Diogenes is making perhaps the single worst argument I have ever seen in support of a correct position.
No, it is not “the man’s fault that the woman is pregnant.”
No, mandatory child support for unwanted children is not dictated by biology, nor did it evolve into existence via natural selection.
No, the opportunities for making a choice are not equal. The law could of course be changed so that men got to make their choice at a later date as well. Biology is not the reason we don’t so change the law.
Ridiculous arguments aside, however, the fact remains that, for practical reasons, the current system is better than any alternatives I have heard. Someone has to support the kids, and the obvious choice is to lay that responsibility at the door of the father. Even though in some cases, such as when the father was upfront about not wanting kids and used protection, I can definitely feel sympathy, the logistics of the situation are such that the burden must fall on him.
The law relates to a woman’s right to privacy. It does not address the man’s obligations when he has sex. That it is why it is irrelevant if the woman has a choice afterwards.
Biology does not dictate obligations, especially in this case. If it did then the woman would be obligated to have the child. And it does not address the man’s obligations whatsoever. Only the laws do.
In other words, the only men that don’t have to take responsibility are the ones who don’t want to take responsibility. Which is exactly the same as simply saying that men don’t have to take responsibility.
The opportunities are the same, they just have different terminus ad quems at which they have to exercise their options. The moment of sex is not an extra choice for the woman any more than driving to the date is an extra choice for the man.
I think we are debating the “child support, etc.,”. Abortion laws only give the backbone to DtC’s copout. He says its biology, but I am sure no one believes that canard but him.
A woman’s choice to have sex is not the point at when she has to choose whether or not she’s willing to become a parent. That’s the part some of you seem to be completely missing.
My god, this is tiresome. The only reason a man has to choose at that point and a woman doesn’t is because of the way the law is currently written. I’m pretty sure you know laws can be changed, so I don’t know why you keep sticking with this dishonest argument.
For a woman, conception is not the endpoint for when she has to make a decision about whether she’s willing to become a parent. Unlike the man, she doesn’t have to make a decision before conception because it’s her body. The moment of conception is only binding on the man. It binds the woman to nothing.
Cite? Can the man decide two hours later? Two hours before? WTF are you trying to say? (Though I think I have a prety good idea of what you will say. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.)
What am I saying that’s “dishonest?” What laws are you even referring to? How would changing the laws change the biological factors involved? Are you only talking about abortin? Are you saying that the choice only comes later for the woman because abortion is legal?
Well, if that’s the case, so what? If abortion is made illegal then any discussion about a woman making the “choice” to carry a pregnancy goes right out the window anyway. Are you saying that all women should be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies AND the fathers should never have to take responsibilty?
Sooooooooo, she can just “terminate the pregnancy”? You seem to think that these procedures are akin to douching. Induced Abortion procedures can carry potent psychological and clinical implications. It’s not like getting your teeth cleaned.
To be clear, I’m talking about the choice to accept legal responsibility for a child. That choice comes later for the woman (or rather, she gets two chances to make the choice) because abortion and giving the child up for adoption are legal, and opting out as a male is not legal.
What’s dishonest is ignoring the fact that women only have more choices (or a later choice, if you want to call it that) because of the state of the law. If you argue that men should have to support unwanted children because they made their choice when they had sex, you’re trying to use the law to justify itself.
Before abortion was legal, women had exactly the same choice as men do now: either abstain from sex or take the risk of becoming a parent. If the law were changed to remove men’s obligation to support children they didn’t want, they would again have the same choice.
Of course not. As I said earlier, no one should have to give up control over their body… but neither should they have to give up their income for decades to pay for a child someone else wanted.
Giving birth has some pretty serious implications too, and so does giving up a big chunk of your income for the next 18 years. No one gets off easy.
I have elaborated extensively, to the point where I believe it’s quite clear that I do not assert that men don’t have the option of not having sex or of wearing a condom. So you’ll excuse me for not taking the side of an argument you’ve fabricated for me.
God, this is wearisome. Once again, I feel no compulsion to defend a position I did not take. I did not assert or imply that the sole reason for abortion was to avoid a financial burden. I asserted that it was a reason.
And I’d respond to your prior clarification, if I found it clarified anything. Maybe it’s me, but we’re just running around and around the same track here. You accept something as a given that I do not, and I can’t locate your rationale for it (to the exclusion of an alternative), other than, that’s how it should be.