnancy.
So if we agree that the woman does have some obligations after conception then the man does too? That is if abortion is removed from the equation you agree that both parties have obligations to the child?
So, the only question, is wether the fact that abortion is a choice changes these obligations?
<possible mischaricterization warning>
Are you suggesting that
The male has some obligations at conception
But since, during the legal abortion period, the female seems to have no obligation to the child.
Therefore the male’s obligation gets removed and can not be added back later.
This seems to suggest that teh male does not in fact have any obligations at all. And that it is the choice of abortion which removes them.
Except, putting on a seatbelt is a reasonable precaution when you are entering a moving car. If you have no reason to believe that the car will start moving (such as the person in the drivers’ seat telling you that she won’t start the car), and you have no option to put your seatbelt on when you see that the car is moving, how much responsibility do you bear?
I will state again, forced child support is r-o-n-g, because it is taking something that is yours without your permission, which to me defines wrongness. Would all who disagree with this statement please do so? Sans analogies, pretty please?
“Babe”? Dude, my wife is the only one who gets to call me “babe.” You may address me as “Sir” or “Mr. Green.”
And that’s right: You lose. Just like you lose when you drive irresponsibly and run me over on the sidewalk.
“Support” and “bear” are not synonyms, and they’re not even related. If a woman participates in an act that leads to conception, she is obligated to support that child. She is not, however, obligated to bear the child. Nor are you. Not that you could anyway. Damn, there’s that pesky biology for you again.
Nice analogy in which YOU are responsible, not me. I had a reasonable expectation of safety. Millions of people drive all the time without flaming death. So to answer your question, no, I am NOT responsible for it, you – who were driving the car, who lied to me, who were the idiot spooked by a cat – are.
To be specific:
No.
You lied and deceived me into endangering my life unneccessarily when I had every reasonable expectation otherwise.
What “carelessness?” Don’t use loaded terms to try and create false choices. You might better say “was it your fault I blatantly lied to you?” and on that I’ll say “no.”
Pervert - I’m gonna go check, but I’m almost sure I said EXACTLY this in the OP, that abortion being out of the mix would invalidate the entire question.
Then we have reached an impasse, face. There is nothing I can say that will convince you that my wallet > starving children, and nothing that you can say to me that would convince me that starving children > my wallet. We are therefore deadlocked, debatewise.
In: I agree. It is most certainly the reasonable thing to do. But unprotected sex and sex where the protection fails should not obligate someone to be a parent. Nothing should, except their expressed enumerated documented desire to.
Right. Putting on a condom is a reasonable precaution when entering a vagina, too. I ain’t afraid to say the obvious, In Conceivable
What’s with all these irrelevant ifs? Fact is, even if the woman tells you she’s on the pill or will take the pill (i.e. she’s a safe driver) doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do your part to keep your own backside free and clear (i.e. put on your fuckin’ seatbelt).
OK, but I think you still miss something here. Or maybe I am If you can point it out to me I would be appreciative.
I agree that someone’s need does not create an obligation for someone else. If, however, I was the one who removed the other persons kidney (for our purposes imagine that I did it without commiting an act of violence or fraud), I cannot simply claim that I am not responsible.
So, you are saying that because I created the child, I am responsible for its needs?
Good point, but no dice. As I pointed out earlier, men and women create fertilized eggs, and women create babies from those eggs. The actual act of creation is the woman’s responsibility, as the pro-choice in the house remind us. Therefore, it follows that the results of that act of creation should also be first and foremost the women’s responsibility. Moreso, since a woman was wholly responsibile for the creation of the baby, she should be wholly responsible for said baby, unless she is willing to partner with someone to share the responsibility.
Also, considering that we’ve made it 6 pages into a very heated debate without a meltdown, I’d like to thank all participants in this thread for their patience and understanding.
You are responsible for your own life, man. The accident killed me, so what are you going to do? Spend the rest of your quadraplegic life blaming a dead woman for what you could have prevented, had you just used your head?
This is precious.
Millions of people have unprotected sex with the reasonable expectation of safety. Millions of people screw without causing causing pregnancy. That still doesn’t negate the risk inherent to that behavior. Risky behavior that could be made less risky just by exercising a little common sense. Do the bold letters help make this reality sink in easier?
You choosing to wear a seatbelt doesn’t lessen the probability that an accident will occur, but it does lessen the chances of you being injury or killed. That is the bottom line.
Puleeeze. I lied and told you I was a good driver. That makes me a bad person. Okay, so sue me. Oh wait, you can’t. BECAUSE I’M DEAD. Who comes next in line in the blame game? The cat?
The fact that you are on idiot for not wearing a seatbelt is not affected my own recklessness. You are responsible for failing to protect yourself; I am responsible for wrecking the car and getting myself killed in the process.
And the fact is, no one forced you to be careless. That was your decision. And no one has forced you to accept the consequences of your carelessness. You accepted those consequences as soon as you made that careless decision.
If this point still escapes you…well, then I can help you no further.
Nope. The woman gestates the fertilized egg. The “baby” was already created thanks to your contribution, which you knew–regardless of any assurances on the part of your partner–could lead to conception, pregnancy, and childbirth.
For some reason, you’ve got it stuck in your head that if you do something, and somebody else has the opportunity to prevent the natural consequences of your action, then you bear no responsibility for your that action. Nonsense. The existence of responsibility is judged by what you do, not by the contributions of other persons.
Women don’t “create” babies any more then men do. Babies grow in women’s bodies. A women can choose abortion only because it is growing in her body, not because she is any more or less responsible for creating it.
)