Golly, gee, folks. Can’t someone go out and argue from First Principles or something? There are two positions, neither side is willing to even agree that the other side has an argument, and you are simply repeating the same lines (with pretty much the same words) over and over through dozens of posts.
No one is being persuaded; everyone is getting mad. So if you have not got something original, could you all simply agree to disgree?
Bodily autonomy and integrity ends when the pregnancy does. We are currently enabling women who choose to ‘go it alone’ as single mothers to have access to someone else’s income in order to do it. If they choose to keep the kid, and to be a single mother, they should be the ones footing the bill.
We all know this is what you believe, but you still haven’t provided a reason why it should be this way.
Every one of your arguments, and your insinuations about irresponsible promiscuous turds who don’t use condoms has, in the past and at present, been used by pro-lifers against the right to choice by women. You can’t stomach those kind of statements when they are made about women, but you can about men. Why?
Why not?
So she’s used hers up when she chooses to have sex, eh?
Because they consider it a misogynist attitude to say ‘a woman shoulda known better’ or ‘she should’ve kept her legs shut’ or ‘she shoulda used birth control’, but notice how many of those statements they have paraphrased and applied to men.
Not really. He can opt out of it at any time and she can still have bodily autonomy… her decision of whether or not to remain pregnant isn’t really relevant to what he wants.
So has she.
Seems fine to me if she’s the one who made 100% of the choice to have the kid.
I think the obvious choice is to lay responsiblity at the door of the mother who wanted it when nobody else did.
I would like somebody to explain to me why saying the guy can opt out after pregnancy is not exactly the same as saying that the man does not have to take any responsibility whatsoever.
There’s no use in restating the blindingly obvious over and over again, so there’s no point in me trying. A woman does not get “two” choices. She just gets a later choice. The fact that the law allows that is totally irrelevant to the conversation because it doesn’t affect the point at which the man makes his choice whatsoever.Whether abortion is legal or not, the guy still made his choice when he ejaculated. Taking away a woman’s physical autonomy would not change that. As to WHY she gets the later choice- she gets it because it’s her body. Her biological involvement continues after the guy’s involvcement is over so her ability to opt out also continues. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
It’s difficult to grasp that she’s not getting two choices because she had the same keep-pants-on-if-not-want-pregnancy choice the man had, that’s why.
Conception is not a drop dead point for the woman, so that’s not when she has to make her choice. The issue for a woman is not whether she wants to become pregnant, only whether she wants to remain pregnant.
I wish I’d known earlier that women had no choice about whether to have sex with me.
But seriously, Diogenes all you need acknowledge is that the principle of equality is not absolute.
Childbirth is a sui generis category where the practical outcomes of an equality principle are not acceptable.
A probable reply, full of nonsense: Yes, but if things were totally different, then it wouldn’t be. They would be just the way I want it to be. She can’t have an abortion, (Be cause I say so) so the moment of decision is before sex. Thus, abortions should not be legal.
Ass-backwards logic? What’s that?
This is exactly true. If the pregnancy is carried to term, there is now a baby. At that point, there is no issue of bodily autonomy. There is also no issue of financial autonomy. Both parents have the same rights and responsibilities (ideally, I know that men get screwed in custody battles) from that point.
Those arguing that it’s unfair are forgetting or ignoring something vital. Pregnancy is completely unfair.
Before sex, neither male nor female is at risk.
After sex but before birth, male is not at risk, female is at risk.
After birth, both male and female are at risk.
It doesn’t matter how you slice it, the female is at greater risk. She can control some aspects of the risk, but each step she takes is also a risk. The situation is similar to one person standing on the side of a cliff holding a tightrope steady while another person crosses a chasm on it. If the holder walks away, the walker is exposed to even greater risk. Since both people are responsible for the tightrope walk, both should be trying to get the walker to the end safely.
I will say the same thing I say in most abortion debates–people in this thread are awfully cavalier about women having to undergo invasive and possibly horrifying medical treatments. Usually I’m saying that to those who oppose abortion rights. This time I’m saying it to anyone who thinks this shit is easy. Both abortion and term pregnancy can be incredibly frightening, painful, risky, and destructive acts.
I am not saying it is easy. However, what I am saying i that it would be a whole lot less safe if the anti-abortionists got their way. You know, bleach, coca-cola, coathangers, etc…
Anyway, if the alternative to a medical procedure is to take away the women’s rights right to said medical procedure, then…
This clinches it for me. What **Dio ** and others are saying is, in effect, ‘he should have kept his pants on if he didn’t want a baby.’ This is exactly what is used by the other side as an argument for outlawing abortion. His statement that the line is set farther back for women is only due to court intervention that makes it so.
I support women’s reproductive rights 100%. However, if the man does not want to foot the bill, then I’d say the mom needs to know that up front. I can easily see a legal waiver that must be applied for x days into a pregnancy in order to absolve the man of his obligation. Then, the mom can either carry to term or abort. It’s still her choice. Of course, in the case of married couples, I’d also expect to see the waiver filed with a divorce…but the details can be worked out later.
At the moment, I’m just concerned that people with whom I usually agree with are advocating some sort of ‘just desserts’ policy rather than what might actually be fair. Any situation where abortion is on the table is a rough one- but if that’s not the time to have people act like adults, I don’t know when it would be. And an adult woman should know whether the man in her life will be responsible for the child before it is born.
Damn, I get through irony meters quickly these days. :rolleyes:
How many times do I have to tell you people: using your irony meter on the Internet voids the warranty.
Daniel
I respect you too much to answer you in the same post as Scott Plaid, hence the consecutive posts, but I believe you are being obtuse in arguing that simply because a woman can (with suitable medical assistance; if a woman could simply will herself not to be pregnant any more but re-absorb the conception products the way some animals can, we wouldn’t be having this discussion) exercise a choice after she becomes pregnant, she neither could nor should exercise that choice before – yanno, like a man has to.
The issue for a woman most certainly ought to be whether she wants to become pregnant, if only because that’s the optimal health choice for her. We’ve heard about the attendant risks of continuing an unwanted pregnancy; should we forget that abortion’s not free of downsides?
I don’t mean to be cavalier about the emotional and physical effects of abortion on a woman, I just think that would be a distraction from the issues under discussion. Ideally it is better f a woman exercises her choice before she becomes pregnant, but realistically, she does still have an option after conception and that choice is the only one that ultimately matters.
::shrug:: The fact that the post-conception choice she can make has the potential to trump the pre-conception choice does not mean that there was no pre-conception choice to be made.
Which still doesn’t do anything to change the fact that she HAS a post-conception choice, unlike the man. What’s your point?
Boy, this is a weird thread.
Weird because neither side will admit the obvious. No, men and women do not have an equal choice in whether or not to have children. Men can choose not to have children only by not having sex at all. (I am assuming nobody is arguing that condom failure absolves a man from responsibility for child support.) Women can choose not to have a child by not having sex at all, or by having an abortion. Thus, women have twice as many rights to choose as do men.
But this is a function of biology, not simply the law. Abortion imposes costs on women that it does not on men - risk of death or injury, financial costs, etc. This has to do with the biology of reproduction. We could change the law, and allow men to opt out of child support at will, but that would not reduce the costs of abortion for women.
If there were a magic way of transferring the cost and risks and general unpleasantness of abortions off onto men, then this objection drops away. But there isn’t.
I suppose you could define this as “unfair”, but biology is unfair. It is also “unfair” that women are subject to the risks and general unpleasantness of pregnancy too. Changing laws isn’t going to address that either.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh my god…I AGREE with you… :eek:
I better go check my temperature.
There’s an implication here that carrying to term is some sort of no-cost option…don’t think I can agree with that.
Anyway, I don’t think that anyone is saying that men and women are the same. But, as one of the earliest lessons you learn, equitable does not always mean equal. Like anything else, rights have to be weighed…I just happen to think that not allowing men to sever their connection prior to some reasonable cut-off is not particularly equitable to the woman or the child.
Congrats. You have just posted #90 all over again.