Perhaps the man should always wear a condom, unless he’s absolutely sure about wanting children with the woman he’s about to stick his penis into, what with all these evil, scheming harridans running about.
As a single man, I can say that this thought does run through our minds… It’s a bit scary, and a bit sad, too.
That’s a good plan. But any form of birth control can fail, what are you going to do when that happens?
Get married, or pay child support. Your choice.
Do you realize how silly that argument is? A woman who gets pregnant has to either (a) abort the pregnancy, a dangerous and expensive process or (b) give birth to child, a dangerous and expensive process. There really are no other options. I think the woman “does the time” regardless of any laws we pass.
It’s patently stupid to argue that the imposition of child support on an absent father is an imposition even remotely similar to that imposed on the mother by pregnancy and 18 years of childrearing – whether or not she receives the benefit of child support payments. The child support payments merely lessen the inequity. And even in the rare case where the mother’s conduct is clearly more wrongful than the father’s, it is not appropriate to punish the child for the sins of the mother.
Whoa, hold it right there! I disagree with your whole position on this, but that’s just way too much. The government is there to keep order, defend the shores, keep the water running, and pick up the garbage. Not to parent your children for you.
Ideally the government would not only NOT pay for raising any children, but would also stay the F— out of my personal and family life, which is none of its business!
That is where I absolutely draw the line, and that kind of socialist talk really turns my stomach. Why don’t we have Daddy Government pay for all of us to live, too? And give us jobs? And cars, and a chicken in every pot?
:mad:
1984 finally is on the way. Only 20 years too late.
Allow me to share the story of a good freind of mine from med school.
It was freshman year of med school. He and his girlfreind used birth control, a diaphragm with spermicide, but had a failure … maybe it hadn’t been fit right in the first place, maybe it hadn’t been put in right. But she was pregnant. They loved each other, felt that someday they probably would get married, but they had a major difference of opinion about what to do. They were both “pro-choice” but his version was that his choice would be to have the kid and make it work. He felt no right to impose his choice on anyone else, but his belief was that this was his baby, not just fetal tissue. She was in grad school and unwilling to give up her plans. He tried his best to convince her to have the baby. He’d quit school for a while and earn enough to support them. Anything. No go.
So here is my freind: loves this girl and knows that the decision can’t be 50/50. Someone gets the tiebreaker vote and since the fetus is within her, she gets that one iota over a 50% vote. So he swallows hard and supports her through the procedure.
They married two years later and have had three kids since. Going on 18 years and the eldest kid is now 16. Pretty happy family. But to this day he hurts over what he considers his failure to convince her that they could have handled the situation, mourns the loss of the child he felt they should have had.
But he doesn’t think, never thought, that he should’ve had the right to force her to carry the pregnancy to term. 49.99% of the decision maybe, but a miss as good as a mile.
That’s such a ridiculous overgeneralization, I’m not even sure if it merits response. You don’t believe for a minute that there have been situations in which people in a mutually respecting, mutually gratifying relationship where no one is being used for anyone else’s gratification have come to an impasse when an unexpected pregnancy has occurred?
Or are you one of those radicals who believes that all sex is just prettied-up rape or something damned close to it?
I was hoping that Stoid would clear up this pesky constitutional crisis that she initiated earlier in the thread.
Any chance of that happening?
I know that pregnancy isn’t always a walk in the park, but do you really think it’s “dangerous,” KellyM? I’d like to see some statistics about deaths during pregnancy–from anyone, I’m not trying to single you out-- because seems like something that’s a natural process shouldn’t really be all that dangerous. Then again, I could be totally wrong.
And bnorton, that’s a nice story. 
The Wrong Girl, until only recently, one of the most common reason for a woman to die was complications of childbirth. Modern medical care has reduced this dramatically, but pregnancy and childbirth remain fraught with the risk of death and permanent disability.
Life is a natural process, and yet everyone dies of it eventually. It’s silly to assume that just because something is natural, it must necessarily be safe.
You’re not wrong. To suggest that pregnancies and deliveries (at least in developed nations) are “fraught with danger” is not exactly true (pro life website, but the cites are CDC et al)
So that I’m not misquoted, I’m not saying that there are no birth related maternal deaths. I’m not saying that there aren’t a significant number of difficult births. I’m not saying that the birth process is an easy minor event. I am saying that the notion that births in developed countries being “fraught with danger” is one that is not backed up by the numbers.
…still hoping that Stoid clears up that citizenship thing for us.
beagledave: Do those stats also report on morbidity related to pregnancy, such as gestational diabetes and other such conditions, that do not cause death but do cause permanent disability?
Also consider that Americans have increasingly poor access to health care, especially in the case of single mothers.
Don’t know. Of course you were the one who claimed that “but pregnancy and childbirth remain fraught with the risk of death and permanent disability” without a cite. I provided cites that run contrary to your claim about the risk of death in pregnancy being significant.
Were you planning on modifying that claim?
**
The cites listed above cover all of the U.S., I guess that would include single mothers. From what I can tell, maternal death from pregnancy/birth is trending downward. But either way, it’s hard to consider 5 out of 100,000 to be real significant from a public health standpoint. Otherwise, a whole lot of activities we currently engage in are “fraught with the risk of death and permanent disability”.
I see that beagledave has already answered that point.
In addition, I’d like to point out one thing. If you’re going to raise this issue, then we should also ask about long-term medical complications from abortions, such as the increased risk of potentially fatal ectopic pregnancies.
I don’t have anything to cite. I really don’t have that kind of time. I have always been told that pregnancy was a natural state, but in taking classes about such subjects I have found that, while anything can be described as natural, it is by no means safe. There is also the fact that statistics can make anyone’s case (as those found on the pro-life website). I would refrain from using biased sources. I have since been taught that pregnancy, though it may no longer be such a threat to life, is a threat to health. It causes your internal organs to be pushed to one side, up against your spine, and leaches minerals out of your system. The actual act of birth is much more dangerous than in other animals. Humans have a kind of slanted and narrow birth canal and the pelvis is also narrow. I have learned in Anth classes that this may have resulted from humans becoming bipedal, unlike our ancestors who may have had an easier time and our current relatives (apes) who do. However, this is a whole other thread (evolution). This may not be evidence, but just look at a pregnant woman, there’s your proof! She must constantly arch her back, and probably complains of a host of other ailments. If this doesn’t convince you, whitness a childbirth. If you can’t tell already, it’s not for me.
I don’t have anything to cite. I really don’t have that kind of time. I have always been told that pregnancy was a natural state, but in taking classes about such subjects I have found that, while anything can be described as natural, it is by no means safe. There is also the fact that statistics can make anyone’s case (as those found on the pro-life website). I would refrain from using biased sources. I have since been taught that pregnancy, though it may no longer be such a threat to life, is a threat to health. It causes your internal organs to be pushed to one side, up against your spine. It also leaches minerals out of your system, and the body requires more vitamins and less calories. The actual act of birth is much more dangerous than in other animals. Humans have a kind of slanted and narrow birth canal and the pelvis is also narrow. I have learned in Anth classes that this may have resulted from humans becoming bipedal, unlike our ancestors who may have had an easier time and our current relatives (apes) who do. However, this is a whole other thread (evolution). This may not be evidence, but just look at a pregnant woman, there’s your proof! She must constantly arch her back, and probably complains of a host of other ailments. If this doesn’t convince you, whitness a childbirth. If you can’t tell already, it’s not for me.
Another thing-if pregnancy and childbirth is dangerous in developing countries, I can imagine abortions there would be just as, if not more dangerous.
Oh, btw, sara-please don’t think that “I don’t have that kind of time” is going to hold up when someone asks for a cite. Around here, if one makes a claim during a debate-they had sure as hell be prepared to back it up with a cite.
When I went looking for Cites on the CDC directly, this is what I found:
Deaths per 100,000 in pregnancy: 9.2 (pg. 27 of linked survey)*
Deaths per 100,000 in legal abortion: <1 per year (0.8 in 1991) (pg. 51 of linked survey)
I know which one sounds more risky to me.
*They do include some abortion-related deaths here, but even after reading their methodology I’m a little bit confused about how they figure in.