Happy Atheist Forum

This is something I have been mulling over for a while now, and would appreciate the input of others.

Reproductive law, as I see it, is grossly unfair to fathers.

Roe Vs Wade, established the right of women to have sex, and not have children, even in the event of an unforeseen, unintended or otherwise unwanted pregnancy. Through either abortion or adoption, women have the right to escape motherhood, at pretty much anytime they feel like it, for whatever reason. From my tone, it may sound like I am against this, I am not. I believe it would be heinous to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, or to force her to support a baby she does not want.

If we contrast this with the position of males, we see a very different situation. Once a man has blown his load, it’s over. He is entirely out of the picture, and powerless to made decisions regarding the future of his ( would be ) children and his involvement with them. Should the mother decide she wants to keep the babies, the man will be forced to pay child support, whether or not he wants to be involved with the family. A woman can opt out of a situation like this by having an abortion or by giving the child up to adoption.  The man is given no choice in the matter after sex.

The two positions are completely different. A woman can have sex, with no risk of unintended families popping up should she not want them. A man has to take his life in his hands should he want to risk a bit of rumpy pumpy with he opposing sex. I do not believe the last sentence was an exaggeration, being forced to turn over a large percentage of your income for the next 20 odd years of your life against your will can be devastating for many men and their ( other, or new ) families.

Men seem to be shouldered with a solid 50% of the responsibility for children, when they have no choice in deciding the outcome or their involvement with the pregnancy.

This case is highlighted in the recent Dubay Vs Wells case, though there the issue is even worse for the poor chap involved. Matt Dubay was misled by his girlfriend, Lauren Wells, that she was a) sterile and b) taking contraception ( those two facts, when taken together would have rung alarm bells for me, but anyway ). After their breakup, he was informed she was pregnant and he was being pursued for child support payment. Even if he had not thought his girlfriend was sterile, I would support his choice to not be forced into fatherhood, but the additional circumstances make it even worse.

I am still waiting for a case where the woman has baby, puts it up for adoption, but instead the baby is given to the father, and he pursues her for child support. I do not hold my breath, mainly because in less than 50 of cases where children are taken from the mother, are fathers even asked if they want to provide care for the child, but that’s a whole other issue.

I believe this case also has implications regarding paternity fraud and contraception fraud, though again, they stray outside the realms of this specific discussion. More informative information can be found out by researching "male abortion", basically something that gives men the option to not be involved in families.

I would appreciate all your comments about this, what you think is right, wrong and necessary about current reproductive laws. Most of this stuff is Stateside, though UK law is not that far off with regards to the fundamentals as far as I know.

P.S. sorry it turned into a bit of an epic.

Hey SSY,

Actually, I know where you're coming from.

Some friends and I were just discussing this over dinner last weekend.

In a utopian world, if we were able to raise the embryo to a viable, fully-formed baby outside of the womb, there would be more choices.  Or if the father could carry the child to term.  With these choices, the playing field becomes more even, and men's rights could be on a more equal footing.

But that's not where we are at.  At present, the mother must carry the baby to term.  And that isn't fair to the woman if she doesn't want it.  Conversely, it isn't fair that a man cannot choose to abort if he doesn't want to support the child, whereas women have this choice.  Maybe there isn't a fair solution as it stands.

As for child support, that's got inequities as well.  I think these could be more easily addressed.  The problem seems to be a biased view towards mothers vs. fathers.

Politically, it's a bear trap, and nobody want's to take on the issue... they would ruin their re-election chances and public image.

Who said life's fair?
JoeActor

I think there are more issues than that, which further entrench the current mindset and practice.

Chief among them is the state. If the dad is not going to financially support kids, then the state will most probably have to pick up the slack. This means higher taxes and hence lower chances of re-election, which is of course, the main thing any government is concerned about.

Further to this, there is the general perception in society of deadbeat dads. A woman who decides to not be a mother can give any number of reasons. Such as focussing on a career, not liking the particular man she fell pregnant by, and not wishing him to father her kids, not being ready to look after kids yeat, or not being able to provide them with the security they deserve. When a woman makes this choice, and cites one of the reasons above, she is more often than not seen as independant, strong, liberated.

A man making the choice ( not that he can, legally ) is seen as a dead beat, irresponsible, selfish, commitophobic or perhaps even worse, as needing to grow up.

QuoteBut that's not where we are at. At present, the mother must carry the baby to term. And that isn't fair to the woman if she doesn't want it. Conversely, it isn't fair that a man cannot choose to abort if he doesn't want to support the child, whereas women have this choice. Maybe there isn't a fair solution as it stands.

The situation you describe is the one I offer a solution to, the woman is not forced to carry unwanted babies to term, and the man is not forced to pay for them, this to me seems like the fairest possible solution, though I agree, given the complimentry, rather than identical anatomies of men and women, some compromise is always going to be needed ( note, in the solution above, the man is still arguably worse off, as the he still has no say over whether the child is born, only his later involvment with it, shout it get that far ).

QuoteAs for child support, that's got inequities as well. I think these could be more easily addressed. The problem seems to be a biased view towards mothers vs. fathers.

Agreed, but as I said above, the state has an interest in maintaining the unfair status quo.

I beleive we should strive hard to eliminate unfairness of this sort in society. Being denied rights simply becuase of the way you were born is repehensible in my eyes, when they are enshrined in law like this, it makes the situation seem horribly grim.

I agree, on a point or two, regarding the lack of father's rights and how the system favors women, but have to say that a lot of that has to do with the fact that so many fathers over the past two decades or more have been absent, unsupportive, and pretty much worth little other than a pitiful excuse for a child support payment .  It is one of those "the bad apples ruin it for all of the others" deals and the ones that actually are stand-up and want to do the right thing get shit on.

On the adoption front I have to say that it is not that easy to just "give your baby up for adoption" without the father's consent or lack of responding.  Because of cases where the father was unaware of a baby even existing, finding out, and then ruining an adoption that had already been placed in the home adoption agencies are very careful about what they are doing there.  I know many people who have adopted both through the state agencies and through private adoptions and the fathers and/or husbands are in on it.  I also know several people who have given up their children for adoption and who have had their spouses adopt their children and all have had to jump through numerous hoops to include the biological father.  If there is a case where the woman doesn't know who the father is every effort is taken to locate the "responsible" individual in order to obtain signature including taking out newspaper and online ads with details of the encounter that run for months at cost and trying to locate the person through any information available.  (Sometimes this is rather difficult especially for those one night or otherwise brief encounters.)  Also, my son is a product of rape and when I tried placing him for adoption we had to send a letter to the biological father, he stopped the adoption but did not have to do anything to help afterwards.  So I know this argument is not a good one.  And yes, when the father gets custody the woman pays child support, my sister has for years and I have several woman at work that I payroll deduct for child support.

So, we come to the woman choosing to have the baby and then seeking and receiving child support.  Yes, I can see how this would chap the ass of the man that was careless or "duped" as in the current case, but unfortunately he had the opportunity to keep this from happening, he knows that this kind of thing does happen and I don't have any sympathy for them for being required to pay support.  If he wants to be involved he should at the same time include visitation and legal rights and involvement in the child's life.  That rarely happens though, they just bitch about paying support and then having nothing to do with the kids.  Maybe it's not fair, and he doesn't get to have a say on whether the child is born or not but he is aware of what could happen and is responsible for he drops his seedlings.  

Money is important but in the long run it's not important when it comes to the fact that two adults got together for hanky panky, now there is a baby, and two people are responsible for that.  The time to complain is when the woman takes his semen from him unwillingly.  When that happens I think he should be absolved. (That would be forced fatherhood.) Otherwise he needs to buck up and pay the piper, and be a father because that is important and we are seriously lacking in those.  My son is not warped or damaged because of the years we were poor, the months we lived in my car, or the fact that he got his very first brand new pair of shoes when he was nine, but he does have some minor issues from me having to teach him how to shave, how not to pee on the seat, and how to close the door and use lotion to keep from causing irrepairable harm to his dinga-ling.  I would have loved to have had the money and the means when he was younger, but more so I would have loved to have had help with things I know nothing about and for him to have had someone to talk to that wouldn't completely freak out about boy stuff.

I hear it daily and am so tired of hearing men complain about having their check garnished or having to write their monthly check, maybe they should have considered that torture before being loosy-goosy with their goody sack.

Now, if you want to talk about how good fathers that want to spend time with their kids and help raise them to be good adults get treated like crap by the system and by the baby mommas I am all for that because that does happen.  Or how women turn their kids against the fathers for no reason other than him not wanting to be with her.  And so on, because women are mean, spiteful, trashy, and stupid too.

Or maybe I am just bitter.  

Quote from: "SSY"Chief among them is the state. If the dad is not going to financially support kids, then the state will most probably have to pick up the slack. This means higher taxes and hence lower chances of re-election, which is of course, the main thing any government is concerned about.

Um yes, this comes from taxes, so in other words it comes from people that pay those taxes.  Why should other people be responsible for taking care of another man's mistakes?  It's bad enough we pay for people to eat and sleep for committing crimes, and pay for lazy people that don't want to work, but we need to pay for people that made whoopy?  

There are a lot of other things this money could go towards, like taking care of people who really need it like the mentally ill and the medically disabled, for example.

Van

With respect, I think the position you hold is typical of many women, who are unsympathetic to the unfairness imposed on men, and as they stand to gain from it, really dont give a damn about changing it either.

In order.

Some fathers are shit, yes, agreed, but why should that mean poor Mr Dubay has to shoulder a massive financial burden? ( over $100,000, but probaly more as his payment will be increased as his wage is )

While I have never gievn up or accepted an adoption baby, i have to contend a few points you make about adoption. So called "safe haven laws" are enactwed in every state, "Safe Haven law, also known in some states as Baby Moses law, is the popular name for United States laws that decriminalize leaving unharmed infants with statutorily designated private persons so that the child becomes a ward of the state. "Safe Haven" laws typically let parents remain nameless to the court"

Easy as pie in that particular case. But regarding adoption in general, the mother is never faced with a situation wherby she goes upto the state, says " I want to get rid of my baby" and the state say "NO" or "Ok, but we are going to bleed you dry with child support payments". She has a way of absolving herself of responsibility that the man does not, this is my main point of contention.

My point about fathers not being sufficently involved in the adoption process was ancillary, though I still feel relavent to the general attitude towards fathers given by the law. It was based on a survey that found child support workers fail to contact the father in 56% of cases after the child is taken from the mother. I can have a go at finding this again if you want me to. i beleive the point stands in even in lieu of this survey, that women have a way of avoiding motherhood after pregnancy when men do not.

In the specific cases you mention, did the women paying child support specefically put the kid up for adoption, throug the state, or was the custody awarded in the more normal manner? I was only referencing the former, as i beleive it parallels the male position rather well.

The position you take in your next paragraph should be surprising to me, based on the heartlessness of it, though I have become anured to this attitude through countless recitations of it. You say the man should not have had sex if he did not want to be burdened with the support of a child. If you think this, then you should also be against abortion or adoption. I can already see you saying abortion is a special case, it concerns a womans bodily rights, but this still leaves adoption. She had sex, therfore, excluding the case of an abortion, she should be forced o support the child. This is not the case, nor would you argue it should be ( i'm guessing ).If she did not want to be forced into supporting a child, she should not have had sex in the first place. Why is it woemn get a choice after conception and birth, but men do not? Your position shows a clear sexism against men.

Raping men and forcing them to pay child support is so wrong, so obviously wrong, I offer it no further consideration. You go on to imply there are a multitude of crap fathers out there. I agree, there are, along with many, many crap mothers. How is garnishing the check of an absent, unwilling father going to solve the problem of rubbish fathers?

I'm so sick of generally misandrists acting like many men are incapable of being good fathers and that men should be expected to endure a horribly unfair regime.

With repect, I think you should seriously reconsider your position and the unbridled misandry in it. I am not surprised by this, as men seem to be the de jour target of modern society, but I admit, i was hoping for a more reasoned and balanced oppinion from you.

You also do not mention which parts of my post you agree with, I would be interested to know.

With regards to your last bit. The same could be said about foster homes and orphanages. Why the hell should I have to pay for people that give their kids up for adoption? Those parents are free from responsibility to provide, why only them?

Ah, the dead-beet dad, society's forgotten hero.  

What you describe is largely, and remains a remnant of an evolving system, and is unlikely to remain the way that it is. As both men and women become closer and closer to equality of autonomy, and as abortion becomes more, and more of an accepted practice, and not a moral dilemma, the father having no say seems less and less fair.

I would not support changing the system at this time, as there is still a heavy amount of emotional pressure on young women to not abort, and many are even denied this possibility by their religious beliefs, or from fear of repercussions from their family. Women also on average lack the autonomy men posses. There are increasingly more situations where it would appear unfair that the system is how it is, but the system is a blunt instrument, and can give no exceptions.

When it becomes as easy for a woman to abort, or support a child as it would be for a man to say "goodbye, not my problem", and stop calling, or meet the child's financial needs is when it will become fair to allow a man to take no responsibility if he should decide that he doesn't want a child early enough in the pregnancy -- this isn't sarcasm either, I do think such a time will come -- then I think that the law needs to be changed to allow a man to claim no responsibility, but not before.

Quote from: "SSY"Van

With respect, I think the position you hold is typical of many women, who are unsympathetic to the unfairness imposed on men, and as they stand to gain from it, really dont give a damn about changing it either.

Ah, but let me guess, your gender in no way tends to bias you to one side, that kind of thing only happens to us emotional, and irrational women.

I disagree.

A woman can easily get an abortion, a previous girlfriend of mine took the morning after pill a scant 3 hours after a somewhat terrifying accident ocurred. No question asked, we phoned a family plnning clinic, got some directions and hopped on a bus. More serious procedures can be booked with a 3 day lead time.

If a woman's family prevent her from having an abortion, I would say that is more an argument for freeing her from the clutches of a controlling household, rather than pressganging a male for the next 20 years of his life. As for religious beliefs, the point is, the abortion is available, they are not prevented from doing it, they choose not to do it. Even if we were to indulge this, they can still give a baby up for adoption.

I would like some backup to your statement about women lacking autonomy, as far as I can see, a woman is just as free as a man in todays society ( more so in some cases ).

Your last paragraph makes very little sense to me. You say that is easier for a man to naff off than it is for a woman to get an abortion, I agree, this is indeed the case. But I fail to see how this translates into an argument for placing men at a massive disadvantage to women with regards to reproductive rights. If an abortion was a massive, dangerous, serious medical procedure, I might agree. As it is, I think the experience of having an abortion pales in comparison to the injustices men face.

To clarify, under my proposed system.

Both want a kid, great go for it.
Both dont want a kid, fine, dont go for it.
Man wants, women doesn't, tough luck buddy, you cant have your baby.
Woman wants, man does not, fine, but dont expect the man to pay for your choices.

The fact of the matter is, women can control their involvment with a pregnancy and subsequent upbringing of a child, men cannot, this is unfair on men.

As to your last point. Yes, being a man has made more aware and more receptive to concerns about the issues men face. No where did I state women were more irrational or emotional, but it's nice you can have such a vivid imagination.

Quote from: "SSY"I disagree.

A woman can easily get an abortion, a previous girlfriend of mine took the morning after pill a scant 3 hours after a somewhat terrifying accident ocurred. No question asked, we phoned a family plnning clinic, got some directions and hopped on a bus. More serious procedures can be booked with a 3 day lead time.

If you notice, I did not say that it was mechanically difficult, I said that for many it is morally and socially difficult. This is different, and I think clearly undeniable.  

QuoteIf a woman's family prevent her from having an abortion, I would say that is more an argument for freeing her from the clutches of a controlling household, rather than pressganging a male for the next 20 years of his life. As for religious beliefs, the point is, the abortion is available, they are not prevented from doing it, they choose not to do it.

Your disagreement with their moral stance, and your lack of compassion for their social situation is not a legal argument.

QuoteEven if we were to indulge this, they can still give a baby up for adoption.

Not without the father's consent -- and then this becomes a problem for the state, which is just an attempt to hand the problem off to others, that actually had absolutely nothing to do with it; oh Czar of what is fair -- so the idea that the woman have this option to her that the father has no say in is false. Similarly a woman can allow a man to not have to take responsibility for the child by freeing them of the legal responsibility.

QuoteI would like some backup to your statement about women lacking autonomy, as far as I can see, a woman is just as free as a man in todays society ( more so in some cases ).

Women tend to earn less money for the same jobs, and even those women have recently surpassed men in educational achievements in several fields, they still do not land the highest positions in those fields, which grant greater levels of autonomy. Here (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1847194,00.html) is an article about the difference, and here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13088955/) is an article about the educational achievements.

QuoteYour last paragraph makes very little sense to me. You say that is easier for a man to naff off than it is for a woman to get an abortion, I agree, this is indeed the case. But I fail to see how this translates into an argument for placing men at a massive disadvantage to women with regards to reproductive rights.

They don't have equal positions with regard to reproductive rights, because they don't hold equal positions with regard to reproduction.

QuoteIf an abortion was a massive, dangerous, serious medical procedure, I might agree. As it is, I think the experience of having an abortion pales in comparison to the injustices men face.

Your opinion is noted, but your personal evaluation of what matters most is thankfully not how laws are made. I personally prefer the system of taking everyone's values into consideration.

QuoteTo clarify, under my proposed system.

Both want a kid, great go for it.
Both dont want a kid, fine, dont go for it.
Man wants, women doesn't, tough luck buddy, you cant have your baby.
Woman wants, man does not, fine, but dont expect the man to pay for your choices.

I did not have trouble grasping your position on the issue.

QuoteThe fact of the matter is, women can control their involvment with a pregnancy and subsequent upbringing of a child, men cannot, this is unfair on men.

Men can control it. They can either be extremely careful with their contraception, and opt to take the risk, or not have sex with a fertile female. The evil women can't get babies out of them if they do not freely comply -- women raping men isn't something I hear about very often.

QuoteAs to your last point. Yes, being a man has made more aware and more receptive to concerns about the issues men face. No where did I state women were more irrational or emotional, but it's nice you can have such a vivid imagination.

Then what was the point of your statement unless you didn't think that it was also true of you? That's like a leper pointing out all of the other lepers in the leper colony.

The choice of what to do about pregnancy and the resulting birth should be made before sex has been had, don't you think?  If we're talking about a willing, consentual act, with or without birth control (since all have some rate of failure), fertilization can take place.  Period.  

However, I agree with the issue of a man's right to bear children.  Why should he be on the rope to pay for a child he never intended to create with the woman?  She DOES have the choice of abortion during the pregnancy.  The choice lies completely on her side.  What if the man wants the baby but the woman doesn't?  Too late, it's gone.  Choice forfeited solely because he doesn't have a womb?  Not right.

I have no solutions (as always), but it's a great debate.

Fathers force fatherhood on themselves when they have sex. If you have sex, you are making the decision to put yourself into the role of parent should your prophylactic fail. And if you're not wearing a prophylactic and don't intend to have children, you might be an idiot.

Anyway...

Because men and women are biologically different, there are never going to be woman linebackers on the Raiders and fathers won't have the same parental rights until a baby is born. Is it fair? Probably not, but we have to design laws for the way things are not the way we wish them to be. If some day women are able to have the burden of childbirth replaced by some technological solution, like growing the fetus in an artificial womb, the law might change. For now, a woman has to go through 9 months of pregnancy and then childbirth. Men do not.

Quote from: "SSY"Van

With respect, I think the position you hold is typical of many women, who are unsympathetic to the unfairness imposed on men, and as they stand to gain from it, really dont give a damn about changing it either.

Understood, please let me know when I am going to start gaining from it.  

QuoteSome fathers are shit, yes, agreed, but why should that mean poor Mr Dubay has to shoulder a massive financial burden? ( over $100,000, but probaly more as his payment will be increased as his wage is )

Yep, kids are expensive, and there are limits so the custodial parent is responsible for 20% for one child in most cases.  Just like taxes the more you make the more they take.

QuoteWhile I have never gievn up or accepted an adoption baby, i have to contend a few points you make about adoption. So called "safe haven laws" are enactwed in every state, "Safe Haven law, also known in some states as Baby Moses law, is the popular name for United States laws that decriminalize leaving unharmed infants with statutorily designated private persons so that the child becomes a ward of the state. "Safe Haven" laws typically let parents remain nameless to the court"

These actually happen outside of the court altogether and are established to keep mothers from plopping their babies in dumpsters.  In this case the child becomes a ward of the state and neither parent is held responsible due to the safe haven act, so the father would benefit as well.

QuoteEasy as pie in that particular case. But regarding adoption in general, the mother is never faced with a situation wherby she goes upto the state, says " I want to get rid of my baby" and the state say "NO" or "Ok, but we are going to bleed you dry with child support payments". She has a way of absolving herself of responsibility that the man does not, this is my main point of contention.

Actually this does happen, I have a 17 (almost) year old at home now that is evidence of the fact that if the father says no to adoption you have no choice.  He does not even have to say "No, I want it" all he has to say is "No, I won't agree to it."

QuoteMy point about fathers not being sufficently involved in the adoption process was ancillary, though I still feel relavent to the general attitude towards fathers given by the law. It was based on a survey that found child support workers fail to contact the father in 56% of cases after the child is taken from the mother. I can have a go at finding this again if you want me to. i beleive the point stands in even in lieu of this survey, that women have a way of avoiding motherhood after pregnancy when men do not.

This is interesting and is a problem, I must mention that if things are bad enough to take the kids from their mother (and believe me social services let it get pretty bad) and the father's aren't around it's probably pretty difficult to contact them....where are they?  This is kind of totally different because these are already high risk households and usually begin with an absent father so apparently he's either off the hook already and/or not interested.

QuoteIn the specific cases you mention, did the women paying child support specefically put the kid up for adoption, throug the state, or was the custody awarded in the more normal manner? I was only referencing the former, as i beleive it parallels the male position rather well.

Actually, if the child is adopted neither of the birth parents are responsible for any child support so that's a win-win for both, or truly all four parents.  These were cases where the father was awarded custody through the court and the mother was ordered to pay child support, so it does happen.

QuoteThe position you take in your next paragraph should be surprising to me, based on the heartlessness of it, though I have become anured to this attitude through countless recitations of it. You say the man should not have had sex if he did not want to be burdened with the support of a child. If you think this, then you should also be against abortion or adoption. I can already see you saying abortion is a special case, it concerns a womans bodily rights, but this still leaves adoption. She had sex, therfore, excluding the case of an abortion, she should be forced o support the child. This is not the case, nor would you argue it should be ( i'm guessing ).If she did not want to be forced into supporting a child, she should not have had sex in the first place. Why is it woemn get a choice after conception and birth, but men do not? Your position shows a clear sexism against men.

That is not what I am saying at all and abortion and adoption are always good alternatives to having children you don't want and raising them as such.  I am not saying that the fact that the man doesn't get to make the choice of abortion or require adoption is right, what I am saying is that is the way things are, and men know it, they understand that women get pregnant sometimes, often when least expected, and that they will be responsibile financially for it when she chooses to have it.  So, boo-hoo that he feels it is unfair, it's life and he knew the risks and potential for making a baby.  It's like any other comlaint about things that aren't fair, I am kind of like, "so what".  Now if you are mentally unable to understand that having sex with a women can cause a pregnancy then I would feel bad for them, but other than that I don't.  Both people have to make choices at the time that the "zygote goes nova" and the fact that men's options are limited is a simple fact of biology. If my son made me a grandmother today I would not be thrilled and it would take me a while to absorb that but it would be his problem and his financial responsibility, he knows about condoms and he knows that he produces sperm and he has seen many a baby and pregnant girl, so he is not absolved simply because he would have prefered she have an abortion.

QuoteRaping men and forcing them to pay child support is so wrong, so obviously wrong, I offer it no further consideration.

That was kind of my point, the above would be the only way that a man would be forced into father hood.  Other than that he is a willing participant and therefore responsible for his actions.

QuoteYou go on to imply there are a multitude of crap fathers out there. I agree, there are, along with many, many crap mothers. How is garnishing the check of an absent, unwilling father going to solve the problem of rubbish fathers?  I'm so sick of generally misandrists acting like many men are incapable of being good fathers and that men should be expected to endure a horribly unfair regime. With repect, I think you should seriously reconsider your position and the unbridled misandry in it. I am not surprised by this, as men seem to be the de jour target of modern society, but I admit, i was hoping for a more reasoned and balanced oppinion from you.

No, I actually said that there are a lot of good fathers/men out there that want to do the right thing and they get shit on.  I also said a lot of women are crap as well.  I am not pro-mother or pro-father or anything like that.  And, I know that there are a lot of good men out there, most of them being trampled by women that are pieces of shit.  So believe me I am not saying "men suck" and "women rule".

I am just saying that I don't really think it's wrong to make men responsibile for their children, whether they intended to have them or not.  Much like a person that smokes two packs of cigarettes a day is responsible for his cancer, he knew the risk, one day it happened, now he has to deal with it and the financial and physical burden his actions caused.

QuoteYou also do not mention which parts of my post you agree with, I would be interested to know. With regards to your last bit. The same could be said about foster homes and orphanages. Why the hell should I have to pay for people that give their kids up for adoption? Those parents are free from responsibility to provide, why only them?

I agree that men often get the raw end of the deal when it comes to family court matters. I agree that women are often manipulative and shady in their behavior with men.  But, I also believe men are smart enough to know this and should protect himself rather than claiming he was sucked in by the "I'm sterile" line. I think too many people have kids with the intent to get a pay check and not enough to enjoy the child. I just don't agree with the whining about it.

I need to clarify some things here though that are wrong.  No one else pays for children that are adopted other than the adopting parents.  If you adopt a child that child becomes your's just as if you had given birth to him/her.  You are responsible for all expenses, health care, and college, etc.  Tax payers do not pay for children that are adopted and the biological parents do not pay anything for the child, in essence they are absolved from all responsibility, and rights of course.  So, you should be very pro-adoption since it means that the unwilling father does not have to pay child support or have anything to do with the child he did not want.

QuoteBoth want a kid, great go for it.
Both dont want a kid, fine, dont go for it.
Man wants, women doesn't, tough luck buddy, you cant have your baby.
Woman wants, man does not, fine, but dont expect the man to pay for your choices.

This is pretty much how it is now.  Do you know how difficult it is to get men to pay child support when it's not an ex-husband or documented father?  You make it seem like every father out there is paying child support....hmmm, feel the need for some research.


I'm sorry if you think I am heartless and am not thinking this through or am proclaiming "I am women hear me roar!"  I truly am not, but it just burns me up when people don't take responsibility for their actions, no mater what they are, and this one even more because the person that really gets hurt is the kid that no body really wanted to begin with.

I am a male who thinks males have no right to have any final say in what the woman does with a pregnancy. Very simply because, if a man could tell a woman to abort a pregnancy, millions of people would be outraged. Men can't force abortions or force births.

As I read this thread I was, of course, thinking of reproductive freedom and what it means. I came to the conclusion that while reproductive freedom, within some certian bounds is a good thing, what it really means is female and only female reproductive freedom. It seems like a double standard to me. If a man takes all reasonable precautions or is diliberatly misled I don't think he should have any responsability for a child he did not want and in the case of contraception tried to prevent.

If a man tried to force a woman to have a child he wanted and she didn't there would be a public out cry for his deplorable act "HOW DARE HE impunge on her reproductive freedom", but it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to do it to a man makes little sense.(being that this is an atheist forum I'm not going into the "wifely duties" or other church inspired arguments) If she wants to keep and raise a child against the fathers wishes that great but he should NOT be responsable for that child. On the flip side the man should not have any say in how the child is raised or any contact that the mother does not want.

Quote from: "Tanker"If a man takes all reasonable precautions or is diliberatly misled I don't think he should have any responsability for a child he did not want and in the case of contraception tried to prevent.

And how do you propose this is proven to be the case versus the man that simply sleeps around and doesn't attempt to use protection?  And what about the woman that makes every attempt to not get pregnant but still does?  If she makes the choice to have the baby she is on her own because the man was careful?

QuoteIf a man tried to force a woman to have a child he wanted and she didn't there would be a public out cry for his deplorable act "HOW DARE HE impunge on her reproductive freedom", but it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to do it to a man makes little sense.(being that this is an atheist forum I'm not going into the "wifely duties" or other church inspired arguments) If she wants to keep and raise a child against the fathers wishes that great but he should NOT be responsable for that child. On the flip side the man should not have any say in how the child is raised or any contact that the mother does not want.

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?

I think there is a little confusion and we only seem to be talking about men who were lied to and or trapped and are now being held at gunpoint to pay child support for the next 18 years.  How is it any less his responsibility simply because biologically the baby isn't being housed and birthed from his body?  It's as if you think every woman that gets pregnant intended to do so, and that if the man doesn't want to baby and she has the audacity to decide to keep it he should be off the hook?  WTF?

This entire argument is about control.  "Dammit it's not fair because it's not our decision and it shouldn't matter what I did with my penis"!

Maybe he should make the decision that until he is going to be willing to take care of a baby that might be the result of his actions he should postpone that and buy a bottle of baby oil and a good porn flick.

Quote from: "VanReal"Unfortunately 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?

Not quite. I think whats being said is that since a woman has a choice after conception, a man should too. Or at the very least, he should not have to be responsible for a child if the woman chooses to have it.

Quote from: "VanReal"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?

Yes. Because at this point she would be choosing to keep the baby knowing that the man wouldn't be helping her out financially- that is, if this were the law - as it stands, I agree that any man that has sex with a woman knows the current risks involved if she gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby.

Quote from: "VanReal"It's as if you think every woman that gets pregnant intended to do so, and that if the man doesn't want to baby and she has the audacity to decide to keep it he should be off the hook?  WTF?

No. I think that every woman that gets pregnant and then has the baby intended to do so.

Quote from: "VanReal"Maybe he should make the decision that until he is going to be willing to take care of a baby that might be the result of his actions he should postpone that and buy a bottle of baby oil and a good porn flick.

Great advice considering current laws. Really, any man who isn't currently willing to pay child support shouldn't currently mess around with a fertile woman, just as anyone who doesn't want to risk failing a drug test shouldn't mess around with canibus. It's the law.  

I think the argument that "men DO have a say, just before sex" is not valid

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.

While the man may have enabled a birth to happen through taking part in half a conception, he had no responsibility in choosing the birth. The woman has the ultimate choice, she should have the ultimate responsibility.

(Sorry about that messed up the quotes. I'm real tired and just don't want to go through and fix it. If its a problem I'll try to corect it tomarrow if not I'll leave it. Ill put my name bold next to my responses at least.)

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "Tanker"If a man takes all reasonable precautions or is diliberatly misled I don't think he should have any responsability for a child he did not want and in the case of contraception tried to prevent.

And how do you propose this is proven to be the case versus the man that simply sleeps around and doesn't attempt to use protection?  And what about the woman that makes every attempt to not get pregnant but still does?  If she makes the choice to have the baby she is on her own because the man was careful?

(tanker)I'm not talking about a guy who doesnt wan't to wear a condom so he gets a girl pregnant It's at least as much his fault and he should take resposability. There are many women who do intentionaly trap men though and you would prove it the same way a crime is prove by collectng evidence. A buddy of mine, a few years ago had "booty call" sex only no relationship what so ever. He saw mabey every weekend for a few months. When he met a couple of her friends they warned him she was trying to get pregnant and was only sleeping with to a) get pregnant and b) have him pay child support. She said she was on the pill, she wasen't. He checked the condoms and they had holes. Evidence collected he immediatly broke off all contact. Last we heard she had sucessfully trapped a guy 2 months later.

To the girl who makes every attempt to not get pregnant and does she has the option to end the pregnancy. So yes if she alone decided to keep it without the fathers consent the she alone should have to take car of it unless the father was willing to help anyway

QuoteIf a man tried to force a woman to have a child he wanted and she didn't there would be a public out cry for his deplorable act "HOW DARE HE impunge on her reproductive freedom", but it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to do it to a man makes little sense.(being that this is an atheist forum I'm not going into the "wifely duties" or other church inspired arguments) If she wants to keep and raise a child against the fathers wishes that great but he should NOT be responsable for that child. On the flip side the man should not have any say in how the child is raised or any contact that the mother does not want.

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?

(Tanker)I believe we had back ally abrtions for all the same reasons as we have legal ones today. Not specificaly because a man may have coerced a woman to have his child. More likly humans have always been sexual animals and have always had sex. The difference now is abotion is legal and there are way more varieties of contraception that are alot more effective.They were only back ally because it was illegal at the time I got that I was just being abit facicious

I think there is a little confusion and we only seem to be talking about men who were lied to and or trapped and are now being held at gunpoint to pay child support for the next 18 years.  How is it any less his responsibility simply because biologically the baby isn't being housed and birthed from his body?  It's as if you think every woman that gets pregnant intended to do so, and that if the man doesn't want to baby and she has the audacity to decide to keep it he should be off the hook?  WTF?

This entire argument is about control.  "Dammit it's not fair because it's not our decision and it shouldn't matter what I did with my penis"!

Maybe he should make the decision that until he is going to be willing to take care of a baby that might be the result of his actions he should postpone that and buy a bottle of baby oil and a good porn flick.

(Tanker)Ok what if we switched it around only men can choose if a woman has to abort wether she wants it or not? Even though it took two to tango only 1 will decide. "what a horrible idea how dare you suggest it." (and it is horrible) Ok how about only women get to decide if the father has to take care of wether he wants it or not? even though it took two to tango only 1 will decide. "that seems fair, what a well reason argument" (even though it's not)

(Tanker)Again if he just wanted to raw dog it, just doesn't like the way a condom feels, got drunk and stupid, or thinks pulling out is effective fine his mistake he should have to take responsability for his stupidity. IMO he should not have to pay in the OP's story or my buddies if she had succeded.

(Tanker)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)

QuoteI would not support changing the system at this time, as there is still a heavy amount of emotional pressure on young women to not abort, and many are even denied this possibility by their religious beliefs, or from fear of repercussions from their family. Women also on average lack the autonomy men posses. There are increasingly more situations where it would appear unfair that the system is how it is, but the system is a blunt instrument, and can give no exceptions.

This really seems to dodge the issue. Despite whatever pressure exists in our culture, women still have the ABILITY to choose whereas men don't. That's what ssy seems to be getting at.

QuoteAh, but let me guess, your gender in no way tends to bias you to one side, that kind of thing only happens to us emotional, and irrational women.

Your statement is ridiculous. No one said anything like that. It is funny how our genders seem to polarize us in opposite ends of this debate(I'm male). I'd also be willing to admit that were I female I would likely be on the opposite side here. The fact is that their are complications to this issue. There just isn't an obvious solution to the problem which would benefit both genders equally.

QuoteThey don't have equal positions with regard to reproductive rights, because they don't hold equal positions with regard to reproduction.

I find it astounding how sexist many of the posters here seem to be. I agree that women should make the same wages for performing the same job and am aware that in most cases they do not(My mother is in this exact position.). But this doesn't mean that its fair for our system to practice reverse sexism in regards to reproductive rights to make up for it.

And anyone that makes the "well you shouldn't have had sex arguement" as an attack toward either gender is being ridiculous. We live in a very sexually unrepressed culture. I don't know about the older generation but in mine(I'm in my 20's) recreational sex happens often with both participants having no intention of a permanent relationship or child. If you don't like it blame the damn hippies. Sure both participants are aware of the risk but I think that unless it was their express intention to produce a child neither person should be forced to shoulder the responsibility of raising one(If either party has issues with abortion they definately should practice abstinance. It's the only foolproof way to prevent childbirth.).I'm for ssy's plan. It seems fair to both sides. Its the culture that needs to change. The system shouldn't have to make up for cultural flaws by being unfair to one group or another.

Quote from: "Prometheus"This really seems to dodge the issue. Despite whatever pressure exists in our culture, women still have the ABILITY to choose whereas men don't. That's what ssy seems to be getting at.

Which is not relevant. We were discussing fairness, and the option being available doesn't render it as easily taken as not calling anymore.

QuoteYour statement is ridiculous. No one said anything like that. It is funny how our genders seem to polarize us in opposite ends of this debate(I'm male). I'd also be willing to admit that were I female I would likely be on the opposite side here. The fact is that their are complications to this issue. There just isn't an obvious solution to the problem which would benefit both genders equally.

I already addressed this, go read my reply to this. I find it simply disingenuous to claim that it was not implied that it was only true of women. If not there would be absolutely no point in stating it.

QuoteI find it astounding how sexist many of the posters here seem to be. I agree that women should make the same wages for performing the same job and am aware that in most cases they do not(My mother is in this exact position.). But this doesn't mean that its fair for our system to practice reverse sexism in regards to reproductive rights to make up for it.

I noticed that your outrage never bothered to address the statement that you quoted. 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?

QuoteAnd anyone that makes the "well you shouldn't have had sex arguement" as an attack toward either gender is being ridiculous.

I didn't say that people shouldn't have sex, I said that they shouldn't have sex if they aren't willing to face up to the consequences of having sex.

QuoteWe live in a very sexually unrepressed culture. I don't know about the older generation but in mine(I'm in my 20's) recreational sex happens often with both participants having no intention of a permanent relationship or child.

Rofl... so let me get this straight, you are saying that believe people want to screw around all the time without consequence that they ought to be able to do that? I am afraid that that isn't how the world works.

QuoteIf you don't like it blame the damn hippies. Sure both participants are aware of the risk but I think that unless it was their express intention to produce a child neither person should be forced to shoulder the responsibility of raising one...

Yeah, well, I think everyone should be paid six figure paychecks, and we should have bases on Mars.

Quote(If either party has issues with abortion they definately should practice abstinance. It's the only foolproof way to prevent childbirth.)

Or they could try being gay, not that it doesn't have risks that come with it, but babies aren't one of them.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Rofl... so let me get this straight, you are saying that believe people want to screw around all the time without consequence that they ought to be able to do that? I am afraid that that isn't how the world works.

Huh? What would be the problem with a world in which we could 'screw around all the time' without consequence?
I agree that it's not where we currently live - but what if it were? Or what if we could find solutions to the issues that make this world not that world?

Quote from: "BadPoison"
Huh? What would be the problem with a world in which we could 'screw around all the time' without consequence?
I agree that it's not where we currently live - but what if it were? Or what if we could find solutions to the issues that make this world not that world?

You misunderstood. You can't do anything that implies consequences without consequence, no matter how much you don't want to deal with those consequences. Clearly if there were no consequences to deal with, then there would be no problem.

QuoteWhich is not relevant. We were discussing fairness, and the option being available doesn't render it as easily taken as not calling anymore.

How is this "not relevant"? Your arguement doesn't make much sense to me. Yes there is cultural/communal pressure not to abort but the fact is that is can be done and that males both have no legal input on the matter and are forced to take responsibility for the child even if they do not want one. Fairness is a very vague term. I thought we were discussing reproductive equality, its much easier to define.

QuoteI noticed that your outrage never bothered to address the statement that you quoted. 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?

Did you even read my post or did your mind just say "Irrationally biased male nonsense" and just gloss over it? Its like trying to reason with a christian here, or infant. Here it is again. "I find it astounding how sexist many of the posters here seem to be. I agree that women should make the same wages for performing the same job and am aware that in most cases they do not(My mother is in this exact position.). But this doesn't mean that its fair for our system to practice reverse sexism in regards to reproductive rights to make up for it." I clearly addressed the issue that I quoted. You seem to be saying that its ok to skew judicial laws in favor of females merely becasue females make lower wages than males. And  in response to

QuoteI 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 clearly stated that I do not think it is fair that wages aren't equal. And no I do not think we currently have equal reproductive rights as we've been argueing the law favors females at present. If your gonna argue with me in the future please at least take the take to read my posts.

QuoteI didn't say that people shouldn't have sex, I said that they shouldn't have sex if they aren't willing to face up to the consequences of having sex. Rofl... so let me get this straight, you are saying that believe people want to screw around all the time without consequence that they ought to be able to do that? I am afraid that that isn't how the world works.

 So for your first sentence, "...I said they shouldn't have sex if they aren't willing to face up to the consequesnces." I take it you're pro life? Because that is exactly what you are argueing here. So you think its ok for women to have a choice in the matter(I agree) and not males who are equally legally responsible for the child?(I disagree with this) And for your second statement, thats exactly how our world works. That's why we have contraceptives and abortion. Sex has become a recreational activity. The traditional ideas that such a thing requires social bondage are outdated(This is true mostly because people have options now. It would be irresponsible if such options didn't exist.).

QuoteYeah, well, I think everyone should be paid six figure paychecks, and we should have bases on Mars.

You sure you're not a christian? Really startin to sound like the kind of issue dodging nonsense they throw at me rofl. My statement was logically sound.
 

QuoteOr they could try being gay, not that it doesn't have risks that come with it, but babies aren't one of them.

Rofl hope you were kidding. The kind of people who typically reject abortion as an option(Religious people for the most part.) usually think being gay is a one way ticket to hell(Not that I agree with them.). I think I've figured out why you sound like a christian to me, they are trying to convert us to christianity and you seem to be trying to turn us all gay(Rofl. Didn't mean any offense by this one.).

QuoteYou misunderstood. ... Clearly if there were no consequences to deal with, then there would be no problem.

A very sound arguement. This is exactly what I've been getting at. The only evident flaw in our system being social pressure not to abort. I think that's really the issue here. If we could negate this pressure to conform, we could actually have a legal system which is fair to both sides. And as for your arguement against our proposed system, would you really let this pressure stop you from making the choice to abort? I think there are more women out there(At least in my generation) who are willing to act indipendently and make decicions based on their own personal feeling. I state again that if such feelings will not allow you to abort, you should definately practice abstinance. The same is true of males, I know plenty of guys who wouldn't want even an unwanted child aborted(Funny how these guys(Religious types) don't have any problem with premarital sex.).

Not to mention the complete lack of male hormonal BC.

QuoteI noticed that your outrage never bothered to address the statement that you quoted. 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?

Let me try to place this in a parallel situation and see if you think it's still fair.

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.

(I kow the situatons aren't the same but I do believe they parallel pretty nicely, If you understand my point in the above story then lets focus on that rather then the parts that don't match exactly)

Quote from: "Prometheus"How is this "not relevant"? Your arguement doesn't make much sense to me. Yes there is cultural/communal pressure not to abort but the fact is that is can be done and that males both have no legal input on the matter and are forced to take responsibility for the child even if they do not want one. Fairness is a very vague term. I thought we were discussing reproductive equality, its much easier to define.

I unequivocally stated that male and female positions with regard to reproductive rights are not equal. I have been arguing that they shouldn't be, you seem to be stuck on the issue of wages, which was not was I was referring to in that post.

QuoteDid you even read my post or did your mind just say "Irrationally biased male nonsense" and just gloss over it? Its like trying to reason with a christian here, or infant. Here it is again. "I find it astounding how sexist many of the posters here seem to be. I agree that women should make the same wages for performing the same job and am aware that in most cases they do not(My mother is in this exact position.). But this doesn't mean that its fair for our system to practice reverse sexism in regards to reproductive rights to make up for it." I clearly addressed the issue that I quoted. You seem to be saying that its ok to skew judicial laws in favor of females merely becasue females make lower wages than males. And  in response to

I clearly stated that I do not think it is fair that wages aren't equal. And no I do not think we currently have equal reproductive rights as we've been argueing the law favors females at present. If your gonna argue with me in the future please at least take the take to read my posts.

I don't know what I did to upset you so much, but the belittling and insinuations are not called for, and they in no way support anything that you may attempt to argue. I was not referring to the difference in wages, that is why I said that your post did not address what you quoted. I was referring to the fact that women do all of the reproductive work -- you know, how they get fat, sick, and moody for a view months, and then squeeze a person out of them after half a day of labour.

QuoteSo for your first sentence, "...I said they shouldn't have sex if they aren't willing to face up to the consequesnces." I take it you're pro life? Because that is exactly what you are argueing here. So you think its ok for women to have a choice in the matter(I agree) and not males who are equally legally responsible for the child?(I disagree with this) And for your second statement, thats exactly how our world works. That's why we have contraceptives and abortion. Sex has become a recreational activity. The traditional ideas that such a thing requires social bondage are outdated(This is true mostly because people have options now. It would be irresponsible if such options didn't exist.).

I'm of course pro-choice, as I am the one arguing that it is the woman's choice, while you are the one arguing that it is not. I think that a woman should have full control of her body, while you are arguing that while she is carrying someone's child, he gets equal say over what she does with her body.

QuoteYou sure you're not a christian? Really startin to sound like the kind of issue dodging nonsense they throw at me rofl. My statement was logically sound.

Should read the "world view" things under people's names. I don't take being called a Christian as a catch all insult to everyone I disagree with, and I don't take "atheist" to be synonymous with "master rationalist".

QuoteRofl hope you were kidding. The kind of people who typically reject abortion as an option(Religious people for the most part.) usually think being gay is a one way ticket to hell(Not that I agree with them.). I think I've figured out why you sound like a christian to me, they are trying to convert us to christianity and you seem to be trying to turn us all gay(Rofl. Didn't mean any offense by this one.).

I am an evangelical for the sinister gay agenda, I won't deny it. Though, I was referring to males that don't want to take the risk of having a child, as they were who my point was addressing, and if they want to be able to have the choice to coerce a woman into having an abortion, or else leaving her high and dry, then I doubt they would be the kind to have a problem with abortion, or much else for that matter.

QuoteA very sound arguement. This is exactly what I've been getting at. The only evident flaw in our system being social pressure not to abort. I think that's really the issue here. If we could negate this pressure to conform, we could actually have a legal system which is fair to both sides. And as for your arguement against our proposed system, would you really let this pressure stop you from making the choice to abort? I think there are more women out there(At least in my generation) who are willing to act indipendently and make decicions based on their own personal feeling. I state again that if such feelings will not allow you to abort, you should definately practice abstinance. The same is true of males, I know plenty of guys who wouldn't want even an unwanted child aborted(Funny how these guys(Religious types) don't have any problem with premarital sex.).

[/quote]

What I'd do is irrelevant, and I've never had to worry about it. My personal feelings cannot be generalized in such a fashion. I think the anti-abortion crowd are entirely wrong, and it disgusts me the kind of emotional coercing woman go through from those members of society, but I don't see you proposing anything vastly different. In both cases opposing parties are attempting to force a woman to do something against he own judgement with her own body.

I dunno, as a guy, I don't like the idea that I could be trapped, or used.  Using protection is a clear indication I'm not looking to have babies.  If she says she's on birth control, this is tantamount, in my mind, to an unspoken agreement not to have children.  I admit, if a child is conceived, it puts a great deal of pressure on the woman, but I'd like some say in whether or not I'm going to have a kid.  But, things being as they are, I'm just really careful about who I get naked with.

I feel a bit like the black man that can't walk on the golf course because it's bad for the white man's business.  The white man owns the course, he pays for it and its upkeep, but does that make it any less racist?  Likewise, women have the far more demanding role in all this.  That doesn't mean there isn't a heavy sexual bias.  I understand things from the female perspective, I didn't have to do anything but have sex, and she can end up with a burden, but that doesn't mean I like her having the sole call on something that can wreck my life.

The fact that some women have realized they hold the advantage of the law, and are willing to wield that advantage abusively, disturbs me greatly.  

All of this is my opinion.  I have no ethical backing for anything said above, nor any want of debate.  I'll just be careful about who I put my bit in until I don't have to worry about it anymore, so it doesn't matter what the angles are.

Quote from: "Nulono"Not to mention the complete lack of male hormonal BC.

Yes, if you never want kids there is a little thing called a vasectomy.

Quote from: "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 from: "Tanker"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.

But, let's say the woman gets up in court and says "yes your honor, I poked holes in all of his condoms and popped my birth control pills out and threw them behind the bed so he thought I was taking them".  In that case I think he should be able to sign away his rights in court, which would also remove his financial responsibility, and the woman would have to waive any future right to obtain state services for that child.  There have been cases where the woman has requested that the man sign away his rights and the stipulation usually is that he can do so if willing to but she will be solely responsible for the expense, not the man and not the state.  So this actually happens, and I agree with it fully.

However, in cases where this is not amiable there is no rational for allowing him to not be responsible, as he is responsible because he knew the potential backlash, and even though it's not fair that he does not have the input on the outcome he is still responsible.  A lot of things aren't fair, and it is bothersome, but when the unfair things occur from out own actions we only have ourselves to blame.  It's well known that if you get a woman pregnant from having consensual sex with her and she makes the decision to have the baby that you will be held financially responsible.  It wouldn't be fair to say "well, I've decided I don't want it, sorry" and have the woman take on the entire burden.  I am willing to bet more pregnancies are genuine mistakes and/or carelessness and less often an attempt to trap a man.

Just like I didn't feel sorry for Kobe crying on tv when he slept with the girl in the hotel room and then she lied and tried going after money.  He knew he was cheating, he also knows that scandolous women lie and go after men with fame and fortune.  He knew there was at minimum one potential consequence to having sex with her, he made his decision, he had to deal with the aftermath.

I am a little less irritated tonight, so I'd like to mention that I understand that it certainly would not feel fair to me for someone else to make a decision that obligated me to years and years of financial and potentially disciplinary duties.  But, I also know that ultimately my participation in the event does make me responsible, even though I don't have any leverage or control over the outcome.  If I choose to have a couple of drinks during happy hour, feel that I'm fine because I've only had a couple, get out to drive home and realize my reaction time is impaired only after not be able to avoid being in an accident when another person runs a red light, I am responsible for whatever damage I've done and legal actions that are taken against me because someone else has decided that my blood-alcohol level is above the legal limit (which I also did not have a say in).  She ran the light and caused the accident, but she lies and I'm the one that's been drinking, she's dishonest, but I can't prove it, so I've made my bed and I will have to suffer the wrinkled sheets.  Unfortunately I am well aware of the consequences of driving after drinking, yet I chose both to drink and then drive home and although my intent was not to be involved in an accident it happened and now I am responsible.

Quote from: "PipeBox"I dunno, as a guy, I don't like the idea that I could be trapped, or used.  Using protection is a clear indication I'm not looking to have babies.  If she says she's on birth control, this is tantamount, in my mind, to an unspoken agreement not to have children.  I admit, if a child is conceived, it puts a great deal of pressure on the woman, but I'd like some say in whether or not I'm going to have a kid.  But, things being as they are, I'm just really careful about who I get naked with.

I feel a bit like the black man that can't walk on the golf course because it's bad for the white man's business.  The white man owns the course, he pays for it and its upkeep, but does that make it any less racist?  Likewise, women have the far more demanding role in all this.  That doesn't mean there isn't a heavy sexual bias.  I understand things from the female perspective, I didn't have to do anything but have sex, and she can end up with a burden, but that doesn't mean I like her having the sole call on something that can wreck my life.

The fact that some women have realized they hold the advantage of the law, and are willing to wield that advantage abusively, disturbs me greatly.  

All of this is my opinion.  I have no ethical backing for anything said above, nor any want of debate.  I'll just be careful about who I put my bit in until I don't have to worry about it anymore, so it doesn't matter what the angles are.

[/quote][/quote]

Well said!

QuoteI unequivocally stated that male and female positions with regard to reproductive rights are not equal. I have been arguing that they shouldn't be, you seem to be stuck on the issue of wages, which was not was I was referring to in that post.

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.

Quote[I'm of course pro-choice, as I am the one arguing that it is the woman's choice, while you are the one arguing that it is not. I think that a woman should have full control of her body, while you are arguing that while she is carrying someone's child, he gets equal say over what she does with her body.

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.

QuoteShould read the "world view" things under people's names. I don't take being called a Christian as a catch all insult to everyone I disagree with, and I don't take "atheist" to be synonymous with "master rationalist".

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

QuoteWhat I'd do is irrelevant, and I've never had to worry about it. My personal feelings cannot be generalized in such a fashion. I think the anti-abortion crowd are entirely wrong, and it disgusts me the kind of emotional coercing woman go through from those members of society, but I don't see you proposing anything vastly different. In both cases opposing parties are attempting to force a woman to do something against he own judgement with her own body.

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.

I think tanker and pipebox's analogies define the situation pretty well.

Quote from: "Prometheus"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.

QuoteWhat? 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.

QuoteYeah 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.

QuoteI 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?

Quote from: "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.

QuoteTanker 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteClearly 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.

QuoteUnlike 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.

QuoteThen 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.

Quote from: "SSY"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.)

Quote from: "SSY"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.)

Quote from: "Tanker"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.

QuoteYou 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!!

Quote from: "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!"

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "VanReal"

Quote from: "BadPoison"

Quote from: "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.

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

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  

Quote from: "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  

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

Sorry, I have to open this one up again:

QuoteThat 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:

QuoteI 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.

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.

Quote from: "MattParsons"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?

QuoteYou'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.

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?

Quote from: "SSY"To clarify, under my proposed system.

Both want a kid, great go for it.
Both dont want a kid, fine, dont go for it.
Man wants, women doesn't, tough luck buddy, you cant have your baby.
Woman wants, man does not, fine, but dont expect the man to pay for your choices.

I think you might have something there, but I was just wondering about different problematic situations. How about people who do not realize that they are pregnant until long after the proper final date to abort? I've even heard about women coming to a hospital because of stomach aches and realize they are having contractions and need to deliver! This is a borderline case of course, but I would think that there are a certain amount of pregnancies that are noticed after the time that society (and I at least) thinks it is no longer an option to abort. It would surely be unreasonable to land these babies solely to the responsibility of women.

Also, I would think that people may make a deal of not keeping a possible baby, and about a possible abortion, but later on feel that it is too much to go through and decide not to abort. While this should be taken into account, I think it still is not right to needlessly burden the forced father to pay huge amounts of money for kid he did not want. Maybe a lower payment, in recognition of the pact that was reached earlier and then later broken?

But how would this pact be executed? Written agreement with witnesses every time sex occurs? I don't know.. Maybe it would be okay to create a new social pact, that it is the default option to abort if casual sex between adults happens. I don't know, seems to bring forth a whole lot of problems this universal human right not to have unwanted children.

Wow, I can't believe I'm about to say this but after reading through this entire thread, I've come to the realization of how little I care about this topic as it is being discussed.
My take on it is that men and women are both (mostly) idiots when it comes to our reproductive ability. Yes, clearly both are to blame in every situation of an unwanted (by either parent) pregnancy.
This may seem heartless, but until it happens to me (which I take great pains to avoid including, believe it or not, refusing sex if the girl doesn't want me to use a condom) I really couldn't care less about this topic.

I agree with SSY's original point of it's not fair to the father who does not have any say in what happens after pregnancy. I also agree with some of the female posters here who say "suck it up, life isn't fair" in not so many words. Since I cannot find a reasonable solution to address this situation, I'm doing what comes naturally to most people and thinking of how it affects me. The fact is that it doesn't. I've known guys who've been screwed into paying child support when they clearly should not have to. I've known women who have been stuck with deadbeat fathers who completely disown them and provide no financial or emotional support to the child. It pisses me off, but not for any of the reasons stated thusfar.

What I think alot of folks, on both sides of this debate, forget about is the child. They are the ones truly being hurt by these situations.

So maybe if everybody stopped worrying so much about how sad it is for them how the choices they've made effect themselves, maybe they could start worrying about how the hell are they going to make this a better place for the children whom they've brought (intentionally or otherwise) into this world.

Let me tell you, if I ever knock a chick up and she decides to keep the child although I push for adoption or abortion, I'll be upset about it. But I would do what is right for the child, not for myself.

Just my $0.02.

QuoteLet me tell you, if I ever knock a chick up and she decides to keep the child although I push for adoption or abortion, I'll be upset about it.

But what if she decides to name the child Mike? Would you hate it? Cause that would suck.

Oh wait, no, that would be awesome.

Boom.

Quote from: "VanReal"[

QuoteEasy as pie in that particular case. But regarding adoption in general, the mother is never faced with a situation wherby she goes upto the state, says " I want to get rid of my baby" and the state say "NO" or "Ok, but we are going to bleed you dry with child support payments". She has a way of absolving herself of responsibility that the man does not, this is my main point of contention.

Actually this does happen, I have a 17 (almost) year old at home now that is evidence of the fact that if the father says no to adoption you have no choice.  He does not even have to say "No, I want it" all he has to say is "No, I won't agree to it."

(I haven't read the whole thread - it's bedtime - but I wanted to comment.)

I do think the laws as they are quite sexist and unfair.  (And I'm a girl.)

It takes two people to make a baby (in the old-fashioned way, anyhow), so both should shoulder an equal burden in the financial responsibility of the child's future if they choose to remain its parents.

Easy answer: change the laws.  If a mother wants to give a child up for adoption and the man doesn't want to lose his rights, he must raise the child himself.  If he gives up his rights, he's free of obligation, but also of any say over what happens to the child.  If he wants to be in the child's life in any manner (without having custody), he must pay child support.  The same rules apply to the mother.  Easy-peasy.

What happens when a man wants the child, but the mom wants to abort - no easy answers there.

As for it being unfair to the tax-payer - that's the price for being a part of a society that takes care of those who can't support themselves.  We can improve the welfare laws and try to make the system better in other ways, but keeping such sexist laws on the books just for the sake of saving a buck - that's not right.

Let me try to shed some more light on the situation.

Abortion - is solely a woman's problem and responsibility as well as a completely separate issue.  The issue is not about whether or not to have a child that they do not want, it is about whether or not said "child"/embryo/fetus may use her body against her will or not.  Since no person, born, alive or otherwise has the right to use anyone else's body against their consent regardless of reason, even to save their own life, the issue is that the mother has the right to deny the use of her body and have the embryo/fetus removed from her organs.  In the cases of pregnancy, since it is a condition that only a woman faces and it only effects her body, she is the sole decider as well as the sole responsible one to pay for either option, ie to have an abortion (which is not free) or to give birth (which on average for healthy no complications roughly around $10,000 )  Men are not responsible for paying for either option.

On the issue of CHILD support -  This is not the mothers rights to get money from the father, or vice versa.  This is the right of the CHILD to have parental support in his upbringing and the cost of said upbringing.  If a father neglects the physical responsibility of an actual child that is alive, born and has physical needs with financial costs, then he must pay a small portion of those costs, that the MOTHER is also covering.  A physical parent pays for the house, the car to transport, the bills to heat, shelter, feed, clothes, bath, babysitters, as well as work.  The mother covers this (if she has custody).  You think $250 a month covers even diapers for that time period?  Regardless.  Should the FATHER be the physical parent, the MOTHER is required to cover a portion of the financial responsibilities to the child for its care.  Should NEITHER parent be the physical guardian, NEITHER has to pay child support, this is the case of adoption in which both parties give up their parential obligations and rights, and the child is assigned new guardians that must foot the bill, and meet the requirements to care for the child.  Either both parents pay child support or neither pay child support.  Simple because a vast load of men reject their physical responsibility to the child does not mean that the system is one sided...it just means that more fathers pay for child support because they are not physically or in any other way helping to raise the child that they created, that exists, that has physical and financial needs.

Men have to pay a small portion of their income once a month.  Women have to pay for the entire pregnancy/childbirth as well as deal with the physical, emotion, and mental threat to their health to have the child alone.  A threat that still cripples women, still leads to sterilization, diabetes, heart disease, strokes, death.  

Yup....men have it so horribly.