News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Poll: Are you pro-life or pro choice?

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

Previous topic - Next topic

NothingSacred

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.

The short answer is it is alot more difficult for a woman(in general) emotionally and physically not to carry a  pregnancy to term than it is for a man to walk away. If a man leaves it has the potential to ruin two lives. If a woman aborts he affects are different. With that said there should be changes to custody laws that almost always grant women custody and almost always require support from the man. These things should be taken on an individual basis and judged on whats best for the child.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices -William James
Anything worth knowing is difficult to learn- Greek Proverb
what if god ain't looking down what if he's looking up instead-Ani difranco "what if no one's watching

humblesmurph

Quote from: "Nothing Sacred"The short answer is it is alot more difficult for a woman(in general) emotionally and physically not to carry a  pregnancy to term than it is for a man to walk away. If a man leaves it has the potential to ruin two lives. If a woman aborts he affects are different. With that said there should be changes to custody laws that almost always grant women custody and almost always require support from the man. These things should be taken on an individual basis and judged on whats best for the child.

I dunno.  I can't see how you could say it's easier for a man to walk away from a living child than it is to terminate a pregnancy.  The woman has the very real rationalization of  "well it wasn't really a baby that I killed".  For a man to turn his back on a real child he has no such rationalization.  Additionally, the aborted fetus will never come find the woman to ask her why she is such a scumbag.  The man who abandons his child deals with it for a lifetime--Be it through wage garnishments, or constant fear thereof, or the child someday confronting him with the scumbag question.

NothingSacred

Quote from: "humblesmurph"
Quote from: "Nothing Sacred"The short answer is it is alot more difficult for a woman(in general) emotionally and physically not to carry a  pregnancy to term than it is for a man to walk away. If a man leaves it has the potential to ruin two lives. If a woman aborts he affects are different. With that said there should be changes to custody laws that almost always grant women custody and almost always require support from the man. These things should be taken on an individual basis and judged on whats best for the child.

I dunno.  I can't see how you could say it's easier for a man to walk away from a living child than it is to terminate a pregnancy.  The woman has the very real rationalization of  "well it wasn't really a baby that I killed".  For a man to turn his back on a real child he has no such rationalization.  Additionally, the aborted fetus will never come find the woman to ask her why she is such a scumbag.  The man who abandons his child deals with it for a lifetime--Be it through wage garnishments, or constant fear thereof, or the child someday confronting him with the scumbag question.

A man can walk away before the reality of the situation sets in. He has no medical procedure and no physical change to go though. He also wouldn't have the "murderer" stigma placed over him. Dont get me wrong for a decent human being it would not be easy but from what I have seen those who walk aren't decent.I was speaking about the immediate effects of walking away in my previous post . Those who think about the future rather than the immediate are less likely to find themselves in these situations. As I said previously though the reason why the reaction to each is different is that the effects are different. As you said a child is envolved when a man walks away....sorry if that was incoherent and rambling it's late and im tired
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices -William James
Anything worth knowing is difficult to learn- Greek Proverb
what if god ain't looking down what if he's looking up instead-Ani difranco "what if no one's watching

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "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?

It sure does.  I find myself oscillating on this issue, because as much as we may desire otherwise, there are no easy answers.

Well, to be honest, I've found one, and forgive me my bluntness, it reads don't screw a woman if you're not willing to be a parent with her.  It works for me, has kept me out of court, and has ensured that my son has one helluva mother, even if we both are too hardheaded to live under the same roof.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "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.

I mean that because it is her physical body, she can decide to abort, either hiring the process out or doing it herself.  No law or forum debate changes that raw fact.  That is what I mean by natural.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Tank

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I mean that because it is her physical body, she can decide to abort, either hiring the process out or doing it herself.  No law or forum debate changes that raw fact.  That is what I mean by natural.
Cheers, understood.
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.

Thumpalumpacus

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.

This is a fair point, and would've been even fairer a couple of generations ago; but it cannot be denied that abortion has largely lost, and continues to lose, the attached stigma.

That there are conservative religionists who still stigmatize women is true; that they are the moral bellwethers of our society has been changing for some time now, thankfully.

Also, to all, please forgive my multiple posts.  My C&P function is not working properly right now, else I would roll all my answers together.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

humblesmurph

Quote from: "NothingSacred"
Quote from: "humblesmurph"
Quote from: "Nothing Sacred"The short answer is it is alot more difficult for a woman(in general) emotionally and physically not to carry a  pregnancy to term than it is for a man to walk away. If a man leaves it has the potential to ruin two lives. If a woman aborts he affects are different. With that said there should be changes to custody laws that almost always grant women custody and almost always require support from the man. These things should be taken on an individual basis and judged on whats best for the child.

I dunno.  I can't see how you could say it's easier for a man to walk away from a living child than it is to terminate a pregnancy.  The woman has the very real rationalization of  "well it wasn't really a baby that I killed".  For a man to turn his back on a real child he has no such rationalization.  Additionally, the aborted fetus will never come find the woman to ask her why she is such a scumbag.  The man who abandons his child deals with it for a lifetime--Be it through wage garnishments, or constant fear thereof, or the child someday confronting him with the scumbag question.

A man can walk away before the reality of the situation sets in. He has no medical procedure and no physical change to go though. He also wouldn't have the "murderer" stigma placed over him. Dont get me wrong for a decent human being it would not be easy but from what I have seen those who walk aren't decent.I was speaking about the immediate effects of walking away in my previous post . Those who think about the future rather than the immediate are less likely to find themselves in these situations. As I said previously though the reason why the reaction to each is different is that the effects are different. As you said a child is envolved when a man walks away....sorry if that was incoherent and rambling it's late and im tired

I think I get your point, but it goes both ways.  Just as it would be easy for a man without morals to walk away from a child, it would be easy for a woman lacking whatever emotional insight that makes abortion difficult to terminate a pregnancy.  The immediate effects for both would be the same in my view--and the long term effects would be worse for the man for reasons already stated.  I'm not saying that it is necessarily harder for man, I just think it silly to assume it's harder one way or another based only on gender.