tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 1:17:00 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. Not at all. I have said all along that they are both responsible. Fairness entails KEEPING them both responsible.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 1:20:56 GMT -5
That would be true, if the other side didn't already have the ability to unilaterally walk away without consequences. I agree giving only one side that right while denying it to the other is fundamentally inequitable.But that is exactly what you are doing. No matter what happens she is impacted much more than he. No matter how she proceeds she is impacted much more than he. She cannot walk away completely unscathed. You are arguing that he should. So yes, I agree. Fundamentally inequitable.
And as has been said several times, if she chooses to opt out, he is opted out automatically. In no way is his responsibility ever greater than hers.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 1:37:02 GMT -5
I would refer you back to mmhmm's #438 and my #439 which detail some of the possible if not likely effects. And I could quibble with your statistic, but I don't have data in front of me nor do I feel like searching for it. Either way, the impact on her will always be greater than the impact on him...which is effectively none.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 1:40:06 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? Because many women don't tend to make that decision based on finances. They make it based on emotion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 1:59:01 GMT -5
I thought the whole issue was to give men the right to abandon their offspring at the fetal stage.... ? Isn't your whole argument hinging on the fact you are trying to deny?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 2:21:21 GMT -5
By your own admission you are referring specifically to men who are abandoning both the partner and the potential offspring with no concern for or wish to support either. Don't you think the ship has sailed on trying to paint them as loving fathers?
Shhhh.... You're not supposed to notice that....
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 2:55:10 GMT -5
Does a woman who chooses to abort a pregnancy at 20 lose the right to be a loving mother of the second child that she keeps at 28? Can she never regret the abortion, or wonder what might have been when she sees some 8 year olds playing in the park? Before you double down on this line of attack that men can't possibly be harmed by having their potential child killed in the womb stop to think whether you'd say the same thing to a woman who has to make that extremely difficult choice. If the answer is no you might want to rethink saying it at all.
But that is not even your issue. If the woman is going to abort the man has no need to opt out. It will be taken care of for him. Your issue is that men should be allowed to opt out regardless, which in effect means that they wish (and you think they should be allowed) to opt out of supporting the child of a live birth. And yes, considering that THAT is your issue I have no problem with that line of "attack." The woman in your example can certainly regret the abortion as something she did not really want to do but felt forced into. I cannot conceive of the man in your example regretting something he so eagerly ran away from.
You have lost this argument. You lost it a long time ago. You don't even remember what it is you are arguing for. If you now wish to contend that men should have a choice in whether a woman can choose to abort, I am all in favor of her discussing it with him and hopefully taking his feelings into account. That is a completely different discussion however.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 5:21:17 GMT -5
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? "Single parent = unfit"? ? ? ... where did you get that? I never said being single was what made a parent unfit. As to "qualifying for aid=unfit"... yes. If the "aid for child" that society provides for "no other reason than there IS a child" is removed. Those funds could be better spent finding adoptive parents that can afford to raise the child. Removing aid for children (and the children themselves, to be placed with adoptive parents) might also reduce the number OF children.... because it will take away the "I need more money, I guess it's time to pop out another kid and increase my check" thinking behind pregnancies that are for that very reason only. If a parent can't ( regardless of the reason why) provide basic necessities for a child... how are they "fit" in your eyes?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 5:26:24 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."
LOL... My "equations" were the correct ones for this discussion. Yours are... I don't know what they are? Abortion rights centered? maybe? Which has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about. How many times does it need to be said? The choice to abort or not resides with the Mother. The choice to adopt out or not resides with the mother. NO one in this argument is trying to change that. The choice to abort or not resides with the Mother. The choice to adopt out or not resides with the mother. NO one in this argument is trying to change that. The choice to abort or not resides with the Mother. The choice to adopt out or not resides with the mother. NO one in this argument is trying to change that. The choice to abort or not resides with the Mother. The choice to adopt out or not resides with the mother. NO one in this argument is trying to change that. The choice to abort or not resides with the Mother. The choice to adopt out or not resides with the mother. NO one in this argument is trying to change that. (I figured, maybe if I repeat it a few time it might help...)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 5:32:45 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. The fact that she doesn't exercise an option does not negate it's presence. It's her free choice to not abort and it's her free choice to not adopt out... if those are indeed the choices she makes. Even better... your premise is flawed. If those options magically "don't exist" (they do exist... but let's pretend) then she is put in EXACTLY the same boat he's put in by not having the option to opt out... if it's not fair to put her in that position... how is it fair to put him in it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 6:10:25 GMT -5
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. Not at all. I have said all along that they are both responsible. Fairness entails KEEPING them both responsible. Or allowing them both the option to "opt out". Unless you are advocating the removal of the rights of women to abort or adopt out... is that what you are suggesting? I mean that's the only way to "keep them both responsible".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 16, 2015 9:06:39 GMT -5
I think to summarize Dark's argument: privilege necessitates responsibility and responsibility affords privilege.
There are two privileges at play: the privilege to have sexual intercourse and the privilege to determine whether a conceived child lives or dies. There are also two responsibilities at play: the responsibility to carry the child to term and the father's responsibility to pay child support.
As a society, we have said that the responsibility to raise the child may be abdicated, and the life/death decision privilege rests with the mother as a result of her responsibility to carry the child to term. Hence we must conclude that the responsibility to raise the child does not follow from the privilege of having sexual intercourse.
A father's responsibility to pay child support follows from his responsibility to raise the child. But as we have already determined that the responsibility to raise the child does not follow from the privilege of having sexual intercourse, a clause is needed to ensure the father is not beholden to responsibilities originating from the mother's life/death decision. The decision is hers alone and hence all responsibilities resulting therefrom are hers alone. Thus we must grant the father the privilege of opting out of child support. In this way, responsibility follows equitably from privilege.
Personally I think anyone who can read this thread and leave without being utterly dedicated to practicing abstinence outside of marriage needs their head checked. But in light of the mess of death and gender warfare that society has opted for instead, Dark is championing the more equitable alternative.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 9:16:17 GMT -5
Gay men are at no risk of unwanted pregnancies. I propose we have some kind of lottery they have to play. If they lose they have to pay a percentage of their earnings for the next 18 years as a tax on being gay. I have come over to the side that all must be equal or as close as we can make it. Gays must pay for the priviledge of not having to worry about unwanted children.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 9:37:27 GMT -5
What old fashioned notion ever made pregnancy the sole problem of the man? By my understanding it's always taken a shotgun or legislation to make it the man's problem, otherwise it was the woman's problem. From the stigma of being single and pregnant, or a single mother, or having given a child up for adoption...the old fashioned notion pretty much make it the woman's problem from everything I know.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 9:42:48 GMT -5
What old fashioned notion ever made pregnancy the sole problem of the man? By my understanding it's always taken a shotgun or legislation to make it the man's problem, otherwise it was the woman's problem. From the stigma of being single and pregnant, or a single mother, or having given a child up for adoption...the old fashioned notion pretty much make it the woman's problem from everything I know. That's bull****. Most men take care of their children because they want to. I am not saying it is the sole problem of the man, but many men have had problems because of an unwanted pregnancy and responded with nothing but love and support for the woman and the children. To say it has "always" taken a shotgun or legislation is wrong and nowhere even close to the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 9:45:23 GMT -5
I'm fine with fathers having an opt out of responsibilities and rights at the fetal stage. I am also ok with society paying more in child support to help ensure this right. As we do to ensure many rights when it comes to privacy, reproduction and raising children.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 9:48:59 GMT -5
What old fashioned notion ever made pregnancy the sole problem of the man? By my understanding it's always taken a shotgun or legislation to make it the man's problem, otherwise it was the woman's problem. From the stigma of being single and pregnant, or a single mother, or having given a child up for adoption...the old fashioned notion pretty much make it the woman's problem from everything I know. That's bull****. Most men take care of their children because they want to. I am not saying it is the sole problem of the man, but many men have had problems because of an unwanted pregnancy and responded with nothing but love and support for the woman and the children. To say it has "always" taken a shotgun or legislation is wrong and nowhere even close to the truth. Sorry, I in no way was even thinking of the men who step up when a pregnancy happens. In my mind none of this conversation has anything to do with either the men or women that step up when pregnancy happens. I am specifically talking about the men that want to walk away. They have been able to without having to do anything else. Whereas a woman has never been able to just walk away and has had to deal with the social stigma even if she wanted to just walk away.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 10:53:29 GMT -5
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. So let me get this straight. You are complaining that your equal partner in the enterprise walked away and imposed his responsibility onto you? A responsibility that you did not want, but felt an obligation or need to accept? That he walked away without consequence (since you bought him out?) That is what you complained about?
How did it feel being pregnant?
And again, they BOTH have a responsibility to the baby IF there is one. They both created it, so they are both responsible for it unless, as you said earlier, they agree otherwise. And that agreement is also subject to full support of the baby by one of the partners so that society and taxpayers are not hurt by the agreement.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,442
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 16, 2015 11:07:18 GMT -5
Gay men are at no risk of unwanted pregnancies. I propose we have some kind of lottery they have to play. If they lose they have to pay a percentage of their earnings for the next 18 years as a tax on being gay. I have come over to the side that all must be equal or as close as we can make it. Gays must pay for the priviledge of not having to worry about unwanted children. It just gets worse by the hour.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 11:44:25 GMT -5
LOL... My "equations" were the correct ones for this discussion. Yours are... I don't know what they are? Abortion rights centered? maybe? Which has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about. How many times does it need to be said? The choice to abort or not resides with the Mother. The choice to adopt out or not resides with the mother. NO one in this argument is trying to change that. The choice to abort or not resides with the Mother. The choice to adopt out or not resides with the mother. NO one in this argument is trying to change that. The choice to abort or not resides with the Mother. The choice to adopt out or not resides with the mother. NO one in this argument is trying to change that. The choice to abort or not resides with the Mother. The choice to adopt out or not resides with the mother. NO one in this argument is trying to change that. The choice to abort or not resides with the Mother. The choice to adopt out or not resides with the mother. NO one in this argument is trying to change that. (I figured, maybe if I repeat it a few time it might help...) Just a note for future reference:
An attempt to be condescending only works if you are actually IN the higher position.
|
|
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 11:52:38 GMT -5
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. So let me get this straight. You are complaining that your equal partner in the enterprise walked away and imposed his responsibility onto you?
i am "complaining" about the fact that i had to come up with considerable money to buy him out, and replace him. if i were unable to do EITHER, then i would have to DISSOLVE THE BUSINESS. i think this is quite similar to a young couple not wanting a kid for financial reasons.
|
|
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 11:54:38 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?
to use your logic, why is she having unprotected sex? if the reason is the fact that she wants kids, this sounds like a gotcha pregnancy to me. not exactly honorable.
|
|
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 11:55:58 GMT -5
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. Not at all. I have said all along that they are both responsible. Fairness entails KEEPING them both responsible. your position belies what you "say", then, imo. you give unequal choices in situations where they are merited AND where they are not.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 16, 2015 11:56:12 GMT -5
|
|
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 11:58:34 GMT -5
i can't fathom why not. can you explain that to me? Because many women don't tend to make that decision based on finances. They make it based on emotion. i have noticed that. so, either men should get out of the way of that, to the ruination of all parties, or should throw in for the enterprise, no matter how insecure?
|
|
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 12:03:07 GMT -5
Not at all. I have said all along that they are both responsible. Fairness entails KEEPING them both responsible. Or allowing them both the option to "opt out". Unless you are advocating the removal of the rights of women to abort or adopt out... is that what you are suggesting? I mean that's the only way to "keep them both responsible". the case of adoption has not really been discussed, here- but if you consider it for a moment, you will realize that once the baby is conceived, men and women do, indeed, have equal choice.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 12:04:03 GMT -5
So let me get this straight. You are complaining that your equal partner in the enterprise walked away and imposed his responsibility onto you?
i am "complaining" about the fact that i had to come up with considerable money to buy him out, and replace him. if i were unable to do EITHER, then i would have to DISSOLVE THE BUSINESS. i think this is quite similar to a young couple not wanting a kid for financial reasons. Yes, and the point was that you considered it inequitable to be subjected to that. Same thing with the couple.
|
|
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 12:04:51 GMT -5
I think to summarize Dark's argument: privilege necessitates responsibility and responsibility affords privilege. There are two privileges at play: the privilege to have sexual intercourse and the privilege to determine whether a conceived child lives or dies. There are also two responsibilities at play: the responsibility to carry the child to term and the father's responsibility to pay child support. As a society, we have said that the responsibility to raise the child may be abdicated, and the life/death decision privilege rests with the mother as a result of her responsibility to carry the child to term. Hence we must conclude that the responsibility to raise the child does not follow from the privilege of having sexual intercourse. A father's responsibility to pay child support follows from his responsibility to raise the child. But as we have already determined that the responsibility to raise the child does not follow from the privilege of having sexual intercourse, a clause is needed to ensure the father is not beholden to responsibilities originating from the mother's life/death decision. The decision is hers alone and hence all responsibilities resulting therefrom are hers alone. Thus we must grant the father the privilege of opting out of child support. In this way, responsibility follows equitably from privilege. Personally I think anyone who can read this thread and leave without being utterly dedicated to practicing abstinence outside of marriage needs their head checked. But in light of the mess of death and gender warfare that society has opted for instead, Dark is championing the more equitable alternative. not quite. the issue is not the "father's responsibility to pay child support", it is the "parent's ability to opt out". EITHER parent or BOTH parents can do that. legally. logically. and morally.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 16, 2015 12:05:20 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?
to use your logic, why is she having unprotected sex? if the reason is the fact that she wants kids, this sounds like a gotcha pregnancy to me. not exactly honorable. Same question applies to him, and the reason is usually that they are both stupid.
|
|
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 12:05:33 GMT -5
i am "complaining" about the fact that i had to come up with considerable money to buy him out, and replace him. if i were unable to do EITHER, then i would have to DISSOLVE THE BUSINESS. i think this is quite similar to a young couple not wanting a kid for financial reasons. Yes, and the point was that you considered it inequitable to be subjected to that. Same thing with the couple. agreed. so, either partner can opt out, or both can.
|
|