News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

Poll: Are you pro-life or pro choice?

Started by Keithzworld, August 04, 2010, 02:16:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Thumpalumpacus

Just as biology gives the woman the option to carry or not to term, biology also allows the man to skip out.  Computers are removing that balance.

One aspect I've not seen touched on is what if a man wants the child and the woman doesn't?  If the man cannot rightfully commandeer her body for nine months -- if, despite his wishes, she aborts -- why should she commandeer his for a longer time?  (I type this thinking that it costs roughly $750,000 US to raise a child nowadays; the man's half being $375,000, and assuming a salary of $50,000/yr, she -- or rather, the child --  is using over 7 years of his time).

Why is this double-standard acceptable?
Illegitimi non carborundum.

pinkocommie

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Just as biology gives the woman the option to carry or not to term, biology also allows the man to skip out.  Computers are removing that balance.

One aspect I've not seen touched on is what if a man wants the child and the woman doesn't?  If the man cannot rightfully commandeer her body for nine months -- if, despite his wishes, she aborts -- why should she commandeer his for a longer time?  (I type this thinking that it costs roughly $750,000 US to raise a child nowadays; the man's half being $375,000, and assuming a salary of $50,000/yr, she -- or rather, the child --  is using over 7 years of his time).

Why is this double-standard acceptable?

Hold on a second.  Assuming child support is paid monthly, 18 years is 216 months.  375,000 divided by 216 is 1736.11111.  Man, if that's what the ladies are getting in child support, I am getting massively screwed.  My ex is out of work right now, so he only has to legally pay me 25.00 a month.  How much does he pay when he works?  I wouldn't know, it's never happened.  I know a couple other divorced people, and the child support figures are never above 200.00 a month.  Also, none of the dads have any responsibility past 18, none of them have a legal requirement to help pay for college.  This is what a poor person's divorce looks like.  It must be waaaaaaay different when there's money involved.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

philosoraptor

FWIW, my parents were by no means wealthy, but because my brother had health issues the court mandated that my dad had to continue paying child support even after my brother turned 18.  I was 18 when my parents divorced, so I never factored into the equation.  I think my dad stopped paying support when my brother turned 20, but my mom is pretty hush hush about those things so I'm not positive.
"Come ride with me through the veins of history,
I'll show you how god falls asleep on the job.
And how can we win when fools can be kings?
Don't waste your time or time will waste you."
-Muse

pinkocommie

It seems to me that most every divorce or custody agreement is different.  That's why I dislike trying to apply hypotheticals to this subject - it seems every hypothetical has an equal and opposite hypothetical.  I consider my situation out of the ordinary, but that's really only because I've always heard the nasty stereotype of the person receiving child support being a greedy jerk and getting tons of money.  I just keep thinking about the kids.  Maybe it is irrational of me, but reducing an innocent kid's worth to a monetary number seems wrong to me, as does trying to justify not being at least partially responsible for that kid - for however long the kid lives - when you had a part in causing it to exist.   It's just too hard for me to consider the subject without being empathetic for the kid above everything else.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

philosoraptor

Honestly, I've never heard of anyone receiving an amount of child support that was actually useful, either.  My one friend right now is stuck-she really doesn't want to take her daughter's father to court for support, but on his own he isn't doing shit.  It sucks.  But yeah, every custody and payment agreement is different.
"Come ride with me through the veins of history,
I'll show you how god falls asleep on the job.
And how can we win when fools can be kings?
Don't waste your time or time will waste you."
-Muse

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "pinkocommie"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Just as biology gives the woman the option to carry or not to term, biology also allows the man to skip out.  Computers are removing that balance.

One aspect I've not seen touched on is what if a man wants the child and the woman doesn't?  If the man cannot rightfully commandeer her body for nine months -- if, despite his wishes, she aborts -- why should she commandeer his for a longer time?  (I type this thinking that it costs roughly $750,000 US to raise a child nowadays; the man's half being $375,000, and assuming a salary of $50,000/yr, she -- or rather, the child --  is using over 7 years of his time).

Why is this double-standard acceptable?

Hold on a second.  Assuming child support is paid monthly, 18 years is 216 months.  375,000 divided by 216 is 1736.11111.  Man, if that's what the ladies are getting in child support, I am getting massively screwed.  My ex is out of work right now, so he only has to legally pay me 25.00 a month.  How much does he pay when he works?  I wouldn't know, it's never happened.  I know a couple other divorced people, and the child support figures are never above 200.00 a month.  Also, none of the dads have any responsibility past 18, none of them have a legal requirement to help pay for college.  This is what a poor person's divorce looks like.  It must be waaaaaaay different when there's money involved.

Of course, you're assuming that the man is not doing anything other than paying money.  In addition to paying support, I have my son 42% of the time, which ought to be added in.  Also, the mother neither has responsibility beyond age 18, so I'm unsure why you raise that point.

I too am out of work right now; in addition to paying $224/mo out of my unemployment for a 4 days/month differential in custody, when my son's mom needs money, she gets it, with no questions asked, if I have it.

I notice you didn't address the main point of my post.  Is it unimportant to you?
Illegitimi non carborundum.

pinkocommie

Well, no, I just don't really want to fight about it.  Is that OK?
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

Thumpalumpacus

Also, the real issue is not support payments; the issue is why there's a double standard.

Before everyone jack-slaps me about writing that, consider my earlier post again, please, in this light:  A woman can choose to abort or carry to term, and expect legal support from the father in the latter case.

A man cannot choose one way or the other.

When a woman exercises the rights biology gives her -- to carry or not carry -- it's a woman's right gifted from biology.  But when a man exercises the perogative that nature gives him -- to wit, to bone out on her -- he is castigated on a moral, not biological, basis.

Why when a woman exercises biology is it considered natural, but when a man does so he's judged on a moral and not a biological basis?

eta: and no, I don't wanna fight myself.  Just askin'.  These are questions I haven't answered, myself.  Forgive me if I sound like I have.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

pinkocommie

The hypotheticals are too confusing for me, I guess.  You start throwing figures out there that account for an involved father figure, yet we were originally talking about a hypothetical situation where a man is uninterested in being a father and whether it's fair for that guy to have to pay anything more than half an abortion in regard to the child if he makes it clear he doesn't want anything to do with it.  I assumed that a guy who wants nothing to do with a kid isn't going to be involved in the kids life when he's trying to shirk those very responsibilities for the cost of half an abortion.  Does that make sense?  So, not thinking in terms of the cost of being an involved father who pays support, your hypothetical of half the cost of raising a kid to 18 being so high, I assumed you must have been factoring in half the cost of college as well, which is sometimes negotiated as a part of custody payment agreements.  That paired with my own personal experience of having an ex who hardly has to pay support, sometimes doesn't even pay the meager amount he's supposed to, and doesn't see my son more than a day out of a month - I sadly didn't even consider that you might be factoring in non-payment type costs.  Man, that sucks that I didn't even think about that.   :verysad:

Anyway, I'm also not trying in any way to perpetuate that stereotype of the dads in a divorce or custody situation always being responsibility shirking jerks because I know that's just as hurtful of an assumption as when people assume that a mom who receives support is a gold digging wench.  Like I keep saying, every situation is different, which is why I think this is one of those subjects that is really complicated to consider.

As for the double standard and a man's responsibility when he makes it clear he doesn't want to have a kid and all that, I've been thinking about this all day because it is a really interesting issue that I had never really thought about before.  What I keep coming back to is that it seems wrong to try to break it down to such a simplistic biological argument.  It's taking me some time to mull over, because I keep bouncing around between cultural, social, and biological considerations.  Does that make sense?
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
http://alliedatheistalliance.blogspot.com/

Tank

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, the real issue is not support payments; the issue is why there's a double standard.

Before everyone jack-slaps me about writing that, consider my earlier post again, please, in this light:  A woman can choose to abort or carry to term, and expect legal support from the father in the latter case.

A man cannot choose one way or the other.

When a woman exercises the rights biology gives her -- to carry or not carry -- it's a woman's right gifted from biology.  But when a man exercises the perogative that nature gives him -- to wit, to bone out on her -- he is castigated on a moral, not biological, basis.

Why when a woman exercises biology is it considered natural, but when a man does so he's judged on a moral and not a biological basis?

eta: and no, I don't wanna fight myself.  Just askin'.  These are questions I haven't answered, myself.  Forgive me if I sound like I have.

Just a request for a clarification of the underlined. Once pregnant a woman has no 'biological right' to not carry to term, the clock to birth is ticking and only a natural abortion will prevent the birth. So I'm not sure what you mean by a biological right to not carry to term.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

philosoraptor

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"When a woman exercises the rights biology gives her -- to carry or not carry -- it's a woman's right gifted from biology.  But when a man exercises the perogative that nature gives him -- to wit, to bone out on her -- he is castigated on a moral, not biological, basis.

Why when a woman exercises biology is it considered natural, but when a man does so he's judged on a moral and not a biological basis?

But women are still judged on a MORAL basis as well, not just the biological.  I hardly think abortion would be such a hot button issue if there wasn't a moral component to it.  And in spite of biology, there are people who don't think it's natural either way.  It's not as though women are given a free pass on the biology issue-they still get judged for having abortions, even in cases where the pregnancy posed a serious risk to their own health.
"Come ride with me through the veins of history,
I'll show you how god falls asleep on the job.
And how can we win when fools can be kings?
Don't waste your time or time will waste you."
-Muse

Tank

Quote from: "philosoraptor"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"When a woman exercises the rights biology gives her -- to carry or not carry -- it's a woman's right gifted from biology.  But when a man exercises the perogative that nature gives him -- to wit, to bone out on her -- he is castigated on a moral, not biological, basis.

Why when a woman exercises biology is it considered natural, but when a man does so he's judged on a moral and not a biological basis?

But women are still judged on a MORAL basis as well, not just the biological.  I hardly think abortion would be such a hot button issue if there wasn't a moral component to it.  And in spite of biology, there are people who don't think it's natural either way.  It's not as though women are given a free pass on the biology issue-they still get judged for having abortions, even in cases where the pregnancy posed a serious risk to their own health.

I have not come across that many woman who have had abortions. But of that limited group all I have ever had is sympathy for the person concerned and I have only seen a sympathetic reaction too them. I have never seen any condemnation. The causes of the pregnancies have been teenage experimentation and a mistake for a lady who is an 'escort'.

I think it would be fair to say that no sane woman gets deliberately pregnant just to have an abortion. Thus all abortions are a result of an accidental unwanted pregnancy or a result of social/family pressure on a woman to terminate desired pregnancy or the result of rape. I personally could not find myself being anything other than sympathetic to any woman who found herself in one of those situations. I don't see a moral imperative in these issues at all. All I see is a woman facing the prospect of life defining event being forced to do something they do not want to do.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

philosoraptor

I'm not talking about (sane) people like you, Tank.  I'm talking about the old men in legislation who will never be raped or become pregnant, but still think they have a right to dictate what women do with their bodies.  I'm talking about the people who protest Planned Parenthood and bomb abortion clinics.  I'm talking about Catholics and other religious denominations who think you'll go to Hell for having an abortion.  Unfortunately, not everyone is as sympathetic or enlightened as you are-the majority of Americans are pro-life.  Not all of them fall into the extremist group, but some do.
"Come ride with me through the veins of history,
I'll show you how god falls asleep on the job.
And how can we win when fools can be kings?
Don't waste your time or time will waste you."
-Muse

Tank

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I'm not talking about (sane) people like you, Tank.  I'm talking about the old men in legislation who will never be raped or become pregnant, but still think they have a right to dictate what women do with their bodies.  I'm talking about the people who protest Planned Parenthood and bomb abortion clinics.  I'm talking about Catholics and other religious denominations who think you'll go to Hell for having an abortion.  Unfortunately, not everyone is as sympathetic or enlightened as you are-the majority of Americans are pro-life.  Not all of them fall into the extremist group, but some do.
I understand what you are getting at, just attempting to illustrate that there is another view, even if it is in the minority and hoping that one day it will be a majority view. I hope that abortions decrease as they are not a good thing for a person to have to go through for whatever reason, they should be the 'contraception' of last resort.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

humblesmurph

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I'm not talking about (sane) people like you, Tank.  I'm talking about the old men in legislation who will never be raped or become pregnant, but still think they have a right to dictate what women do with their bodies.  I'm talking about the people who protest Planned Parenthood and bomb abortion clinics.  I'm talking about Catholics and other religious denominations who think you'll go to Hell for having an abortion.  Unfortunately, not everyone is as sympathetic or enlightened as you are-the majority of Americans are pro-life.  Not all of them fall into the extremist group, but some do.

wow, 51% of Americans are anti-choice.  This makes me sad.  However, I don't see what gender has to do with anything. Even if only women voted and they by majority declared that choice was wrong I would still disagree.  Just because an action is gender specific doesn't mean we don't all have a say in it.