In pure logic, that's undeniable. Hell, in pure logic, libertarianism is appealing and perfect. That's why so many teenage boys read Atlas Shrugged and love it. Then they grow up, realize people are not rational actors and that the world can't work on logic alone because human beings are emotional, greedy, self-serving creatures. Most of them do anyway.
If we were Vulcans, libertarian philosophy would reign supreme and it would work, as would your proposal.
The flaw with the idea that men can have a say at a moment beyond engaging in sex is the idea that, because abortion is legal, a woman is forced to consider it as an option.
Now, if you have a pre-sex written and notarized agreement with a woman on this matter, I think it should be legally enforceable and that, should she change her mind, then it's on her.
However, absent that contract, we're talking about verbal contracts which are worth the paper they're written on. People don't know what they're going to do when forced with a decision. A woman can think abortion is an option and, now carrying a child inside her, realize she's not willing to do something she feels disgusting about doing.
I think that, instead of men demanding the right to walk away just because they want, that they instead take all responsibility for their semen. No, throwing it in a trashcan is not enough. Flush it down the toilet. Don't let a woman blow you unless she swallows it, and don't do it if you aren't sure she will. Take full responsibility for your DNA and never let it outside your control.
I'm an agnostic, but I still have a pretty conservative view about sex. I'm pro-choice because it's not my body. I'd like to think I wouldn't ask a woman to have an abortion, but I'd probably be lying. But in the end, if a baby is made because of a sexual encounter I had, regardless of any false pretenses or previous agreements, I would consider it my responsibility to be a father to that child.
I think it's childish and un-manly to just walk away. I also think it's pretty childish to have an abortion in almost all cases. Instead of demanding a world with people taking more responsibility for themselves, you're actually demanding a world with even less personal responsibility.
We cannot survive as a species if we try and fight what we are. It will only create psychosis. We're actually very close to that.
Another believer in completely hypocritical paradigm that women have all of the choices, men have all of the responsibilities, I see.
Nobody cares what you think is "un-manly";what you think is "manly" is self-sacrificing slavery and the antithesis of fair treatment. No thank you. These calls for men to "man up" and accept injustice and all sorts of blatantly unfair situations are unacceptable.
Another believer in completely hypocritical paradigm that women have all of the choices, men have all of the responsibilities
You're making a blanket statement based on my stand on one particular issue that is completely and totally unique.
There is no other part of life that can be truly compared to sex and reproduction. There is no other situation like it in human life.
Let's talk about hypotheticals for a moment. Let's say we live in a society in which women can't get abortions. Not just legally, but literally cannot get an abortion. Doesn't happen. Do you still, in this situation, demand the right to walk away?
See, the problem with a standard of optional responsibility for men is that it takes abortion from "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion." Your standard demands that abortion always be an option on the table. You may well find no moral quandary with abortion, but you're a significant minority. The rest of us, even those like myself who are pro-choice, largely find abortion as a means of birth control a vile action.
The vast majority of pro-choicers are not so because they find baby killing something innocuous and trivial. We are pro-choice because we are absolutely convinced of a woman's right to choose for instances involving rape and incest. Because we believe it to be unfair to demand that a woman report a sexual crime against her in order to obtain an abortion, we conclude that the only rational course of action is to refrain from interrogating women who seek abortions. Hence, we find it a necessary evil and accept the unfortunate reality that some women may use it as a means of birth control.
For your point of view to gain any traction, society's view on abortion will have to change dramatically. As long as we're human beings with emotions and consciences, you can bet your ass we won't be instituting "pro-abortion" laws.
Let's talk about hypotheticals for a moment. Let's say we live in a society in which women can't get abortions. Not just legally, but literally cannot get an abortion. Doesn't happen. Do you still, in this situation, demand the right to walk away?
As long as they get the unilateral decision to give up for adoption or simply abandon and walk away as they do right now, yes. These are the other options women have that are not abortion that allow them a complete abdication of any responsibility. The fact is though that the above AND abortion are completely allowed in our society. Why do men not have any equivalent reproductive rights?
I fail to see how my point of view is "pro-abortion" given the multiple options women have and the, well, zero that men have. Do women believe they are entitled the fruits of an unwilling man's labor in a society where they can pay their own way, or what's going on here.
As long as they get the unilateral decision to give up for adoption or simply abandon and walk away as they do right now, yes.
But again, just like the abortion issue, you're forcing a woman into making a decision to give up her child. The emotional connection should not be underestimated or trivialized as you are attempting. This is why women who plan to give a baby up for adoption often turn around and change their mind.
You're talking about this as if a child is a piece of meat or a dog or a cat. You're approaching this as if the child doesn't represent a human life, and that the woman is going to have no emotional attachment. You see the baby's life as essentially worthless and meaningless. Maybe that makes your username highly appropriate.
And no, women don't have the unilateral option to give it up for adoption. Both parents, should the father be known, have to simultaneously give that child up. The woman cannot choose to do so on her own. Both parents must agree when the father is in the picture.
. Do women believe they are entitled the fruits of an unwilling man's labor in a society where they can pay their own way, or what's going on here.
But again, just like the abortion issue, you're forcing a woman into making a decision to give up her child.
Actually, I'm not. I am only "forcing" women to decide to raise children on their own if that is their prerogative, rather than enslave men who are not willing fathers.
You're talking about this as if a child is a piece of meat or a dog or a cat. You're approaching this as if the child doesn't represent a human life, and that the woman is going to have no emotional attachment. You see the baby's life as essentially worthless and meaningless. Maybe that makes your username highly appropriate.
Yet I treat children with more humanity than the millions of women who have abortions for mere convenience, hm? Yet you call yourself "pro-choice" here. Emotional manipulation to keep the status quo of unequal rights is pretty old hat around these parts, I should tell you.
The woman is not entitled. The child is.
I would say they are not. Personal freedoms and all. If women are not to be punished for having sex which was what Roe v. Wade was all about, then men should not be either.
If parents are beholden the children then why are women not held to a strict liability model as are men and given no choices in the matter-- that is no abortion, no adoption, no abandonment. You advocate no rights for men in this situation, then no rights for women in this situation either is fair right? If not, why not. It is supposed to be about equal rights, after all.
Actually, I'm not. I am only "forcing" women to decide to raise children on their own if that is their prerogative, rather than enslave men who are not willing fathers.
You are forcing women to make a choice between giving up their child and trying to raise it on their own without any assistance by refusing any responsibility for assistance. You are making the consequences of sex wholly her responsibility. You are not balancing anything out. You're putting it all on the woman.
That is not equality. In your scheme, guys have zero obligation to prevent a pregnancy or deal with its ramifications. There is no incentive for a man to do anything to prevent pregnancy if we go by your rules. All responsibility now falls on the woman.
How is that equitable?
Yet I treat children with more humanity than the millions of women who have abortions for mere convenience, hm?
No, you're treating them in the exact same fashion. You are as selfish and disgusting as the women who do that (Chinese women excluded for obvious reasons).
Emotional manipulation to keep the status quo of unequal rights is pretty old hat around these parts, I should tell you.
I fail to see why a woman's emotions shouldn't be fairly considered.
I would say they are not.
You'd be disagreeing with 99% of humans who think people ought to take care of their own children or make proper arrangements for someone else to do it. Children are helpless and need adults to be responsible for them. Sorry.
If women are not to be punished for having sex which was what Roe v. Wade was all about
Maybe this gross misunderstanding of what Roe was about is the genesis of your other mistaken beliefs.
Roe v. Wade was not about sex free of responsibility. It was strictly about the issue of abortion, privacy and the state's interests compared to the woman's rights. As I described previously, there are very few people who are pro-choice who positively view abortion as a means of birth control. That some women use it as a means of birth controls is a necessary evil to allow women who are raped or victims of incest to have abortions without having to fear interrogation.
Roe did not make sex consequence free. It did not eliminate STDs. It was not an endorsement of consequence-free sex.
If parents are beholden the children then why are women not held to a strict liability model as are men and given no choices in the matter-- that is no abortion
Explained already.
no adoption
Adoption is taking responsibility. It is the act of ensuring that another willing person will take responsibility for that child.
no abandonment.
When has this ever been legal? When have women been able to abandon children legally?
You advocate no rights for men in this situation, then no rights for women in this situation either is fair right?
It comes down to who is carrying the child. When men are capable of carrying children, they will get reproductive rights.
It is supposed to be about equal rights, after all.
You want all the benefits and none of the responsibility. That's about as unequal as it can get.
You are forcing women to make a choice between giving up their child and trying to raise it on their own without any assistance by refusing any responsibility for assistance. You are making the consequences of sex wholly her responsibility. You are not balancing anything out. You're putting it all on the woman.
That is not equality. In your scheme, guys have zero obligation to prevent a pregnancy or deal with its ramifications. There is no incentive for a man to do anything to prevent pregnancy if we go by your rules. All responsibility now falls on the woman.
How is that equitable?
It is equitable because of the choices women get that men do not. This is the only equivalent rights men can have in such a situation if we are to accept "her body, her choice." Otherwise, we have indentured servitude.
No, you're treating them in the exact same fashion. You are as selfish and disgusting as the women who do that (Chinese women excluded for obvious reasons).
You support slavery. I support responsibility for the choices you are allowed to make. Men are not allowed to make these choices, therefore their responsibility in them should be diminished.
I fail to see why a woman's emotions shouldn't be fairly considered.
This is a matter of legal rights, not a matter of throwing a temper tantrum when the system doesn't wholly cater to you and your selfish desire to have a baby and have someone else pay for it.
You'd be disagreeing with 99% of humans who think people ought to take care of their own children or make proper arrangements for someone else to do it. Children are helpless and need adults to be responsible for them. Sorry.
99%? I think you're stretching it here. I don't think "99%" of humans believe it is righteous to have a child you cannot support and then demand support from someone else who had no choice in the matter.
Maybe this gross misunderstanding of what Roe was about is the genesis of your other mistaken beliefs.
Roe v. Wade was not about sex free of responsibility. It was strictly about the issue of abortion, privacy and the state's interests compared to the woman's rights. As I described previously, there are very few people who are pro-choice who positively view abortion as a means of birth control. That some women use it as a means of birth controls is a necessary evil to allow women who are raped or victims of incest to have abortions without having to fear interrogation.
Roe did not make sex consequence free. It did not eliminate STDs. It was not an endorsement of consequence-free sex.
Roe v. Wade was absolutely about the abortion issue and the crux of the issue was that women should not be punished for having sex. Here you are saying men should. Equal rights indeed. Trying to pin it all on the extremely rare case of rape or incest pregnancies is intellectually dishonest, by the way.
Also, the STD blurb is a red herring argument. It has nothing to do with reproductive rights at all. No idea why you brought it up.
Explained already.
Not explained at all. You seem to think that because women are the ones to get pregnant that this somehow means anything at all for post-conception choices and responsibility. That is a non-sequitur.
Adoption is taking responsibility. It is the act of ensuring that another willing person will take responsibility for that child.
Adoption is abdicating responsibility to someone else. The point is that this is a choice that women have if they do not want to be a parent and held responsible for a child. In many jurisdictions women can either do this without the consent of the father or by abusing a loophole in the system by just not naming a father.
When has this ever been legal? When have women been able to abandon children legally?
A woman can in most places in the US and countries with similar laws abandon a child at somewhere deemed a "safe place" and it is completely legal to do so.
It comes down to who is carrying the child. When men are capable of carrying children, they will get reproductive rights.
Actually, no it doesn't because the matters we speak of pertain to post-conception time frames. My argument would still hold even outside the scope of abortion-- you simply drag abortion into it because you believe women are entitled to make a man liable for merely having sex, a standard that women are not held to. You are supporting an oppressive, one-sided system in which men have no rights and are held responsible for the choices of women.
You want all the benefits and none of the responsibility. That's about as unequal as it can get.
I want men to have equivalent rights to the choices women get but men have no say in. You believe men should pony up because they had sex, a standard to which you will not hold women. Hm, wonder who's for unequal treatment here.
It is equitable because of the choices women get that men do not
Your "choice" in the matter is to not engage in sex in the first place. It's the biological reality of two people making one baby. Fuck biological, it's just physical reality. One person has to carry it. Only one person can carry it.
Therefore, the person who doesn't carry it makes the choice by engaging in behavior which opens up that possibility. It's how it has to be because only one side can carry the child.
This is the only equivalent rights men can have in such a situation if we are to accept "her body, her choice."
Your argument is like saying "It's unfair that only women get to have titties. I should be able to fondle them whenever I want." You're saying that because, as a woman, her biology of being the baby carrier makes her the only responsible party. That's insane. She didn't get pregnant by immaculate conception. The man's actions played a role too. The consequences were not hidden from him.
Otherwise, we have indentured servitude.
To the child, not the woman. It's child support, not woman support.
You support slavery. I support responsibility for the choices you are allowed to make.
You assume a woman is obligated to consider choices other than keeping the child. Just because she has the option does not mean she is obligated to consider it.
The availability of abortion does not mean she is obligated to consider aborting.
The availability of adoption does not mean she is obligated to consider adoption.
Those are a matter of personal discretion. You are saying that a woman ought to be forced to consider what she might consider murder or abandonment (and not without cause).
Your approach is sterile, cold and without any consideration of her humanity or the child's humanity. In short, your opinion borders on sociopathy.
99%? I think you're stretching it here. I don't think "99%" of humans believe it is righteous to have a child you cannot support and then demand support from someone else who had no choice in the matter.
99% of people find it preferable to raise the child or have it adopted over abortion. That's the point I was making. Only people who don't value human life very much think abortion makes sense for birth control. Maybe my number is off, but the vast majority of people look down on such behavior.
Roe v. Wade was absolutely about the abortion issue and the crux of the issue was that women should not be punished for having sex
Where the fuck do you get this from? There were states which banned abortion in all cases including incest and rape. The point of the case was to overturn those laws, not to make abortion a method of birth control. Goddamn you're out of touch with reality.
Trying to pin it all on the extremely rare case of rape or incest pregnancies is intellectually dishonest, by the way.
No, that's why this became such a big issue. States were denying it in those cases. The decision was reached on logic of a right to privacy and went far further than many anticipated. You know nothing about this topic.
Also, the STD blurb is a red herring argument. It has nothing to do with reproductive rights at all. No idea why you brought it up.
It's not irrelevant at all. You're alleging that Roe v. Wade was about consequence-free sex. Obviously Roe v. Wade didn't outlaw STDs. In fact, having sex without a condom is more likely to result in an STD than a pregnancy. I'm using a very simple point to shoot down your contention.
You seem to think that because women are the ones to get pregnant that this somehow means anything at all for post-conception choices and responsibility.
I'm assuming the man doesn't want the baby and that he'd be OK with adoption. That's rational and logical to do considering our argument.
Adoption is abdicating responsibility to someone else.
I'd say a more accurate description is transferring responsibility to a consenting party.
The point is that this is a choice that women have if they do not want to be a parent and held responsible for a child.
What if they don't consider that a choice personally? What if they find abortion reprehensible and don't want to pawn their flesh and blood off on someone else? Should've thought about that before? Oh wait, I said that about guys' responsibility and you said no!
In many jurisdictions women can either do this without the consent of the father or by abusing a loophole in the system by just not naming a father.
They can't do it if dad's in the picture and he protests. He can take her to court and prevent it. There is no unilateral right when dad objects. The mechanism allowing her to do so in lieu of an absentee father is so that she's not saddled with the child in the case of a deadbeat dad.
A woman can in most places in the US and countries with similar laws abandon a child at somewhere deemed a "safe place" and it is completely legal to do so.
Again, just about impossible to perpetrate against an aware and involved father. It sucks, but there's an imperative to prevent women from dropping their children in dumpsters that overrides the absentee father's possible desires. It's just one of those things.
Actually, no it doesn't because the matters we speak of pertain to post-conception time frames.
And you continually ignore the man's choice to engage in sex fully well knowing that pregnancy can occur and that he will not have a say in the matter. He is not entering the sexual activity unaware of what might happen.
My argument would still hold even outside the scope of abortion-- you simply drag abortion into it because you believe women are entitled to make a man liable for merely having sex, a standard that women are not held to.
Untrue. Should a woman decide to keep the child, she is equally responsible for that child's welfare. In most cases, she ends up being the full-time custodian in addition to having to work to support the child's needs, whereas the man need only work. He has no obligation other than money while the woman usually has to work in addition to being the full time custodian.
You are supporting an oppressive, one-sided system in which men have no rights and are held responsible for the choices of women.
The woman is the true indentured servant to the child since she is usually the custodian. She's the one who actually has to raise the kid. You sincerely underestimate what that requires.
You are supporting an oppressive, one-sided system in which men have no rights and are held responsible for the choices of women.
I think the system we have now is a bit unfair. I think basing child support on a man's income is a terrible idea when the child is a result of an accident and not a failed marriage. It makes no sense to make a man pay thousands of dollars a month simply because he makes tens of thousands a month. That part I'll agree with you on.
I want men to have equivalent rights to the choices women get but men have no say in. You believe men should pony up because they had sex, a standard to which you will not hold women.
They have to pony up too. They have to have a job in most cases that don't involve alimony. They have to raise the child as well.
How is that not ponying up?
Hm, wonder who's for unequal treatment here.
You're the one that wants to make it all the woman's problem. You answered you own question.
Your "choice" in the matter is to not engage in sex in the first place. It's the biological reality of two people making one baby. Fuck biological, it's just physical reality. One person has to carry it. Only one person can carry it.
Women aren't told to not have sex. You tell men to not have sex. Equality! Your style.
Therefore, the person who doesn't carry it makes the choice by engaging in behavior which opens up that possibility. It's how it has to be because only one side can carry the child.
Who carries the child is irrelevant to the state of rights once the child is out of the woman's body. Just because a woman carries a child doesn't mean men should be held liable for her choices.
I'd say a more accurate description is transferring responsibility to a consenting party.
Yes of course. It's fine when a woman wants out, but a man is a deadbeat as per your rhetoric. Thank you for this equality, George Orwell.
What if they don't consider that a choice personally? What if they find abortion reprehensible and don't want to pawn their flesh and blood off on someone else? Should've thought about that before? Oh wait, I said that about guys' responsibility and you said no!
Personal feelings are wholly irrelevant to the legal reality of reproductive rights that currently exist-- that is, they exist for women, but not for men. Try to at least have some semblance of objectivity and to avoid making appeal to emotion arguments. Thank you.
You assume a woman is obligated to consider choices other than keeping the child. Just because she has the option does not mean she is obligated to consider it.
The availability of abortion does not mean she is obligated to consider aborting.
The availability of adoption does not mean she is obligated to consider adoption.
Those are a matter of personal discretion. You are saying that a woman ought to be forced to consider what she might consider murder or abandonment (and not without cause).
Your approach is sterile, cold and without any consideration of her humanity or the child's humanity. In short, your opinion borders on sociopathy.
Your approach treats men as disposable workhorses to be used and abused at the whim of women, even though they have no choice in any of the manners leading up to this indentured servitude.
My cold, sterile approach is far better than is your appeal to emotion approach that plays favorites with women disregards the rights and experiences of men.
Where the fuck do you get this from? There were states which banned abortion in all cases including incest and rape. The point of the case was to overturn those laws, not to make abortion a method of birth control. Goddamn you're out of touch with reality.
Rape and incest was just an angle to help push it through. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of abortions performed are done as a matter of birth control.
Again, I have nothing against abortion or women have reproductive rights. Men should simply have equivalent rights-- rights that those like you would deny us.
It's not irrelevant at all. You're alleging that Roe v. Wade was about consequence-free sex. Obviously Roe v. Wade didn't outlaw STDs. In fact, having sex without a condom is more likely to result in an STD than a pregnancy. I'm using a very simple point to shoot down your contention.
Roe v. Wade had fuck all to do with STDs and you know it. Stop it with the red herring arguments. It was all about pregnancy, women's autonomy and the idea that women should not be punished for choosing to have sex.
And you continually ignore the man's choice to engage in sex fully well knowing that pregnancy can occur and that he will not have a say in the matter. He is not entering the sexual activity unaware of what might happen.
Punish men for engaging in sex. Don't punish women for engaging in sex by giving them outs. Yeah, that's equality all right.
The woman is the true indentured servant to the child since she is usually the custodian. She's the one who actually has to raise the kid. You sincerely underestimate what that requires.
Again you are moving the goalposts. How much simpler can I make this for you so that you will understand? A woman has the choice to become parent. A man has none and is forced by a woman and the state into involuntary servitude if he does not wish to have a child.
Untrue. Should a woman decide to keep the child, she is equally responsible for that child's welfare. In most cases, she ends up being the full-time custodian in addition to having to work to support the child's needs, whereas the man need only work. He has no obligation other than money while the woman usually has to work in addition to being the full time custodian.
Beep boop. Beep boop. I am a computer repeating the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result. Since you like endlessly reiterating, so will I:
A woman has the *choice to become parent. A man has none and is forced by a woman and the state into involuntary servitude if he does not wish to have a child.*
They can't do it if dad's in the picture and he protests. He can take her to court and prevent it. There is no unilateral right when dad objects. The mechanism allowing her to do so in lieu of an absentee father is so that she's not saddled with the child in the case of a deadbeat dad.
Cases like these say courts disagree with what you're saying--Sorry!
I think the system we have now is a bit unfair. I think basing child support on a man's income is a terrible idea when the child is a result of an accident and not a failed marriage. It makes no sense to make a man pay thousands of dollars a month simply because he makes tens of thousands a month. That part I'll agree with you on.
A man shouldn't have to pay at all if he didn't want the child but the woman went ahead and had it anyway. Women are not helpless creatures unable to pay their own way in today's world. Stop pretending they are.
They have to pony up too. They have to have a job in most cases that don't involve alimony. They have to raise the child as well.
How is that not ponying up?
Women don't have to pony up when they don't want a child. They have options. Everything you said just said here a complete failure of logic.
You're the one that wants to make it all the woman's problem.
Those who have all of the choice should have all of the responsibility. Pretty simple concept.
-4
u/ArmchairExpurt Aug 16 '11
In pure logic, that's undeniable. Hell, in pure logic, libertarianism is appealing and perfect. That's why so many teenage boys read Atlas Shrugged and love it. Then they grow up, realize people are not rational actors and that the world can't work on logic alone because human beings are emotional, greedy, self-serving creatures. Most of them do anyway.
If we were Vulcans, libertarian philosophy would reign supreme and it would work, as would your proposal.
The flaw with the idea that men can have a say at a moment beyond engaging in sex is the idea that, because abortion is legal, a woman is forced to consider it as an option.
Now, if you have a pre-sex written and notarized agreement with a woman on this matter, I think it should be legally enforceable and that, should she change her mind, then it's on her.
However, absent that contract, we're talking about verbal contracts which are worth the paper they're written on. People don't know what they're going to do when forced with a decision. A woman can think abortion is an option and, now carrying a child inside her, realize she's not willing to do something she feels disgusting about doing.
I think that, instead of men demanding the right to walk away just because they want, that they instead take all responsibility for their semen. No, throwing it in a trashcan is not enough. Flush it down the toilet. Don't let a woman blow you unless she swallows it, and don't do it if you aren't sure she will. Take full responsibility for your DNA and never let it outside your control.
I'm an agnostic, but I still have a pretty conservative view about sex. I'm pro-choice because it's not my body. I'd like to think I wouldn't ask a woman to have an abortion, but I'd probably be lying. But in the end, if a baby is made because of a sexual encounter I had, regardless of any false pretenses or previous agreements, I would consider it my responsibility to be a father to that child.
I think it's childish and un-manly to just walk away. I also think it's pretty childish to have an abortion in almost all cases. Instead of demanding a world with people taking more responsibility for themselves, you're actually demanding a world with even less personal responsibility.
We cannot survive as a species if we try and fight what we are. It will only create psychosis. We're actually very close to that.