Forced Fatherhood.

[Hitsumei]

I got the impression you were refering to wages when you said, " Do you think that men and women have equal positions with regard to reproduction? I find it incredible if you think they do, or do you think that two people that do a job, one doing 100% of the work, and the other one only having fun, deserve equal pay for the job?" I guessing you were refering to the biological work load involved in reproduction. I disagree with your statement. Both parties make a genetic contribution here(The female obviously puts more into this process but you can't deny at least some male contribution here.).The choice to abort of course should lie solely with the female. No one seems to eb denying that. I am merely suggesting(As many before me stated) that if no child was intended to be produced by the copulation, the male should not be legaly responsible should the female choose to have the child.

I really don't think that most people would characterize having sex as work.

What? When did I say this? As I said above, I am also pro choice. I do not know where you got confused. Allow me to clarify. The choice to abort or not is solely the womens. The problem I have with our current system is that should the women choose not to abort a child which was not intended to be produced, the male is forced to take responsibility as well for said child's welfare.

Clearly you don't grasp the implication of what you are saying. If the man wants the woman to abort, because he does not want to have the baby, and if she does not comply then he is freed of legal implications is a form of coercion for her to abort. It is terrible enough to think that some men would even attempt to coerce their girl-friends to do such a thing, but you are suggesting instilling the legal system with this.

Yeah yeah. I do use the word Christian as an insult. Not all of them or idiots I admit I just think most of them are. And not all atheists/agnostics are intellectials, I just think most of them are. As for your suggestion that I read "world views" I suggest you heed your own advice. I am not an atheist I am an agnostic. Look at my world view rofl

Unlike you I wasn't actually attempting to insult you, I assumed that you thought I were an atheist -- that would seem the default to assume without looking, in a place like this.

I agree with you about the anti abortionists and any coercion of females to or to not abort. The decision is theirs. What we are proposing is not anything like the coercian you are insinuating. Where did anyone give you that idea? I've reread the posts and just don't see it.

Then you're blind. Several times was it suggested that men get a say in whether women go through with having a child or not -- what do you think it means for men to get a say?

[SSY]

It's like blaming a victim of a mugging, saying, "well, if you had not have gone out alone at night, you would not have been mugged". This is obviously complete rubbish, the blame lies squarley at the feet of the mugger, not at the feet of the person who went out late at night. The person who went out late at night certainly played a part in enabling the mugging to happen, but the final, ultimate say in the matter was the mugger's.

Seriously?  I think someone hacked SSY's user name because this argument does not sound like him at all.  Comparing a person getting mugged and a man having consensual sex?  The person that got mugged was an unwilling participant from start until finish, a man having sex and "whoops she got pregnant" was a willing participant all the way up until he has to suffer the consequences because the ultimate decision is not his.

At lease work with an example where the person was involved in the act that caused the problem.  The perfect example was already given: I choose to smoke, I know that smoking cases cancer, I smoke anyway, low and behold I get cancer, I sue the cigarette company because it's not fair that I got cancer from my own well informed decision to smoke.  It's not fair, the cigarette company made me addicted, it was their decision to add nicotene...unfortunately I'm the one with cancer and I have to deal with it and am ultimately responsible for lighting that yummy white stick of goodness 30 times a day.
[/quote]

No, the person going out late at night was willing participant right up until they got mugged.

The smoking anology does not quite work, becuase not smoking is the only way not to get ( or avoid the increased risk of ) lung cancer. There are lots of ways to avoid getting pregnant/child rearing. Just like there are lots of ways to avoid getting mugged, one of which was not going out, but another, and more final was the mugger not mugging you. The ciggarette does not have a choice in giving you cancer.

Smoking inevitably leads to cancer ( after long enough anyway ), there is no way around that other than not smoking.

Going out late at night does not inevitably lead to getting mugged, it requires the participation of the mugger to mug you
Having sex does not inevitably lead to children, it requires the choices made by the woman to give birth to and keep the kid ( and subsequently squeeze the dad for child support ). The mugger and the woman both have the final say here, with smoking the final say was with the person who decided to start smoking, this is where the difference lies.

Hence, your anology about smoking is not perfect, or applicable in this situation.

Edit Van, I find a lot of things in your post a little disturbing.

You seem to think that when a man makes a mistake, has sex and then gets screwed over it, that is unfair and bothersome, as you put it. You seem to justify this by saying he should have known the potential backlash. This attitude is totally wrong and could be used to justify any heinious act.

Lets say a nice young lady goes out, gets drunk and ends up getting raped. Why cant we justify this through saying "well, she knew what she was getting herself in when she went out and got drunk". I'll tell you. Becuase it was the people that raped her who were ultimatley responsible, for the rape, not her. Just like in the end, it is women who are ultimatley responsible for all children.

Also, Hitsumei, you don't like women being co-erced into abortions after a mistake she made, but seem to have no problems with co-ercing ( read, threatening with imprisonment or taking the money by force ) a man to hand over many, many thousands of dollars after a mistake he made.

And finally, where is Whitney? I was looking forward to her input on this subject.

[Tanker]

Tanker wrote:
 On a side note VanReal do you think if hypotheticly it was proven beyond a dought that a woman had purposly misled a man, heck lets say she admits it under oath, and they man took all percations even though he was under the impression there was no way she could get pregnant, lets say she told him she was sterile, that he should still have to pay child support when she got pregnant? Lets say he also told her he never ever wanted to have a baby also. Does even this seem reasonable for a man to still have to pay. Thats about as extreme as I can make it off the top of my head. (FYI I am not being sarcastic I genuinly want to know how far you think is acceptable)

I'm going to answer this but am going to cut out the part about her saying she was sterile or him saying he never wanted kids because for the first one, I want to say he's not that gullible, and for the second if that's true he should have it taken care of so he has no worries.

I did say hypothetical, weather or not he was gullible is besides the point. It was meant as the quoted "extreme example". (Oh and FYI Vasectomiesare not always 100% effective or tubiligations for that matter. It's extremly rare but sometimes there is either an extra vas difference or fallopian tube, which allows the passage of either egg or sperm)

I would also like to use this post as an opportunity to ask all of you your opinion on my 'car building' analogy. I thought it stated my opinion well, but I would like to know what you think.

[Prometheus]

I really don't think that most people would characterize having sex as work.

What about prostitutes? rofl kidding that was irrelevant. You're the one that said, "Do you think that men and women have equal positions with regard to reproduction? I find it incredible if you think they do, or do you think that two people that do a job, one doing 100% of the work, and the other one only having fun, deserve equal pay for the job?" This is the statement that made me think you were talking about wages. I know that by work you meant the reproductive process(Not sex. The female process which follows and leads to birth.). Your meaning just wasn't very clear.

Clearly you don't grasp the implication of what you are saying. If the man wants the woman to abort, because he does not want to have the baby, and if she does not comply then he is freed of legal implications is a form of coercion for her to abort. It is terrible enough to think that some men would even attempt to coerce their girl-friends to do such a thing, but you are suggesting instilling the legal system with this.

I grasp it perfectly however you make a semi-valid point. I counter it thusly, if either gender has moral issues with abortion they should not participate in premarital sex(Except in cases where two people decide for some reason they want a child out of wedlock. Not trying to help the theists out here or anything.). It definately isn't any more fair to force the unwilling male to abide by the females decision.

Unlike you I wasn't actually attempting to insult you, I assumed that you thought I were an atheist -- that would seem the default to assume without looking, in a place like this.

Nevertheless, I caught you in a hypocritical statement. It's clear that you didn't read my world view either.

Then you're blind. Several times was it suggested that men get a say in whether women go through with having a child or not -- what do you think it means for men to get a say?

I think it means that if the male made it clear at the time of conception that he did not intend to impregnate the female, should contraceptives fail he should not be legally responsible for any resulting offspring she chooses not to abort. I'd be all for the male paying any medical bills for said operation(Considering the physical and emotional toll this would take on the female.).

This is how the situation should be handled in my opinion. When my fiance and I started dating we each agreed before any physical involvement occurred that we would terminate any unwanted pregnancy. Contraceptives were and are being used and I have no reason whatsoever to distrust her. What concernes me about this topic again is that the law itself offers me no protection should she go against my wishes at any time and decide she wants a child(Not worried about this the least bit. Its just hypothetical.). The law is clearly skewed in favor of women on this issue(Not to mention how divorce would be handled. I've seen many one sided cases of this.).

This really doesn't seem to be going anywhere hetsumei. I believe I've clearly stated my take on this situation and I believe I understand yours. Should you need anything further clarified please let me know.

[VanReal]

No, the person going out late at night was willing participant right up until they got mugged.

The smoking anology does not quite work, becuase not smoking is the only way not to get ( or avoid the increased risk of ) lung cancer. There are lots of ways to avoid getting pregnant/child rearing. Just like there are lots of ways to avoid getting mugged, one of which was not going out, but another, and more final was the mugger not mugging you. The ciggarette does not have a choice in giving you cancer.

Smoking inevitably leads to cancer ( after long enough anyway ), there is no way around that other than not smoking.

Going out late at night does not inevitably lead to getting mugged, it requires the participation of the mugger to mug you
Having sex does not inevitably lead to children, it requires the choices made by the woman to give birth to and keep the kid ( and subsequently squeeze the dad for child support ). The mugger and the woman both have the final say here, with smoking the final say was with the person who decided to start smoking, this is where the difference lies.

Hence, your anology about smoking is not perfect, or applicable in this situation.

No, your analogies aren't working because the person getting mugged did not have any consensual participation in the act of getting mugged.  They were out at night for whatever reason, it has nothing to do with someone else committing an act against them that they did not consent to.  The smoker makes a choice to smoke, like the man makes a choice to have sex, smoking can lead to cancer, having sex can lead to a pregnancy.  The person being mugged did not agree to meet the mugger and be mugged and then after say "wait I don't want you to actually take my things".  There was no consent in the mugging.  It just doesn't work.  What you are describing in that analogy is a man being raped and then being responsible for the pregnancy.  That is not what's happening although it obviously feels like it to you and some of the other's.

(Also smoking does not always lead to cancer, many people smoke and never develop cancer.  It's a great risk but it's not an absolute.)

Edit Van, I find a lot of things in your post a little disturbing.

You seem to think that when a man makes a mistake, has sex and then gets screwed over it, that is unfair and bothersome, as you put it. You seem to justify this by saying he should have known the potential backlash. This attitude is totally wrong and could be used to justify any heinious act.

Lets say a nice young lady goes out, gets drunk and ends up getting raped. Why cant we justify this through saying "well, she knew what she was getting herself in when she went out and got drunk". I'll tell you. Becuase it was the people that raped her who were ultimatley responsible, for the rape, not her. Just like in the end, it is women who are ultimatley responsible for all children.

That's funny that we are describing the decision to continue with a pregnancy as a heinious act now.  Let's not get dramatic about it and compare the simple act (and decision) of consensual sex to something heinious.  Let's not forget where the situation starts to begin with, not from some underhanded and devious plot to take over the world, it's good old fashioned sex.

Again, the woman that goes out to get drunk is consenting to getting drunk not being raped.  Now if she goes out and gets drunk and then the next day blames the bartender for her hangover because her consent to being served drinks by him lead to her being hungover, that would be an analogy that works.  You are using things that aren't related to the actual consensual act.

Point A - Woman has many drinks Point B - woman becomes drunk Point C - Person takes advantage and rapes her

Point A - Sex is had to Point B - woman becomes pregnant

There is no ominous or outside force causing the connection between point A and point B, they are directly related.  You are adding additional points, when they are actually not a cause to the problem.  What occurs after is beside the point B, what created the issue was a known possibility what happens after can't be based on what a person wants or intended.  And it's hardly appopriate to compare a person being raped because of a bad decision to a person being held responsible for taking care of a baby for making a bad decision.  That's definitely the slippery slope rearing it's ugly head.

And again, why are we assuming every woman that gets pregnant is doing so out of trickery?  And why do you assume that the woman is not also responsible and also paying financially for the mistake?  

"Because it's her decision to have the baby" is the response to that I am sure.  

It is so obvious in this objection that it is strictly an issue because the man is not allowed an equal decision in whether or not the baby is born.  If that were biologically possible it would certainly be the case, but since we don't lay eggs and then have the man make the decision of fertilizing them this is not a legal possibility.  If it could happen outside of the human body where it doesn't skew the decision making authority this would be simple, but it doesn't.  And it certainly is not fair to let men walk away from their responsibility simply because they decide they don't want it and feel it's unfair to not be able to make the decision.

It's an unfair burden that men have to be selective on who they decide to have sex with as there could be life-long consequences to choosing the wrong one.  It's also an unfair burden that I have to deal with five days of bleeing every month and growing unattractive as I get older while men become more distinguished.  Biology is a funny thing, it is not fair.  If only we could have all been like the Sea Horse everything would be right in the world.  (Or we would have women running around complaining about men using their womb to trap us all.)

Two friends get together and decide to build a car. It will cost $30,000 so they both put in $15,000. So far they are eqaul. Now only 1 friend knows how to build a car, has the tools to build a car and the garage to build it in, so the other unequiped friend stays out of the way and watches while the car is built. Finally the car is done and what a beaut she is. Now the friend who built the car decides that hes going to sell it and keep all the money for himself (kinda reversed of child support but you get the idea). He did all the work, it was built in his garage, with his tools, so he believes the decision should be his alone and so should the profit. Now what if the judge agreed with the builder and awaded all profits to him? How very wrong of the judge to make that decision, they should both have some say or or a split.

Now if the car car were a baby and the sale and profit were child support and who should pay it, a judge decides that the enequipped partner has no say what so ever. Wow what a great decision the judge made, only partner who "built" the baby in her womb/garage should have a say.

I don't know about you but I can't find one fair and the other unfair with out thinking myself a hypocrite.

You are right, this would be completely unfair.  But, the builder of the car has certainly contributed more to the investment such as the use of his equipment, time, labor, and knowledge.  So, it would only be fair that that person share in more of the profit as his contribution was more than half.  The other investor should not be discounted, as they did contribute the $15,000 which would allow for him to share in whatever percentage of the profit his investment actually is equivelent to.  Regardless of any initial verbal agreement or expectations once he contributed his share and then the other person continued to contribute to the investment the contributing partner would only be eligible for his percentage of equity.  

This is actually a good analogy barring that the investor gets no share in the profit as that would not be fair at all unless he was willing to waive any share in it.  Because the builder (the woman) actually does contribute more to the project (child) he decided to take on, the investor (man, who was initially in agreement of the partnership) only has to accept a percentage of his profit from the builder (most states require 20% of disposable income) while the builder has to house, clothe, provide day care, education, discipline, food, money and a tremendous amount of time and emotional support while the investor can sit back and simply receive his lessened profit.  (I slipped from the car building in that part because I don't know anything about it so am unsure how to compare.)  

They were both initially in agreement on how the partnership was going to work.  After the inital joining of funds the situation changed due to one partner not being able to contribute to a part of that partnership, that was unforeseen or not considered, in the initial partnering.  The situation has changed to the partnership needs to be adjusted accordingly.  Hopefully they can still be civil and amiable for the sake of the car, after all they are releasing the car into the world and it's important that it be properly built so as not to cause any damage in the future.  I like it Tanker!!

[BadPoison]

At lease work with an example where the person was involved in the act that caused the problem.  The perfect example was already given: I choose to smoke, I know that smoking cases cancer, I smoke anyway, low and behold I get cancer, I sue the cigarette company because it's not fair that I got cancer from my own well informed decision to smoke.  It's not fair, the cigarette company made me addicted, it was their decision to add nicotene...unfortunately I'm the one with cancer and I have to deal with it and am ultimately responsible for lighting that yummy white stick of goodness 30 times a day.

Okay!
1. I smoke a cigarette.
2. Cigarettes may and do cause my cancer.
3. Tobacco companies have the sole ability to cure cancer (to improve the analogy)
4. I ask cigarette company to cure my cancer.
5. Their response "Nope! Sorry, you knew you could get cancer by smoking cigarettes."

But in this case, the cigarette company has the sole decision whether or not I have cancer. They could easily cure my cancer if they wanted, but they don't. Now I have to live with my "consequences" for my action, even though the manufacturer could cure my ailment.

And then, soneone would say "Shouldn't have smoked cigarettes in the first place. Even though you know there's a cure for cancer if you get it, the cigarette company might not give you it!"

[VanReal]

At lease work with an example where the person was involved in the act that caused the problem.  The perfect example was already given: I choose to smoke, I know that smoking cases cancer, I smoke anyway, low and behold I get cancer, I sue the cigarette company because it's not fair that I got cancer from my own well informed decision to smoke.  It's not fair, the cigarette company made me addicted, it was their decision to add nicotene...unfortunately I'm the one with cancer and I have to deal with it and am ultimately responsible for lighting that yummy white stick of goodness 30 times a day.

Okay!
1. I smoke a cigarette.
2. Cigarettes may and do cause my cancer.
3. Tobacco companies have the sole ability to cure cancer (to improve the analogy)
4. I ask cigarette company to cure my cancer.
5. Their response "Nope! Sorry, you knew you could get cancer by smoking cigarettes."

But in this case, the cigarette company has the sole decision whether or not I have cancer. They could easily cure my cancer if they wanted, but they don't. Now I have to live with my "consequences" for my action, even though the manufacturer could cure my ailment.

And then, soneone would say "Shouldn't have smoked cigarettes in the first place. Even though you know there's a cure for cancer if you get it, the cigarette company might not give you it!"

I like the elaboration, and that would really suck.  Although there would be no reason for the cigarette company to do that.

I understand it's the "after" that is causing the problem, but I will never agree that it's okay for grown adults to shirk responsibility for consequences that are a //direct%20result%20of%20their%20actionsor their actions in concert with another person.  I am not talking about things that happen to a person, like being a victim of crime, because that is not what is happening with this topic.  

Having to care for a child, having an abortion, having to put a baby up for adoption, or having to pay child support for a child you did not want is a direct result of your behavior.  This is not something that just happened to you without your knowledge or consent.  Seriously, the best way to avoid this then is to have sex with women that aren't given your real name, that don't know where you live or work or any of your family or aquaintences and then when she pops up pregnant (only to her own fault) and wants to keep it (that bitch) she will have no way to come after you for child support and you can go on your merry way believing that it's the fair thing because you would have chosen an abortion.  (I am not saying "you" towards any particular person, "you" in this statement equals any man that believes it's only fair to let the decision making woman wallow in her own misery without his help because she gets to make the decision and not him.)

Chivalry is definitely dead.

I am absolutely so glad that I have my tubes tied.

I think I'll go home and smack my son just in case any of these thoughts are in his head.  

Seriously though each person feels how they feel and that is perfectly fine, and good otherwise it would be boring.  We aren't going to agree on everything, and there are many, many men that feel this way.  It's sad that people are choosing to partner up with people that they can't work out serious issues with, and maybe there's a lot to be said for being careful where you lay your head.  Honestly getting pregnant is the least of my worries this day an age, I would think with some people's behavior it would almost be a relief in comparison to other potential options. Not every woman needs or even wants a man to take care of her, heck that's barely a possibility these days, we do fine by ourselves but it would always be nice to have help.  Pretty sad that such a basic thing could seem like such a violation just because of a few bad apples and turn men around on their head's to where they revolt simply because they aren't the head cheese.

I am going to agree to disagree and go back to being polly-anna about this topic.

[BadPoison]

At lease work with an example where the person was involved in the act that caused the problem.  The perfect example was already given: I choose to smoke, I know that smoking cases cancer, I smoke anyway, low and behold I get cancer, I sue the cigarette company because it's not fair that I got cancer from my own well informed decision to smoke.  It's not fair, the cigarette company made me addicted, it was their decision to add nicotene...unfortunately I'm the one with cancer and I have to deal with it and am ultimately responsible for lighting that yummy white stick of goodness 30 times a day.

Okay!
1. I smoke a cigarette.
2. Cigarettes may and do cause my cancer.
3. Tobacco companies have the sole ability to cure cancer (to improve the analogy)
4. I ask cigarette company to cure my cancer.
5. Their response "Nope! Sorry, you knew you could get cancer by smoking cigarettes."

But in this case, the cigarette company has the sole decision whether or not I have cancer. They could easily cure my cancer if they wanted, but they don't. Now I have to live with my "consequences" for my action, even though the manufacturer could cure my ailment.

And then, soneone would say "Shouldn't have smoked cigarettes in the first place. Even though you know there's a cure for cancer if you get it, the cigarette company might not give you it!"

I like the elaboration, and that would really suck.  Although there would be no reason for the cigarette company to do that.

I understand it's the "after" that is causing the problem, but I will never agree that it's okay for grown adults to shirk responsibility for consequences that are a //direct%20result%20of%20their%20actionsor their actions in concert with another person.  I am not talking about things that happen to a person, like being a victim of crime, because that is not what is happening with this topic.  

Having to care for a child, having an abortion, having to put a baby up for adoption, or having to pay child support for a child you did not want is a direct result of your behavior.  This is not something that just happened to you without your knowledge or consent.  Seriously, the best way to avoid this then is to have sex with women that aren't given your real name, that don't know where you live or work or any of your family or aquaintences and then when she pops up pregnant (only to her own fault) and wants to keep it (that bitch) she will have no way to come after you for child support and you can go on your merry way believing that it's the fair thing because you would have chosen an abortion.  (I am not saying "you" towards any particular person, "you" in this statement equals any man that believes it's only fair to let the decision making woman wallow in her own misery without his help because she gets to make the decision and not him.)

Chivalry is definitely dead.

I am absolutely so glad that I have my tubes tied.

I think I'll go home and smack my son just in case any of these thoughts are in his head.  

Seriously though each person feels how they feel and that is perfectly fine, and good otherwise it would be boring.  We aren't going to agree on everything, and there are many, many men that feel this way.  It's sad that people are choosing to partner up with people that they can't work out serious issues with, and maybe there's a lot to be said for being careful where you lay your head.  Honestly getting pregnant is the least of my worries this day an age, I would think with some people's behavior it would almost be a relief in comparison to other potential options. Not every woman needs or even wants a man to take care of her, heck that's barely a possibility these days, we do fine by ourselves but it would always be nice to have help.  Pretty sad that such a basic thing could seem like such a violation just because of a few bad apples and turn men around on their head's to where they revolt simply because they aren't the head cheese.

I am going to agree to disagree and go back to being polly-anna about this topic.

I can agree to disagree. It's too bad though that this has turned out to be like so many other polarizing issues where each side is basically unable to compromise their views because of their own values. I do appreciate you being so articulate in explaining your view on this matter, and I hope that I (and anyone else) can take away from this discussion some insight as to the "why" behind reasoning of another's views, and not just the view. I do feel that these sorts of discussions positively allow us to at least understand each other better, even if we don't necessarily agree on each detail.

I guess I just wanted to thank you for your passionate participation in the discussion.

-BP

[VanReal]

Thanks, and the same to you and all of our other great participants.  It's never fun debating or talking to myself, it never gets very far  

[Tanker]

Thanks, and the same to you and all of our other great participants.  It's never fun debating or talking to myself, it never gets very far  

Poor girl, you only have one voice in your head. Really you don't know what your missing. lol

[MattParsons]

Sorry, I have to open this one up again:

That used to be exactly what happened, so we had back alley abortions and eventually Rowe vs Wade. I just can't wrap my head around why you guys think that because a man can't ultimately make the choice he is not responsible? He had sex, he knew the risk, he knew there was a possibility he'd be held responsible if she were to get pregnant and decided to keep it. Because he can't have the abortion or make the final decision she should be on her own?

Let's assume two people: Man and woman.  They have sex.  There are four ultimate possibilities:
1) The woman is not pregnant.
2) The woman is pregnant and both parents want the baby.
3) The woman is pregnant, and the father wants the baby, while the mother doesn't.
4) The woman is pregnant, and the mother wants the baby, while the father doesn't.

In the first two options, there is no conflict.  In the third, the woman has the ability ( through abortion ) to absolve herself of responsibility of the pregnancy.  Regardless of the fathers wishes.  Since women do 99.9% of the work in creating a child, that is only right.

But what you appear to argue, is that in the fourth case, where the father does not want the baby, he does not have the ability to absolve himself of the responsibility, solely because he is a male and he can't terminate the pregnancy himself.  The same arguments you use can, with little effort, be reworded to strikingly resemble anti-choice rhetoric.  Observe:

I just can't wrap my head around why you guys think that because a woman can ultimately make the choice she is not responsible? She had sex, she knew the risk, she knew there was a possibility she'd be held responsible if she were to get pregnant. Because she can have the abortion and make the final decision she shouldn't be responsible for the baby?

I'm sure you've heard similar things.  A woman can avoid the responsibility of pregnancy, why can't a man?

In a world where abortion is impossible and illegal, I completely agree that pregnancy should be the responsibility of both parents.  In a world where it is legal and available, a more gender neutral and balanced solution is only reasonable and fair.

[Tanker]

Matt by general assent we decided to let this thread die as we were getting nowhere. Unless you can add something new I would recomed just letting it quitetly dieing again. While all views are welcome we all realised that we just kept rehashing the same arguments over and over (much like discussions about god) so we let it drift away and everyone pretty much just agreed we woulden't agree and let it go.

[Will]

A woman can avoid the responsibility of pregnancy, why can't a man?

You're acting as if there's a level playing field on the issue. There's not.

I'm all about equality, I think that generally people should be treated with respect and allowed to have what's considered to be human rights. The truth, however, is that there are differences between men and women. Men and women do not coincubate. Men fertilize and women incubate. Because of that, men have complete control over the fertilization process (in order words, a man cannot be forces to fertilize), and women have complete control over the incubation process.

Imagine someone arguing that a woman should have an equal stake in fertilization, even if a man doesn't want to conceive. Doesn't that sound silly?

[MattParsons]

You're acting as if there's a level playing field on the issue. There's not.

I'm all about equality, I think that generally people should be treated with respect and allowed to have what's considered to be human rights. The truth, however, is that there are differences between men and women. Men and women do not coincubate. Men fertilize and women incubate. Because of that, men have complete control over the fertilization process (in order words, a man cannot be forces to fertilize), and women have complete control over the incubation process.

Imagine someone arguing that a woman should have an equal stake in fertilization, even if a man doesn't want to conceive. Doesn't that sound silly?

It does sound silly.  Likewise, I think it'd be just as absurd if a man wanted equal stake in incubation, even if the woman doesn't want to give birth.   Which is exactly why I think its silly that the woman can choose to either accept or decline the responsibility, while the man can't.  The man shouldn't be able to force the woman, and the woman shouldn't be able to force the man.

[SSY]

I agree, a man can't force a woman to incubate, and a woman cant force a man to fertilize, but a woman CAN force a man to hand over a significant portion of his salary.

And will, there will always be a disparity here, due to biology, but I still think the solution i presented is MUCH more fair than the current system, do you think the current system is more fair?