Feminism vs Truth

[tallguy]

Aug 16, 2015 18:37:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 16, 2015 18:20:48 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Is there any disagreement that both are responsible for creating the pregnancy?  I don't think so.  I think everyone has stipulated that.  No problem.

Because she is the one carrying the fetus, she has the right to decide what happens to it.  Again, I think everyone here has stipulated that.

She has the right to make a decision which removes financial responsibility for the child from BOTH parties, since there would then be no child born. 

Absent that particular decision (or the equivalent one to give the child away for adoption) the responsibility REMAINS with both parties. .   

but that is not the case i was talking about.  the case i was talking about was:

man never suggests he wants a child, and man asserts that position when asked DURING pregnancy.

in THAT circumstance, you believe that the man has no right to abdicate parental responsibility for the child, correct?

I'm not sure why that would not be the case being talked about.  It is pretty generic.  At any rate, yes, I would say he has no right at that point to abdicate financial responsibility.  Parental responsibility may mean more in your definition, I don't know.  I would need to know specifically what you refer to there.  More precisely though, his desire at that point is meaningless.

My position is that both have a responsibility FOR the pregnancy.  The mother also has a responsibility TO the fetus if she carries it to term.  The father does not have a corresponding responsibility to the fetus unless and until it becomes a child.  At that point his responsibility for the pregnancy becomes responsibility for the child. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 18:50:42 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Aug 16, 2015 18:45:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i was just asking a simple question, for clarification.  for you to frame that as "attacking" is not playing fair, later.

do better, or have your posts ignored.  your choice.

I actually meant to write attaching in that sentence. I edited it. However, it is not a simple question. Whatever arguments you have for being able to abdicate parental responsibility, a women's right to choice is not one of them.

cool.  glad it was a typo.  i consider you one of the better posters.  however, i have already plainly stated that gestation rights belong to the woman.

so, what are we arguing about?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 18:54:52 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 16, 2015 18:37:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

but that is not the case i was talking about.  the case i was talking about was:

man never suggests he wants a child, and man asserts that position when asked DURING pregnancy.

in THAT circumstance, you believe that the man has no right to abdicate parental responsibility for the child, correct?

I'm not sure why that would not be the case being talked about.  It is pretty generic.  At any rate, yes, I would say he has no right at that point to abdicate financial responsibility.

i mean ALL responsibility, which would include financial.  so, given that the man has no rights in this situation, then it is precisely as i stated: the woman gets to choose how responsible the man is going to be, even though they were equally responsible for getting pregnant.

i find your position incoherent and unfair, but i understand it well enough not to argue, given that it is plainly stated.

edit: i could have left the rest of your post in there, as it would not have changed my response.

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2015 18:55:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 16, 2015 18:50:42 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I actually meant to write attaching in that sentence. I edited it. However, it is not a simple question. Whatever arguments you have for being able to abdicate parental responsibility, a women's right to choice is not one of them.

cool.  glad it was a typo.  i consider you one of the better posters.  however, i have already plainly stated that gestation rights belong to the woman.

so, what are we arguing about?

The point I am consistently repeating ad nauseum is that the abortion discussion does not belong here. There is no right for males that is comparable AFTER pregnancy has happened. They are equal on that front ahead of time in the fact that they can not get pregnant from sex so they have absolutely no risk of ending up accidentally pregnant. He already starts out ahead in that way.

What you guys want is the equivalent of being able to give the child up for adoption. Which I am inclined to agree to. However, that is not about the the father's responsibility to the mother, it is about his responsibility to the child. That is where it gets more complicated for me. If either parent gives up their parental rights and the other parent raises the child, what is owed to the child?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 18:51:39 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Aug 16, 2015 18:48:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is all a red herring argument, which i have already repeatedly conceded.  gestation rights belong to the woman.  so, stop pretending like i am some ignorant misogynistic Handmaid's Tale arse that doesn't get that, ok?  i am NOT that guy.

Then why do you keep using it in your argument?

for this and only this reason:

when someone has the CHOICE as to whether or not to do something, and they CHOOSE to do it, that makes THEM responsible.
if someone has the CHOICE, and nobody else has ANY CHOICE, then that makes THEM more responsible.
if someone has the CHOICE, and everyone else is OPPOSED to that choice, that makes them ABSOLUTELY responsible.

in situation three, the one making the choice should not be able to hold the person who opposed it liable, imo.  you and dark disagree, and that is fine.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 19:02:47 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Aug 16, 2015 18:55:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

cool.  glad it was a typo.  i consider you one of the better posters.  however, i have already plainly stated that gestation rights belong to the woman.

so, what are we arguing about?

The point I am consistently repeating ad nauseum is that the abortion discussion does not belong here.

agreed, which is why i am focusing on the CHOICE to not abort.  it is hard to talk about that CHOICE without talking about the opposite CHOICE.

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2015 18:50:42 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Aug 16, 2015 18:45:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i was just asking a simple question, for clarification.  for you to frame that as "attacking" is not playing fair, later.

do better, or have your posts ignored.  your choice.

I actually meant to write attaching in that sentence. I edited it. However, it is not a simple question. Whatever arguments you have for being able to abdicate parental responsibility, a women's right to choice is not one of them.

For probably the billionth time... no one has suggested that it was.

[tallguy]

i mean ALL responsibility, which would include financial. so, given that the man has no rights in this situation, then it is precisely as i stated: the woman gets to choose how responsible the man is going to be, even though they were equally responsible for getting pregnant.

i find your position incoherent and unfair, but i understand it well enough not to argue, given that it is plainly stated.

And I find yours equally so.  There is no basis in equity for the unilateral abdication of part of a shared responsibility.  It necessitates that the other party accept that share, perhaps or even likely involuntarily.  A shared responsibility is a shared responsibility.  It can certainly be negotiated away, but it should not be involuntarily imposed 100% on a party.  What does that do to a non-consenting other?    

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 19:10:57 GMT -5 tallguy said:

And I find yours equally so.  There is no basis in equity for the unilateral abdication of part of a shared responsibility.  It necessitates that the other party accept that share, perhaps or even likely involuntarily.  A shared responsibility is a shared responsibility.  It can certainly be negotiated away, but it should not be involuntarily imposed 100% on a party.  What does that do to a non-consenting other?    

i think the shared responsibility for an unintended pregnancy ends at birth, tall.  that is a really ugly way of putting it, but that is what i think.

i should add tho that i would never be that man.  i could never abdicate responsibility like that.  i would never shoot heroin, either.  but i think i should have that right.

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2015 19:10:57 GMT -5 tallguy said:

i mean ALL responsibility, which would include financial. so, given that the man has no rights in this situation, then it is precisely as i stated: the woman gets to choose how responsible the man is going to be, even though they were equally responsible for getting pregnant.

i find your position incoherent and unfair, but i understand it well enough not to argue, given that it is plainly stated.

And I find yours equally so.  There is no basis in equity for the unilateral abdication of part of a shared responsibility.  It necessitates that the other party accept that share, perhaps or even likely involuntarily.  A shared responsibility is a shared responsibility.  It can certainly be negotiated away, but it should not be involuntarily imposed 100% on a party.  What does that do to a non-consenting other?    

If men could "opt out" and the woman chooses to accept responsibility (by choosing to carry to term, and choosing to keep the child... two free choices that the woman is rightfully allowed to make) there is no "non-consenting other".

As it stands now, the only possible "non-consenting other" is the father on the hook for 18 years for a child he did not want.

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2015 19:13:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 16, 2015 19:10:57 GMT -5 tallguy said:

And I find yours equally so.  There is no basis in equity for the unilateral abdication of part of a shared responsibility.  It necessitates that the other party accept that share, perhaps or even likely involuntarily.  A shared responsibility is a shared responsibility.  It can certainly be negotiated away, but it should not be involuntarily imposed 100% on a party.  What does that do to a non-consenting other?    

i think the shared responsibility for an unintended pregnancy ends at birth, tall.  that is a really ugly way of putting it, but that is what i think.

i should add tho that i would never be that man.  i could never abdicate responsibility like that.  i would never shoot heroin, either.  but i think i should have that right.

Exactly this. It's not that most men would DO it... it's that all men should have the CHOICE.

Women have the choice to abort, yet MOST women don't. Even most of the "pro-choice" women would PERSONALLY choose not to. But they still have that choice.

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2015 19:04:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 16, 2015 19:02:47 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

The point I am consistently repeating ad nauseum is that the abortion discussion does not belong here.

agreed, which is why i am focusing on the CHOICE to not abort.  it is hard to talk about that CHOICE without talking about the opposite CHOICE.

The choice not to abort is also part of the choice. Choice is not about saying a woman has to have an abortion in an accidental pregnancy. Despite Dark's protests, it is actually a big deal to do that to your body using either medicine or surgery.

And once a child is born it isn't about the mother or what choices she made. It is about the child. I am not clear on what either parent owes him or her if the child is raised by the other parent.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 19:15:20 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

A shared responsibility is a shared responsibility. It can certainly be negotiated away, but it should not be involuntarily imposed 100% on a party. What does that do to a non-consenting other?

Nothing, she's still free to choose abortion or adoption if she doesn't want to support the kid on her own.

and he is NOT free to do so, so it is her CHOICE.

[tallguy]

Aug 16, 2015 19:13:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 16, 2015 19:10:57 GMT -5 tallguy said:

And I find yours equally so.  There is no basis in equity for the unilateral abdication of part of a shared responsibility.  It necessitates that the other party accept that share, perhaps or even likely involuntarily.  A shared responsibility is a shared responsibility.  It can certainly be negotiated away, but it should not be involuntarily imposed 100% on a party.  What does that do to a non-consenting other?    

i think the shared responsibility for an unintended pregnancy ends at birth, tall.  that is a really ugly way of putting it, but that is what i think.

i should add tho that i would never be that man.  i could never abdicate responsibility like that.  i would never shoot heroin, either.  but i think i should have that right.

And I cannot fathom that.  Parenting responsibility may not be able to be enforced no matter what the other partner wishes.  It is not a specific performance issue that can be dictated by any court or system of ethics.  But to get out of that, one should expect to pay for the privilege.  And fortunately our legal system does work like that.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 19:17:13 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Aug 16, 2015 19:04:46 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

agreed, which is why i am focusing on the CHOICE to not abort.  it is hard to talk about that CHOICE without talking about the opposite CHOICE.

The choice not to abort is also part of the choice.

wha...?

Choice is not about saying a woman has to have an abortion in an accidental pregnancy. Despite Dark's protests, it is actually a big deal to do that to your body using either medicine or surgery.

which is why i suggested two other options: single motherhood or adoption.  you caught that, right?

And once a child is born it isn't about the mother or what choices she made.

sure it is.  she can single parent or adopt the child out.  those are also HER choices.

It is about the child. I am not clear on what either parent owes him or her if the child is raised by the other parent.

nothing, provided that this has been made clear prior to birth. 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 19:20:25 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Despite Dark's protests, it is actually a big deal to do that to your body using either medicine or surgery.

I guess you'd have to clearly define big deal. Both medical and surgical abortions have extremely low complication rates, and barring those complications there are no lasting effects from either procedure. They're roughly equivalent to a root canal in terms of time of procedure and risk of complications. Not fun, but not what most people would consider major surgery or life threatening either.

i would be interested in knowing whether childbirth or abortion has more complications.  i am guessing that it would HAVE TO BE childbirth.

[Deleted]

nothing, provided that this has been made clear prior to birth.

I'm not so secure in that.

[tallguy]

Aug 16, 2015 19:14:50 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Aug 16, 2015 19:10:57 GMT -5 tallguy said:

And I find yours equally so.  There is no basis in equity for the unilateral abdication of part of a shared responsibility.  It necessitates that the other party accept that share, perhaps or even likely involuntarily.  A shared responsibility is a shared responsibility.  It can certainly be negotiated away, but it should not be involuntarily imposed 100% on a party.  What does that do to a non-consenting other?    

If men could "opt out" and the woman chooses to accept responsibility (by choosing to carry to term, and choosing to keep the child... two free choices that the woman is rightfully allowed to make) there is no "non-consenting other".

As it stands now, the only possible "non-consenting other" is the father on the hook for 18 years for a child he did not want.

False on both counts.  There is a child that he helped create that is being harmed by that choice.  And the man has both "implied consent" and "assumption of risk" issues here.  He is not in any case a "non-consenting other." 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 19:21:07 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Aug 16, 2015 19:13:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think the shared responsibility for an unintended pregnancy ends at birth, tall.  that is a really ugly way of putting it, but that is what i think.

i should add tho that i would never be that man.  i could never abdicate responsibility like that.  i would never shoot heroin, either.  but i think i should have that right.

And I cannot fathom that. 

i understand that, and i am sorry that i had to be so blunt, because it really is an ugly way of putting it.  i already explained why, so even though i didn't do so here, i suspect you know my reasoning already.  if not, let me know.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 19:23:33 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

nothing, provided that this has been made clear prior to birth.

I'm not so secure in that.

so, either abort, or adopt it out.  your choice, right?

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2015 19:31:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 16, 2015 19:23:33 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

I'm not so secure in that.

so, either abort, or adopt it out.  your choice, right?

I do believe the father has the right to raise the child over being adopted out. Or even over the mother if he is in a better position for parenting and providing. So my question is relevant for the mother's in those situations as well.

[tallguy]

How can it possibly be a double standard to hold both responsible parties...RESPONSIBLE?

The double standard is you, Richard, dj, and maybe a couple others who want to allow one party to unilaterally and totally escape responsibility. 

[Deleted]

Do you guys get the fact that you are turning the woman's right to choice into a get out of jail free card for men? For many women abortion is not an option for any number of reasons. So what you guys are saying is too bad, she has the right to abort so no matter what physical, mental or spiritual reasons she has for not doing it is on her. Her having that right means men having no responsibilities?

[tallguy]

Are we all on the same page now?

No.  Are you being intentionally obtuse?

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 19:42:05 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Do you guys get the fact that you are turning the woman's right to choice into a get out of jail free card for men? For many women abortion is not an option for any number of reasons.

what reasons?

[tallguy]

She would be non-consenting to his choice to abdicate his responsibility, not to the pregnancy.  Have I not said enough times that they are both responsible for that?  It has to average at least once per post, if not more.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 16, 2015 19:52:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

She would be non-consenting to his choice to abdicate his responsibility, not to the pregnancy. 

not necessarily.  she might freely consent to it.  or she might just abort the kid, or adopt it out.  none of that would be his choice.  only hers.

you are only focusing on that one non-choice, which is accompanied by her choice to not terminate.  that choice is hers and hers alone.

i see a lot more choice on one side than the other.  how about you?

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2015 19:59:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 16, 2015 19:52:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

i see a lot more choice on one side than the other.  how about you?

No, after the child is born the mother can either raise the child with the father, raise the child alone, let the father raise the child or give it up for adoption. The father can raise the child with the mother, let the mother raise the child, get custody to raise the child himself (that seems to be more difficult at the moment) or give the child up for adoption. We need to work on men getting equality in the right to raise the child by themselves and figure out the financial responsibilities of a non custodial parent in that situation.

[tallguy]

Aug 16, 2015 19:59:38 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 16, 2015 19:52:34 GMT -5 tallguy said:

She would be non-consenting to his choice to abdicate his responsibility, not to the pregnancy. 

not necessarily.  she might freely consent to it.  or she might just abort the kid, or adopt it out.  none of that would be his choice.  only hers.

you are only focusing on that one non-choice, which is accompanied by her choice to not terminate.  that choice is hers and hers alone.

i see a lot more choice on one side than the other.  how about you?

Of course there are other choices.  In the context of this discussion they are irrelevant.  Each of those already grants your hesitant father what he wants, so why talk about them here? 

If she chooses to allow him to abdicate?  Fine, as I've said.

If she aborts, he is free.  As I've said.

If she adopts the child out, he is free.  As I've said.

The discussion is only relevant in the other case.  Do you see it differently?

[Deleted]

Aug 16, 2015 19:49:26 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 16, 2015 19:42:05 GMT -5 laterbloomer said:

Do you guys get the fact that you are turning the woman's right to choice into a get out of jail free card for men? For many women abortion is not an option for any number of reasons.

what reasons?

It could be against her religion, she might believe a fetus is a child and have a moral problem with it, she could be concerned about potential physical side effects...