Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 20:30:45 GMT -5
Because he has literally zero say in the decision. Everyone on this thread acknowledges that once a pregnancy happens the decision to keep it or not rests 100% with the woman. Nobody is comfortable giving the guy an equal say at that juncture. If it's her decision why should he be responsible for it? He had an equal say about having sex. The reality is that is as much biological control as he has. You don't get to say that's not enough, we want more. Biology does not give you more. You don't get as much risk either. Women are not insisting something drastic has to be done to a man's body to equalize things if he impregnates her.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 20:32:43 GMT -5
BTW I love Carl as much as the next guy and am as entertained by him as you all, but come on. Those stories are for our entertainment. He would not stay married to a woman that pulled the crap he accuses his wife of.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 14, 2015 20:47:31 GMT -5
Ideally, that's true. In practice, not always.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,240
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 14, 2015 21:19:42 GMT -5
Because that "responsibility" is a child with rights. From the child's point of view what is so great that he was abandoned by one parent before birth rather then after? Not in the timeframe we are suggesting. In the time frame we are suggesting, it's a fetus with no rights. And there is no right to two parents. nor even a right to support from two parents. You keep forgetting that. This is true, however, it is the state or country generally who forces financial responsibility on fathers or deadbeat mothers. It is mainly because the state prefers not to use taxpayer money when it does not need to.
Socially I think things would need to change if enough people wanted them to. Other people besides birth parents could legally become a "parent" or legal guardian for state financial support reasons.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 21:50:31 GMT -5
Is it? We have a poster here that had it happen to him. I'm glad they worked it out, and sincerely hope they're able to start the family they both want pretty soon. That doesn't change the fact that it was, in my opinion, a massive betrayal of his trust roughly on par with cheating. Or it would be to me. To completely disregard your partners feelings on something that important is mind boggling to me. We have had posters here that have said pretty much everything under the sun has happened to them. Of all the sources used to prove something, a poster here said so is not a reliable source. Unbelievably I am going to use Richard's favourite line "we need proof" I believe my favorite line is actually "Got proof?"... but that's up in the top tier of "favorite lines".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 21:53:42 GMT -5
Because he is equally responsible for creating the situation that then requires the decision.
To be honest, I would have been much more interested in your response to the first paragraph there. If he's equally responsible... why doesn't he get as equal of a say as possible IN the decision?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 21:55:21 GMT -5
Once they are born. If the father abdicates parental responsibility while the woman is 4 weeks pregnant there's no child with a right to support yet, if I agree with your premise that a child has an inherent right to support from its biological parents in the first place. I'm pretty sure that right doesn't exist since adopted kids receive no support from their biological parents. Women who use sperm banks can't get financial support from the biological father either. If a right to support from both biological parents exists it already has a couple loopholes. Many pages ago I said I'm not sure how to resolve the issue of the child's rights. I'm still not sure. But that is what needs to be addressed. Because the child support is for the child, not the woman. Anyone who thinks most mothers spend "child support" money EXCLUSIVELY on the child... well, they are in a dream world. ETA: Especially when the child support is from a well-off/wealthy father, and the CS is near or in the thousands (or higher).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 22:01:59 GMT -5
Because he has literally zero say in the decision. Everyone on this thread acknowledges that once a pregnancy happens the decision to keep it or not rests 100% with the woman. Nobody is comfortable giving the guy an equal say at that juncture. If it's her decision why should he be responsible for it? He had an equal say about having sex. The reality is that is as much biological control as he has. You don't get to say that's not enough, we want more. Biology does not give you more. You don't get as much risk either. Women are not insisting something drastic has to be done to a man's body to equalize things if he impregnates her. You keep asserting that people want more "biological control". No one wants that. Please point out who here is even suggesting that they MIGHT want that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 22:02:45 GMT -5
BTW I love Carl as much as the next guy and am as entertained by him as you all, but come on. Those stories are for our entertainment. He would not stay married to a woman that pulled the crap he accuses his wife of. You'd be surprised at what wives can get away with when their husbands love them...
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 14, 2015 22:09:53 GMT -5
Because he is equally responsible for creating the situation that then requires the decision.
To be honest, I would have been much more interested in your response to the first paragraph there. If he's equally responsible... why doesn't he get as equal of a say as possible IN the decision? He gets as much say as she wants to give him. Not a bad deal, actually. Biology gives him none. It's not his body. (And personally, if I can avoid the physical ordeal of pregnancy and all it costs me is some decision-making authority..., sign me up! As a man I LOVE biology there.)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 22:46:25 GMT -5
If he's equally responsible... why doesn't he get as equal of a say as possible IN the decision? He gets as much say as she wants to give him. Not a bad deal, actually. Biology gives him none. It's not his body. (And personally, if I can avoid the physical ordeal of pregnancy and all it costs me is some decision-making authority..., sign me up! As a man I LOVE biology there.) But it doesn't HAVE to cost you as much "decision-making authority" as it does (agreed it does cost us SOME, and SOME I am o.k. with)... that's the whole point of the argument.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 14, 2015 23:03:18 GMT -5
I'm still looking for a serious response to this:
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,240
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 14, 2015 23:26:47 GMT -5
BTW I love Carl as much as the next guy and am as entertained by him as you all, but come on. Those stories are for our entertainment. He would not stay married to a woman that pulled the crap he accuses his wife of. Do you live under a rock? I'm surrounded by people that put up with insane amounts of stupid shit from their spouses and significant others. I only know a couple people that I can go have a beer with and not have to listen to their latest story about the dumb thing their spouse did. People get cheated on and stick it out all the time. I think one of them who was cheated on repeatedly is running for President as a matter of fact. I remember hearing something about that on the interwebz. I'm sure that's not true either though. I mean what kind of self respecting person would stay with somebody that did that to them? Carl stayed for his own reasons, but he's kind of a sucky example for this argument given his wife *DID NOT* get pregnant. If I had to guess he might have forgiven her because they both wanted kids anyway and it did not work.
I agree that many people put up with many stupid things. All people can be stupid, and I think its OK to forgive lapses in judgment if you think they won't happen again and the person in contrite. We are all flawed.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 1:16:25 GMT -5
Yeah, ummm.... Still waiting....
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 10:24:16 GMT -5
That depends an awful lot on both your definitions and your timeframe. Your assertion didn't sound right, and this is the first site I came across in a quick search, but:
As many as 75% of all conceptions miscarry. About 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. 15-20% of confirmed pregnancies end in miscarriage. link
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 10:30:37 GMT -5
Considering the statistics in the previous post, would you prefer the mother be prosecuted for murder (or negligent homicide) or the embryo/fetus damned for suicide?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 11:10:07 GMT -5
1. The idea of women poking holes in condemns even coming up in this conversation is ridiculous. The incidence of that is minute. 2. A man needs to think ahead because having an abortion is not a decision he can make. It is not his body hosting the fetus. He has control of his body which in this case means his sperm. That is the equality of this situation, both parties have control of their own bodies. The argument - at least for some of us - isn't about who's body the fetus is in, it's about whether the fetus is a "person."
Then you are having a different arguement.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 11:12:36 GMT -5
Biology doesn't give her a say either. Abortion isn't a natural biological process. A small percentage of the time she'll miscarry, the rest of the time biology says a pregnancy equals a baby. Biologically they both have an equal say, none whatsoever. No surgery is a natural process yet everyone has the right to it if they can afford it. On their own bodies.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 11:21:05 GMT -5
Prenatal care and early intervention are not 'natural' either. And parsley or pennyroyal will cause an abortion if a person wants one bad enough... Both natural substances.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 15, 2015 12:15:50 GMT -5
Prenatal care and early intervention are not 'natural' either. And parsley or pennyroyal will cause an abortion if a person wants one bad enough... Both natural substances. Pennyroyal in very large doses might just do that; however, it will take out your liver and kidneys along with the unwanted pregnancy. Probably not a good trade-off. Parsley won't work at all. Let's be careful what we put out here. Just because some website says something will work doesn't mean it actually WILL work as expected and without toxicity.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 15, 2015 12:16:34 GMT -5
That depends an awful lot on both your definitions and your timeframe. Your assertion didn't sound right, and this is the first site I came across in a quick search, but:
As many as 75% of all conceptions miscarry. About 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. 15-20% of confirmed pregnancies end in miscarriage. link
if these facts are correct, more pregnancies/conceptions end in miscarriage than abortion.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 12:19:59 GMT -5
And far more than live births as well.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 15, 2015 12:31:21 GMT -5
And far more than live births as well. one might legitimately question the "unnaturalness" of abortion on that basis. almost seems like birth is the LEAST "natural" outcome.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 12:43:49 GMT -5
And it certainly makes ridiculous the "personhood" argument. Setting aside the embryos that self-abort because of abnormalities, does the 22% that fail to implant or the 31% that miscarry afterward reflect a decision that says, in effect, "Oh, hell no! I ain't goin' out there into that mess!" I would say not, but then I don't consider them persons.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,449
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 15, 2015 12:57:28 GMT -5
And it certainly makes ridiculous the "personhood" argument. Setting aside the embryos that self-abort because of abnormalities, does the 22% that fail to implant or the 31% that miscarry afterward reflect a decision that says, in effect, "Oh, hell no! I ain't goin' out there into that mess!" I would say not, but then I don't consider them persons. that puts you on the same side as the vast majority of the world. it also helps you avoid the inevitable contest between the symbiont and the host.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 15, 2015 12:58:23 GMT -5
The chance of pregnancy varies from individual to individual; however, on average the highest risk of pregnancy occurs a couple of days before ovulation (30%). The lowest risk (0%) is during the first two days of the menstrual period. So, getting pregnant isn't a given with every sex act any more than carrying to term without miscarriage/abortion is a given with every pregnancy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 13:15:19 GMT -5
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Aug 15, 2015 15:03:52 GMT -5
I was talking about confirmed pregnancies. Nobody aborts a fertilized egg that fails to implant. They probably aren't even aware that it happened, unless they're undergoing fertility treatment or whatever. 15-20% is a small number. It's also going to vary with age. I seriously doubt it's that high for an otherwise healthy twenty something. You still dodged the main point of my post with your quibbling over my adjective. Abortion isn't a natural biological process. "But biology says the man gets no say". Oh goody. Biology also says a woman gets no choice, but we as a society have decided that it's OK to intervene and give her one. Why is intervening to give the man the same choice to opt out of parenting such a radical idea? Call me crazy but I think Dark has a good point no matter how cynical it is... If a woman has a choice to keep and abort a child no matter what the man wants... Shouldn't he also get a say on wether or not he wants to be father or not? And hear me out now.... No matter how bad I want to be a father, I can plead and peg.... No judge will force my wife to carry a child to term if she doesn't want to. Her body her choice, no matter if I swear and sign documents stating I will not ask her for any support, I will assume sole custody of the child, etc etc. Yet a woman can force a guy from a one night stand (or my wife can force me into being a father if I did not want to) by carrying a child to term and there you are on the hook for 18 years of support... 21 if they go to college wether you like it or not. The knee jerk reaction is: you should have worn a condom if you did not want to be a father. But she should have also taking the pills... Both parties are at fault. But how come I or the guy from the 1 night stand get no say... Yet the woman get all the power. I saw similar reaction when a story came out that this Dr found out she had cancer and asked her boyfriend at the time to fertilize her egg. They were not dating for long, they break up and he no longer wants her to have their baby and was suing her. The comments on Facebook made him out to be the villain because he would not allow her to be a mother. NO... She is the one that asked him to fertilize her eggs, she could have just frozen the eggs and/or buy sperm from a sperm bank (not that difficult; I have done it twice) ... He has the same right has her to decide if he wants a child with her or not. Now the courts get to decide...
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Aug 15, 2015 15:05:25 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 23:28:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 15:26:09 GMT -5
Carl you and Dark are making this between the mother and the father and it isn't. It's between the father and the child. The question is what does the father owe the child.
ETA - in the case of the fertilized eggs I think he has the right to abort at this point.
|
|