And by the way… I spent 14 yrs not getting a dime of child support because no one, state or federal, would enforce it. Phfffft! If you wondered…my kids are fine.
The point still remains that giving your kids a life of luxury is a choice, not a law mandated duty or something “owed” to them. It should still remain so in case of the parents splitting up.
This is only a compromise in a country where almost all the women are pro-choice, and almost all the men are men’s rights misogynists.
Roberts couldn’t get a single one of his eight politically diverse co-workers to sign on to a real compromise (15 weeks). This proposed compromise would have much less support than that one.
Tp put it even further- all women get an IUD on menarche, so no accidental oopses [yes i know there are statistical issues, unless there are no functioning generative organs, one can get knocked up on birth control even if it is used correctly, I did it 3 times, once pill only, once pill with broken rubber and once with a tubal ligature that failed.] If a man does not want to reproduce, he can get a vasectomy. If he is iffy about it, he can freeze a sperm donation for future use.
Personally, I am in favor of allowing any woman the option of a tubal ligation - as long as she has a womb and an ovary, no tubes are needed to get an IVF done so there is not any reason not to tie her tubes,
Sorry @aruvqan, yeah in a fully rational world, that plan might make sense, but now you’re dictating the woman’s control over her own body in an entirely different, but still unjustifiable way.
Although making a tubal ligation / vasectomy (along with sperm and ova preservation) covered under free government programs would be a nice option, but with our issues on even the most basic health care and the Religious Right freakouts over government paying for such things (although government paying for religious education is fine of course 
) is also almost certainly DOA.
If we’re going that far in the hypothetical let’s give all 11 year old boys vacectomies, before they’re old enough to talk a girl into sleeping with them.
Or what if that person’s biological child is the one needing the organ (or even just marrow or blood) and they’re the only match available in time for the child to not die. What justification is there for not forcing the parent to donate?
Outside of rape–and abortion rights shouldn’t be limited to rape–the exact same argument could be applied to women. And is applied to women, all the time–but only by sexist assholes.
You don’t need to adopt the same bad arguments that bigots make to dismantle the proposal. There are plenty of other good arguments.
Absolutely. You have absolute control on who gets between your legs, and in what manner they do, condomed or otherwise.
If you don’t want to risk an unplanned pregnancy then don’t have unprotected PIV sex.
If I don’t want to risk an unplanned pregnancy then I won’t have unprotected PIV sex.
It’s pretty simple, really. Women have great control over their bodies, right up to the point of the sex act.
The absolute right of people capable of pregnancy to maintain their pregnancy without interference or terminate it at any time they shall deem it appropriate shall not be infringed; and the professional assistance of medically trained personnel in support of the execution of these rights shall not be impeded by any legal restrictions.
This right shall supercede all other rights.
God designated this authority, along with premenstrual cramps and labor pains and hormonal fluctuations, to female people. It’s natural. It’s God-ordained. Women possess it in the absence of intervening / interfering laws. Women learn from older women how to handle being pregnant, including termination when need be. Women assist with birth.
My female cat, when she had kittens, inspected the results and nibbled away the birth sacs of three out of the four, and pushed away the fourth although it was moving. I didn’t question her authority. Later, I disposed of the one she deemed stillborn.
Patriarchy is a sin. Polarizing the sexes such that young males are taught to conquer their female colleagues while young females are taught to treat their own sexual feelings as evil hostile emanations is a sin.
Polarizing the sexes such that young females are led to ignore their sexual feelings and consider only logistical pragmatic evaluations when considering a male mate is a sin.
Manipulating young male people by telling them you can only have sex if you obey the older male leaders and do what you have to do to become successful, because otherwise you don’t have access to the frightened women worried about pregnancy, that’s a sin.
Why the fuck did abortion rights people abandon the moral high ground? It’s ours!
I had a recent back-and-forth on Reddit where some posters felt it was absolutely wrong that a woman they got pregnant could decide on her own to have the baby and then they would be responsible for financially supporting that child.
I never did get through to them. To them this was completely unfair to the man who got the woman pregnant.
What I found funny about it was state abortion restrictions are now making the choice for them. If they are pissed the woman could make that choice and force them to pay how happy will they be with everyone having zero choice in the matter? The state will mandate the pregnancy is carried and the men who impregnated the women will be 100% on the hook for paying for it.
They never answered that.
You didn’t mention if they supported abortion rights.
I don’t understand the question. What do Mens “rights” have to do with a Womans right to choose whether to proceed with a pregnancy or not?
It should be a simple equation. A woman gets pregnant, the circumstances are irrelevant, she doesn’t wish to proceed with the pregnancy, she has the right to terminate it. Restrictions on term etc are determined by medico/ethical advice.
You’re making total sense here. But I have a theory. There are some (old white) men out there that feel like there is a power imbalance when it comes to a women’s right to choose. And the OWM can’t be having any of that. So I feel like if the OP were indeed a reality, they probably wouldn’t make such a stink about a woman’s right to choose.
They decided to not even try to claim they had it, in the name of not arguing definitions of morality, y’know, lest they upset or offend someone who’s weakly on “our” side on this but not other things; so let’s support our position very apologetically and affecting reluctance and heavy heart and acceptance of “compromises” as if we had something to be sorry for.
They were fine with women having an abortion. Indeed, they objected to the woman not having an abortion if they wanted her to have one. If she chose to have the baby then the man who got her pregnant should be completely off the hook financially for the child. (In their view, not mine)
What you say here is that men would have a right to opt in, not to opt out.
One problem with this is that you’re relieving rapists from “any responsibility to a pregnancy”.
Another problem is that saying “a would be mother can have her partner sign these papers before getting pregnant” is premised on the woman having control of whether she becomes pregnant, which a great many abortion patients didn’t have.
Maybe it’s worth it to have the right to bodily autonomy enshrined in the Constitution, but it would certainly be a troubled compromise. I for one doubt we can administer “Once submitted, there is no backing out”, especially considering the systemic oppressor power that men have.
Er, what? Are you suggesting that the woman has no say in the matter, either in terms of pleasure or risk of pregnancy?
It’s very hard to have honest discussions with people who cling tenaciously to what they think ought to be.
Many of us, including – IMHO – legislators and jurists, inhabit the real world where things are very different, and where black/white propositions don’t get us closer to workable solutions.
I wish every damned driver in the USA would pay rapt attention while they drive. They are, after all, operating potentially lethal things.
But they don’t pay rapt attention. In far too many cases, they’re paying no attention at all.
So suggesting that auto body shops be closed (or that we eliminate decades and decades of passive safety features in vehicles) isn’t a very thoughtful proposition.
Just taking that thought a step further …
I wonder how far we should extend that ‘victim-blaming, just world’ model of how to organize our society.
Should Medicine abide by that view of morality and consequences ? If you smoked, should we withhold lung cancer treatment ? If you took your eyes off the road and crashed your car into a tree, should we refuse to load you on the Life Flight helicopter and take you to the nearest trauma center ?
If you’re diabetic and you’ve been seen eating a candy bar … no insulin for you ?
Substance abuse ?
What about firefighters and law enforcement ? You left the stove on. Too bad, so sad. You left your front door unlocked. Sucks to be you.
Is some of this the predictable consequence of a profoundly reductive, punishment-intensive version of religion (or limitations of its adherents) ?
Or is it just a variety of Social Darwinism that seems insanely anachronistic and regressive in the age of drones, the Internet, a mapped human genome, and self-driving cars.
Hmm.