Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,443
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 15, 2015 22:31:57 GMT -5
I saw #528, Tennesseer! I didn't find it necessary to use it as a freaking hook! This thread is not about that issue. Well this thread is about equality, sooooooo.... Additionally, this thread is peppered with the 'A' word issue that has its own sub-board which requires a password and two threads..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 22:32:33 GMT -5
A woman's right to not carry a fetus full term has nothing to do with a man's responsibilities to his child. Stop trying to use it as some kind of trade off. If you don't want men to be responsible for the children they sire fight for that without bringing a woman's choice into it.
|
|
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 22:34:15 GMT -5
I saw #528, Tennesseer! I didn't find it necessary to use it as a freaking hook! This thread is not about that issue. Well this thread is about equality, sooooooo.... Additionally, this thread is peppered with the 'A' word issue that has its own sub-board which requires a password and two threads.. The 'a' word can be mentioned casually in line with the subject of a thread. It cannot, however, become the subject of said thread. So far, that hasn't happened. Oh, happy day! <does happy dance, entertaining already entertained cats>
|
|
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 22:36:04 GMT -5
A woman's right to not carry a fetus full term has nothing to do with a man's responsibilities to his child. Stop trying to use it as some kind of trade off. If you don't want men to be responsible for the children they sire fight for that without bringing a woman's choice into it. i think what Richard is doing is saying they are two separate things. do you agree with that?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 22:43:48 GMT -5
First, it will never be equal. It cannot be, and I think that has been recognized. But equality (in the closest approximation that we can reach) should boil down to this: If she is not responsible (because there is no child) then he isn't either. If she is responsible (because there is a child) then he is too. If he wants to protect his solo right to opt out of responsibility for a pregnancy or a child, he must do so before there is one. Afterward is too late.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 22:48:41 GMT -5
Because both will get financially impacted, both should have the "opt out" option... not just "Person F". BASICALLY THIS!!!! But is it ok then if the government/ society is financially impacted as a result? I'm ok if the answer is yes. Just want to be sure...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 23:05:38 GMT -5
In the fight for equality, a gay couple has a right to cake, but a child does not have a right to parental support. That has nothing to do with equality. A child has no such right (I thought we already covered this).
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 23:05:51 GMT -5
I think Tall Guy won the argument here. in todo? i am not sure that is the case. he seems to think the man has earned fewer choices in an accidental pregnancy than the woman, and i don't think that several of us agree with that at all- and with pretty sound logic, i might add. i find his argument as unconvincing as your blanket conferral of the superiority of the argument. What I find unconvincing is the contention that you all even arrived at your position through logic, sound or otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 23:12:15 GMT -5
Yes, I actually can "Seriously believe that answers the question"... because it seriously does answer the question. If you'd like a different question answered, maybe you should post that question.
BECAUSE "Person F" will be physically impacted, "Person F" gets ALL the choice in whether or not to carry the fetus to term. Because both will get financially impacted, both should have the "opt out" option... not just "Person F". I'm perfectly content with the question as asked, which is basically, "How do you make it more fair by decreasing fairness?"
Here's an example which illustrates the situation:
Man and woman are playing Russian Roulette. She has three bullets in the gun, while he has one. But in an attempt to make it fair, he is allowed to remove the bullet before he spins the chamber. Yeah, I'm just not seeing it....
It doesn't decrease fairness. And your version of "Russian roulette" doesn't apply. If you'd like it compared to "Russian roulette" how about this: You aren't seeing it because you don't want to.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 23:14:20 GMT -5
A woman's right to not carry a fetus full term has nothing to do with a man's responsibilities to his child. Stop trying to use it as some kind of trade off. If you don't want men to be responsible for the children they sire fight for that without bringing a woman's choice into it.Ummmm... yeah.... That's what we actually ARE doing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 23:15:37 GMT -5
First, it will never be equal. It cannot be, and I think that has been recognized. But equality (in the closest approximation that we can reach) should boil down to this: If she is not responsible (because there is no child) then he isn't either. If she is responsible (because there is a child) then he is too. If he wants to protect his solo right to opt out of responsibility for a pregnancy or a child, he must do so before there is one. Afterward is too late. I disagree. As long as she can "opt out" (no matter how she does it), he should have that same right.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 23:22:28 GMT -5
But is it ok then if the government/ society is financially impacted as a result? I'm ok if the answer is yes. Just want to be sure... Whether it's "o.k." or not is not a cut-and-dried question. So it's impossible to give a simple one word "yes or no" answer. I'd bet that if men HAD the option to "opt out" (if done certain ways, with appropriate legislation and safeguards) there would be less pregnancies to worry about in the first place. And of those that remain, if some of them were to have "government/society financial impact"... as long as it was due to the removal of the child from an unfit (even if it's only "financially unfit") mother, and temporary until the child could be adopted... I think it's a burden society could handle.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 23:26:27 GMT -5
How is that in any way fair? It potentially leaves one side with all of the responsibility and the other with none. Fairness is equal responsibility after the fact, just as there was in creating the situation. Either they are both responsible, or neither is.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 15, 2015 23:34:29 GMT -5
I'm perfectly content with the question as asked, which is basically, "How do you make it more fair by decreasing fairness?"
Here's an example which illustrates the situation:
Man and woman are playing Russian Roulette. She has three bullets in the gun, while he has one. But in an attempt to make it fair, he is allowed to remove the bullet before he spins the chamber. Yeah, I'm just not seeing it....
It doesn't decrease fairness. And your version of "Russian roulette" doesn't apply. If you'd like it compared to "Russian roulette" how about this: You aren't seeing it because you don't want to. What you are missing though is that she has to go first. If she doesn't pull the trigger the game is over. If she DOES pull the trigger the rules of the game dictate that he has to as well. In NO case does he ever have to go first, and there has to be a bullet remaining in the gun for him. Your version fails the logic test.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 23:54:49 GMT -5
How is that in any way fair? It potentially leaves one side with all of the responsibility and the other with none. Fairness is equal responsibility after the fact, just as there was in creating the situation. Either they are both responsible, or neither is. Maybe if I do it in math terminology... Unequal: F = 0 or 1 by choice of F M = 0 or 1 by choice of F alsoEqual: F = 0 or 1 by choice of F M = 0 or 1 by choice of M In the "Unequal" one, both choices are made by one side. In the "Equal" one, both choices are made by the side the results belong to.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 0:11:57 GMT -5
It doesn't decrease fairness. And your version of "Russian roulette" doesn't apply. If you'd like it compared to "Russian roulette" how about this: You aren't seeing it because you don't want to. What you are missing though is that she has to go first. If she doesn't pull the trigger the game is over. If she DOES pull the trigger the rules of the game dictate that he has to as well. In NO case does he ever have to go first, and there has to be a bullet remaining in the gun for him. Your version fails the logic test. Well... I did say "Russian Roulette" didn't apply. I was trying to force it to apply with my version adjusted to compare to the actual issue at hand. It's not my fault you chose a completely and utterly flawed analogy. I did the best I could with what you gave me. How about this... both guns controlled electronically, both "equally spun" (so the last of the three chambers with a bullet in them for her and the one with a bullet for him end up "loaded" at the same time)... and only SHE has the buttons to fire them OR call for a "re-spin" (again, equal spins). She also has the option to take either the first bullet out by itself or the first AND second bullets out together.
|
|
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 16, 2015 0:15:03 GMT -5
in todo? i am not sure that is the case. he seems to think the man has earned fewer choices in an accidental pregnancy than the woman, and i don't think that several of us agree with that at all- and with pretty sound logic, i might add. i find his argument as unconvincing as your blanket conferral of the superiority of the argument. What I find unconvincing is the contention that you all even arrived at your position through logic, sound or otherwise. ad hominem. i would say that i share your sentiments about your own argument, but that would be rather defeatist. so, either you don't understand the logic or you don't see it. which is it?
|
|
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 16, 2015 0:16:42 GMT -5
But is it ok then if the government/ society is financially impacted as a result? I'm ok if the answer is yes. Just want to be sure... society is already impacted by single parenting. you are presuming that it will be MORE impacted by a ruling in our favor. i harbor serious doubts about that position.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 0:19:09 GMT -5
But is it ok then if the government/ society is financially impacted as a result? I'm ok if the answer is yes. Just want to be sure... Whether it's "o.k." or not is not a cut-and-dried question. So it's impossible to give a simple one word "yes or no" answer. I'd bet that if men HAD the option to "opt out" (if done certain ways, with appropriate legislation and safeguards) there would be less pregnancies to worry about in the first place. And of those that remain, if some of them were to have "government/society financial impact"... as long as it was due to the removal of the child from an unfit (even if it's only "financially unfit") mother, and temporary until the child could be adopted... I think it's a burden society could handle. Wait. Single parent = unfit? Qualifying for aid = unfit?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 0:20:08 GMT -5
But is it ok then if the government/ society is financially impacted as a result? I'm ok if the answer is yes. Just want to be sure... society is already impacted by single parenting. you are presuming that it will be MORE impacted by a ruling in our favor. i harbor serious doubts about that position. Currently they go after the 'other' parent for support. That would no longer br an option...
|
|
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 16, 2015 0:21:11 GMT -5
First, it will never be equal. It cannot be, and I think that has been recognized.
if "it" is pregnancy, then that has already been conceded, along with all of the bodily rights during gestation. we have precisely ZERO disagreement on that portion of the argument. NONE. for the moment, i will presume you missed that, since you are a really bright guy, and are not known for conflating one half of an argument for another completely separate half.
But equality (in the closest approximation that we can reach) should boil down to this:
If she is not responsible (because there is no child) then he isn't either. If she is responsible (because there is a child) then he is too. If he wants to protect his solo right to opt out of responsibility for a pregnancy or a child, he must do so before there is one. Afterward is too late. i completely disagree. opting out before pregnancy makes no sense, as there is nothing to argue about- nothing to discuss- nothing to agree upon. but if the couple is trying to AVOID pregnancy, there is already tacit agreement that NEITHER party want the baby. so NEITHER is responsible at the outset of intercourse, and both are responsible to the degree that they can agree afterwards. but you would have it that the man is responsible if the woman says he is, and i can't abide that.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 0:21:29 GMT -5
Absolutely wrong.
Equal: BOTH F and M = 0 by choice of F (if you wish to use that term) or BOTH F and M = 1 by choice of F
The ONLY inequality is introduced by allowing different choices to allow different results.
Note: Different results are perfectly acceptable if they are agreed to by both sides, and others (society or taxpayers) are not then placed on the hook as a result. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility of creating the situation (pregnancy): F = M
Mathematically speaking, you can do anything you want to an equation, as long as you do the same thing to both sides. You have to either subtract the responsibility from both sides, or leave it the same. If you allow it only for one side you no longer have an equality, or in terms of this discussion, "fairness."
|
|
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 16, 2015 0:21:33 GMT -5
society is already impacted by single parenting. you are presuming that it will be MORE impacted by a ruling in our favor. i harbor serious doubts about that position. Currently they go after the 'other' parent for support. That would no longer br an option... no, but presumably abortion still would be- and entirely the prerogative of the woman. right?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 18:41:27 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 0:24:05 GMT -5
Are you saying that if men could opt out more women would choose abortuon? Because I honestly don't think that would manifest.
|
|
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 16, 2015 0:25:43 GMT -5
Are you saying that if men could opt out more women would choose abortuon? Because I honestly don't think that would manifest. i can't fathom why not. can you explain that to me?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 0:44:33 GMT -5
First, it will never be equal. It cannot be, and I think that has been recognized.
if "it" is pregnancy, then that has already been conceded, along with all of the bodily rights during gestation. we have precisely ZERO disagreement on that portion of the argument. NONE. for the moment, i will presume you missed that, since you are a really bright guy, and are not known for conflating one half of an argument for another completely separate half.
But equality (in the closest approximation that we can reach) should boil down to this:
If she is not responsible (because there is no child) then he isn't either. If she is responsible (because there is a child) then he is too. If he wants to protect his solo right to opt out of responsibility for a pregnancy or a child, he must do so before there is one. Afterward is too late. i completely disagree. opting out before pregnancy makes no sense, as there is nothing to argue about- nothing to discuss- nothing to agree upon. but if the couple is trying to AVOID pregnancy, there is already tacit agreement that NEITHER party want the baby. so NEITHER is responsible at the outset of intercourse, and both are responsible to the degree that they can agree afterwards. but you would have it that the man is responsible if the woman says he is, and i can't abide that. Actually, "it" was not specifically pregnancy. It referenced an earlier exchange and was more (as I recall) the impact, the responsibility, and the right to make the decision. (Thank you for the rest of it, I think....)
The SOLO right of a man to avoid pregnancy or the responsibility for one is what has to be exercised beforehand, either by using his own BC up to and including sterilization or by avoiding the act itself if he is not CERTAIN of her use. And even BC is not foolproof, but that's the risk. You say that "both are responsible to the degree that they can agree afterwards" and for the most part I agree with that, but in no way is he or should he be allowed to unilaterally "opt out." That denies your whole qualifier of their "agreement" afterwards.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 0:50:07 GMT -5
To make that analogy work it would be more like a woman sitting down to play Russian Roulette alone, but if she shoots herself the man gets shot too. There's a government agent standing there with a fully loaded gun to his head to pull the trigger. The woman can load or completely unload the gun whenever she wants. The man is not allowed to opt out of the game even if she puts a round in all six chambers and starts pointing it at her head. That's the current situation that men find themselves in once a pregnancy has occurred. But giving the guy the ability to walk away from the game is somehow unfair to the woman, even though she still has complete control over the decision to fully unload the gun, or in other words opt out of the game completely. But again, he doesn't have to be in the game at all. It was his choice to put himself into the game. He could have avoided it and chosen not to. His option to walk away is gone at that point. If the risk was too great for him, he shouldn't have put himself in it. (Pun not necessarily intended, but appropriate anyway.)
|
|
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 16, 2015 1:00:44 GMT -5
i completely disagree. opting out before pregnancy makes no sense, as there is nothing to argue about- nothing to discuss- nothing to agree upon. but if the couple is trying to AVOID pregnancy, there is already tacit agreement that NEITHER party want the baby. so NEITHER is responsible at the outset of intercourse, and both are responsible to the degree that they can agree afterwards. but you would have it that the man is responsible if the woman says he is, and i can't abide that. Actually, "it" was not specifically pregnancy. It referenced an earlier exchange and was more (as I recall) the impact, the responsibility, and the right to make the decision. (Thank you for the rest of it, I think....)
The SOLO right of a man to avoid pregnancy or the responsibility for one is what has to be exercised beforehand, either by using his own BC up to and including sterilization or by avoiding the act itself if he is not CERTAIN of her use. And even BC is not foolproof, but that's the risk. You say that "both are responsible to the degree that they can agree afterwards" and for the most part I agree with that, but in no way is he or should he be allowed to unilaterally "opt out."
why not? i bought out a business partner. did i want to? no. but the alternative was aborting the enterprise. i honestly don't understand why the rights of equal partners who are BOTH capable of avoiding pregnancy, and try to do so within accepted means should devolve ONLY to the woman once the baby is born.
|
|
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 16, 2015 1:04:10 GMT -5
It's not entirely his choice though. Condoms aren't 100% effective. Don't tell me you're advocating abstinence? In either case, once a pregnancy occurs they both failed at preventing it, neither can go back and change that, but the decision about how to proceed rests 100% with the woman, even though it has consequences for both of them. i asked him precisely the same question. he seems to be clinging to the very old fashioned notion that pregnancy is the sole problem of the man, even though the number of contraception options for women is far greater. i am tired and going to bed. have a great evening. this has been a very entertaining discussion.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 1:12:10 GMT -5
And another thing that I don't think has been mentioned:
The argument for opting out rests in large part on the option of the woman to abort or adopt out, i.e. that if she can opt out he should be able to as well. But what if that is not an option for her? If she does not believe in abortion, or if her family will disown her if she has one, is it a realistic possibility? If she cannot bear to give her child away after carrying it for nine months, is it a realistic possibility? If she does not in fact have a realistic option to opt out, does that remove his excuse for doing so?
To say no sentences her to undue burden, facing the entire responsibility instead of just her half (which is in fact far more than half anyway.) To say yes defeats the argument, since different situations allow for different results. It is a bad situation all the way around, created by bad choices on both sides. To allow one side to unilaterally walk away without consequence is fundamentally inequitable.
|
|