“You’re, like, such a square, man.”
I’m not paranoid about fathering a child either.
That would be all women, though. After all, even a woman whom I trust can lie or change her mind in regards to abortion and/or adoption.
Oh, Yes, because pro-choice women take it so well when pro-lifers tell them to “keep their legs” closed (sarcasm).
If you engage in sex, the chances of make babby will never be zero. Get used to it. Because you are equally responsible if it does happen, and you can’t pass off blame to someone else.
What about if I will get surgically castrated, though?
Causing someone to exist isn’t a harm, though. Plus, the birth of a child isn’t always reasonably foreseeable. Also, though, having consensual sex certainly isn’t a negligent activity.
You keep bringing this up like it’s the ultimate “gotcha”, the symbol of gross hypocrisy or something. It isn’t.
Telling women to “keep their legs closed” is ridiculous because a woman can, if she wants, get an abortion. We have the medical science to enable her to deal responsibly with an unwanted pregnancy in a manner which doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s bodily autonomy. (Unless, of course, you feel the fetus has a right to bodily autonomy. That’s where the argument gets routinely dull again.) A woman can have sex and still have 100% assurance of not becoming a parent - assuming the can afford an abortion and run the gauntlet of anti-abortion laws and regulations in time, of course.
Telling men that they’ll have to accept the small risk that a vasectomy may fail - and if they don’t accept that risk and want 100% assurance of not becoming a parent AND a decent chance of not suffering long term sexual dysfunction, then not having sex is their only option right now - is not hypocritical, it’s simply the truth. Not because morals, but because medical technology. Sorry we don’t have more contraceptive options for you right now. We’re working on it.
The thing is, though, that pro-lifers want to take away a woman’s ability to safely get an abortion. Indeed, some pro-choice women complain about pro-lifers’ desire to ban abortion due to the fact that, if these pro-lifers are successful in regards to this, then these pro-choice women will have to either “keep their legs closed” or get rid of their uterus and/or ovaries if they never want to risk being forced to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term. Thus, it would be hypothetical for these pro-choice women to complain about this and to simultaneously oppose giving male-bodied a unilateral opt-out from paying child support in all cases of consensual sex. Indeed, that is my point here, and it is certainly a valid point whether you like it or not.
Also, in regards to male contraception, I would like to point out that having a variety of contraceptive options for women does not prevent some pro-choice women from complaining about the risk of contraception failure in spite of the fact that this risk can be made infinitesimal if 2+ contraceptives are always simultaneously and correctly used. Thus, having more and better male contraception choices is not going to completely equalize the situation in regards to this.
Also, there is certainly a difference between being a parent and being forced to pay child support for 18+ years.
In addition to this, in regards to your “medical science” part here, a pro-lifer can likewise tell a pro-choice woman that we unfortunately currently don’t have the medical technology to end a woman’s pregnancy in a way which doesn’t result in the death of this woman’s embryo or fetus. Thus, your argument/point here appears to be a “double-edged sword.”
Assuming you meant “hypocritical” and not “hypothetical” above:
Child support and abortion aren’t somehow equivalent. If a child is born, it needs things in order to live: shelter, food, clothing, and so forth. If a child is not born due to an abortion, then it needs nothing. To be unfair or hypocritical, the law would have to require you to pay child support for a baby that was aborted, and it doesn’t.
We’re not talking about harm to the child, I thought we were talking about alleged harm to YOU in that, wah-wah, you might have to actually financially support said child.
That’s why I’m trying to stop them.
Your point is incoherent. Perhaps if you make it for the eight hundredth time, it will suddenly make sense. Probably not, though.
As far as I can tell, not a single person in these many threads has told you that you can’t get surgically castrated or should be legally prevented from getting surgically castrated. So there’s no hypocrisy. Exactly like abortion, it may not be something that everyone wants to do, but you should have the right to do it, sure.
Nope. That’s what a being a parent is, legally. That’s the only thing being a parent is, legally. Supporting your kid. All other parenting activities are optional; someone has to feed your child, clothe your child, give them a place to sleep, but it doesn’t have to be you.
No, it isn’t. Yes, it is vulnerable to the attacks of anti-abortionists convincing people that unwanted fetuses are magically sacred (except all those that die naturally, of course, and the tens of thousands made daily in fertility clinics that will be killed.) That’s why they must be stopped.
Then your odds of getting someone pregnant go down by a huge percentage. But if you’re an active participant in a nearly-miraculous conception, that’s still your doing, buddy.
Yes – you should consider it a blessing that you get to pay to help raise a child to the age of majority. Mazel tov!
Some legal principles are applied using the concept of negligence – so as long as you took all reasonable steps to prevent a mistake from happening, you’re in the clear – and others are applied using strict liability – doesn’t matter what precautions you took, if you did something, you’re responsible for it whether there was negligence or not.
Look, I’m not sure what kind of fucked up childhood you had where you cannot accept that you have a moral and legal responsibility that cannot be transferred if your sperm makes a woman pregnant through sexual intercourse. As you’re said many times before – kids are great. Just relax and recognize that you’re part of this miraculous blessing that God might someday bestow upon you and your fuckbuddy.
I genuinely don’t understand what you’re trying to argue here. We’ve been round and round and round this issue for you. You fully understand all the risks involved with every possible behavioral option open to you. Pick one, do it, and be done.
All you really seem to want to say is “it’s unfair that I can’t have everything I want without any risk at all, and someone else should have to take that risk away from me,” to which everyone else has responded with, in a nutshell, “bullshit”. You have not convinced anyone to take your side over the dozen or so threads you’ve devoted to this, and if you were going to do so, it would have happened by now.
Why is this still going on? What is the point?
He has. He has said that surgical castration is the only solution for him. Multiple times.
Because, even though he has already made up his mind. He appears to enjoy the entertainment value of all of you attempting to change his mind.
Then quit yippin’ and start snippin’.
That’s stupid.