tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 8, 2015 23:23:36 GMT -5
True, and she should do those things. But she can do everything correctly and still have a "failure." If he also does those things the chance of a failure is dramatically reduced. It comes down to assumption of risk. She can never avoid it. Under your belief, he can. It is fundamentally inequitable.
It is true that abortion is far too often used to compensate for a failure to use birth control. The solution to that is not to make birth control more difficult or expensive to obtain. I would in fact wish it mandatory in order to receive public benefits.
How would you implement this, by issuing condoms with welfare checks or something? Maybe sterilization would be the better way to go? Implant. I'm not sure what the cost is now but I think it is several hundred dollars. That can be deducted from benefits over time to be revenue-neutral. My recollection is that it is effective for five years. If they can somehow manage to still be on aid at that point then sterilization may be an option. I wouldn't have a problem with it, nor do I see an ethical problem with it. Nobody would be saying that women cannot reproduce, but that they could not choose to do so while on public aid. A refusal (or another pregnancy) would result in loss of benefits.
I am a big believer that people have the right to live their life pretty much any way they want to, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. What they do NOT have is the right to expect the rest of us to pay for their choices.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 8, 2015 23:58:12 GMT -5
How would you implement this, by issuing condoms with welfare checks or something? Maybe sterilization would be the better way to go? Implant. I'm not sure what the cost is now but I think it is several hundred dollars. That can be deducted from benefits over time to be revenue-neutral. My recollection is that it is effective for five years. If they can somehow manage to still be on aid at that point then sterilization may be an option. I wouldn't have a problem with it, nor do I see an ethical problem with it. Nobody would be saying that women cannot reproduce, but that they could not choose to do so while on public aid. A refusal (or another pregnancy) would result in loss of benefits.
I am a big believer that people have the right to live their life pretty much any way they want to, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. What they do NOT have is the right to expect the rest of us to pay for their choices.
I tried that argument in YMOT - I was basically called a proponent of eugenics.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 9, 2015 0:16:01 GMT -5
Implant. I'm not sure what the cost is now but I think it is several hundred dollars. That can be deducted from benefits over time to be revenue-neutral. My recollection is that it is effective for five years. If they can somehow manage to still be on aid at that point then sterilization may be an option. I wouldn't have a problem with it, nor do I see an ethical problem with it. Nobody would be saying that women cannot reproduce, but that they could not choose to do so while on public aid. A refusal (or another pregnancy) would result in loss of benefits.
I am a big believer that people have the right to live their life pretty much any way they want to, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. What they do NOT have is the right to expect the rest of us to pay for their choices.
I tried that argument in YMOT - I was basically called a proponent of eugenics. Okay, but the bigger question is, "Why would you care what such people would say?"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:32:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 1:17:11 GMT -5
Because it's her body, I would say that's an absolute right that is beyond his opinion or "say-so". That's where I disagree...it's the child's "body" as well. We're talking about a freaking "person" here, not an amoeba or parasite. It sucks that women are the ones who have to carry children until they are born - actually some women enjoy it I think, but not maybe not ultra-liberal feminists? - but that's just how the cookie crumbles. Guess what, women don't have to register for the draft either. So, when it comes to abortion you shouldn't have the choice, and that sucks and I can feel some empathy there, but it's not about you but about the child. Actually you are wrong, from a scientific and definition point of view. A fetus IS a parasite... whether you like it or not. As to rights to an abortion... are you saying women should just suck it up and become walking talking incubators for 9 months, devoid of any personal rights to control of their own bodies?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:32:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 1:28:54 GMT -5
@richardintn the depths of your misogyny continuously amazes me. Bye again You mean that fact that there is no depth because I'm actually not a misogynist? That word doesn't mean what you think it means... Here's what it actually means And here's why it doesn't apply to me: I am not "against women"... I am "against inequality". I'm not "for male power and domination", I'm "for equality for everyone when and where possible". I don't dislike or despise women (well...not "because they are women" anyway... I do dislike some people because they are ignorant though, their gender is irrelevant to that, and some of them ARE women... but there are some men that are ignorant as well... sometimes on the same subject!) Bye again, though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:32:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 2:13:38 GMT -5
Maybe people would take you more seriously if you had a different avatar LoL!! LOL... Naaah. laterbloomer doesn't like me because I argue using facts and reality. It doesn't have anything to do with my Avatar. I'll change my Avatar back when Amazon starts selling the flag again...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:32:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 9:36:09 GMT -5
@richardintn the depths of your misogyny continuously amazes me. Bye again You mean that fact that there is no depth because I'm actually not a misogynist? That word doesn't mean what you think it means... Here's what it actually means And here's why it doesn't apply to me: I am not "against women"... I am "against inequality". I'm not "for male power and domination", I'm "for equality for everyone when and where possible". I don't dislike or despise women (well...not "because they are women" anyway... I do dislike some people because they are ignorant though, their gender is irrelevant to that, and some of them ARE women... but there are some men that are ignorant as well... sometimes on the same subject!) Bye again, though. Women can give birth, men cannot. How do you propose to make that equal? Women's lives are put at risk during childbirth, men are at no health risk. How do you propose to equalize that? Or are you okay with that inequality?
|
|
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 9, 2015 13:15:54 GMT -5
i think it depends on how you interpret the question, tallguy. how i interpreted it is: if a man decides to walk away because a woman refuses to abort, is that his right? and i think the answer is yes to that. if a woman carries a pregnancy to term knowing that she will NOT have a husband/boyfriend/lover/companion to help her, it is on her. That's where we disagree...the child is the man's as well and so he should provide for it. I don't agree with the man being able to walk away from that situation at all. it has nothing to do with who created it, for me. if i build a house with a partner, and halfway through, i decide i want out, and he agrees, then, it is HIS HOUSE. edit: we might be talking about two different things. there are actually four cases here. one is that the woman wants to have the baby, and the man doesn't. one is that the man wants to have the baby, and the woman doesn't. one is that the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy, and the man doesn't. one is that the man wants to terminate the pregnancy, and the woman doesn't. i was not talking about the latter two cases, at all, as that becomes the "A" issue, which has been so grossly overdiscussed on this board that i have nothing more to say about 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 9, 2015 13:16:55 GMT -5
You mean that fact that there is no depth because I'm actually not a misogynist? That word doesn't mean what you think it means... Here's what it actually means And here's why it doesn't apply to me: I am not "against women"... I am "against inequality". I'm not "for male power and domination", I'm "for equality for everyone when and where possible". I don't dislike or despise women (well...not "because they are women" anyway... I do dislike some people because they are ignorant though, their gender is irrelevant to that, and some of them ARE women... but there are some men that are ignorant as well... sometimes on the same subject!) Bye again, though. Women can give birth, men cannot. How do you propose to make that equal? Women's lives are put at risk during childbirth, men are at no health risk. How do you propose to equalize that? Or are you okay with that inequality? the inherent inequality of the sexes does not deprive EITHER of choice. the man can CHOOSE to go solo. so can the woman. that is as equal as it gets. edit: i think the POSITIVE side of this argument (woman gives birth) is pretty straightforward. the NEGATIVE side is way thornier.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 9, 2015 13:20:03 GMT -5
That's where we disagree...the child is the man's as well and so he should provide for it. I don't agree with the man being able to walk away from that situation at all. it has nothing to do with who created it, for me. if i build a house with a partner, and halfway through, i decide i want out, and he agrees, then, it is HIS HOUSE. But you said it yourself there, "and he agrees...."
That is kind of a key point, don't you think?
|
|
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 9, 2015 13:23:14 GMT -5
it has nothing to do with who created it, for me. if i build a house with a partner, and halfway through, i decide i want out, and he agrees, then, it is HIS HOUSE. But you said it yourself there, "and he agrees...."
That is kind of a key point, don't you think?
of course. it is THE key point, right? consent. you know me. i am all about the consent, bro. but i was also expression a position of RIGHTS in this. if someone assumes the responsibility for a mutual endeavor (aka"ownership"), and the other person wants out, then that seems just as just to me, even if the person who accepts it would rather have the partner involved.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 9, 2015 13:36:52 GMT -5
Considering your previous edit a few posts back, I think we are talking about somewhat dissimilar things. This is more about the man simply choosing to walk away from responsibility, whether the woman wants to keep the baby or not.
You're a businessman, so you know about contracts whether explicit or implied. Would you consider this somewhat like a specific performance situation? Sure, you can get out of it with the court's blessing, but you will pay to do so. You cannot create (or help create) a situation and then just unilaterally walk away from 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 9, 2015 13:48:48 GMT -5
Considering your previous edit a few posts back, I think we are talking about somewhat dissimilar things. This is more about the man simply choosing to walk away from responsibility, whether the woman wants to keep the baby or not.
You're a businessman, so you know about contracts whether explicit or implied. Would you consider this somewhat like a specific performance situation? Sure, you can get out of it with the court's blessing, but you will pay to do so. You cannot create (or help create) a situation and then just unilaterally walk away from it. again- how i interpreted this is this: a man accidentally gets a woman pregnant, despite precautions. the man doesn't want the baby, but the woman does. she accepts responsibility. a man accidentally gets a woman pregnant, despite precautions. the woman doesn't want the baby, but the man does. he accepts responsibility. the question then becomes whether the man has the RIGHT to ask the woman to carry the pregnancy to term for HIM. using my own logic, i am forced to conclude that the answer is YES. the accident happened, and the consequences must allow for that. where we all differ is what the non-responsible party's contribution should be in these situations. my position is NONE.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:32:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 13:50:58 GMT -5
it has nothing to do with who created it, for me. if i build a house with a partner, and halfway through, i decide i want out, and he agrees, then, it is HIS HOUSE. But you said it yourself there, "and he agrees...."
That is kind of a key point, don't you think?
His analogy fails. There are three people involved with having a child. The man, the woman and the child.
|
|
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 9, 2015 13:53:51 GMT -5
But you said it yourself there, "and he agrees...."
That is kind of a key point, don't you think?
His analogy fails. There are three people involved with having a child. The man, the woman and the child. it is not an analogy. it is a POSITION, hickle. and it is just as valid as your own.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,779
|
Post by steff on Aug 9, 2015 13:56:59 GMT -5
Nothing like watching a bunch of men decide what women can or cannot do with their bodies & reproduction.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 9, 2015 13:58:43 GMT -5
And that's fine, but I don't think that is the general interpretation or intent of the question. I think it is more that he wants to walk away from any responsibility at all. She may or may not want the baby, but does not believe in abortion and doesn't feel for some reason that she could give it up. She is then forced into a choice that she doesn't want to make, while he walks away with no responsibility or consequence. And even in part two of your interpretation of it, he is still imposing a significant hardship on her for no benefit to her.
It is an inherently inequitable situation no matter how it is interpreted.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:32:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 14:00:05 GMT -5
Nothing like watching a bunch of men decide what women can or cannot do with their bodies & reproduction. Who is talkiing about that? I thought the argument was about what responsibilities the man has and if he can end them.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 9, 2015 14:02:40 GMT -5
Nothing like watching a bunch of men decide what women can or cannot do with their bodies & reproduction. That is not at all the discussion, and we are not deciding anything.
But in case you haven't noticed, I'm on the women's side....
|
|
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 9, 2015 14:03:49 GMT -5
Nothing like watching a bunch of men decide what women can or cannot do with their bodies & reproduction. i never said anything of the sort. what i said was this: if a man and woman engage in a consensual sexual relationship, there exists the possibility that the outcome will be pregnancy. BOTH parties assume that risk, and therefore, BOTH parties must assume the consequences of that. PERSONALLY, i think that the woman should have every say over "what goes on in her body". i was merely following my LOGIC through. there is an obvious conflict there which i am trying to resolve. dismissing this as somehow misogynistic is not very fair, steff.
|
|
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 9, 2015 14:06:57 GMT -5
And that's fine, but I don't think that is the general interpretation or intent of the question. I think it is more that he wants to walk away from any responsibility at all.
i think the man has as much responsibility as the woman. how they RESOLVE THAT should be a MUTUAL DECISION, imo. if it is not mutual, then both are still on the hook. however, i would consider a "unilateral" decision to be valid in this situation, provided that the decision maker accepts absolute responsibility. i realize that this puts me in an awkward position in terms of who is ultimately in charge of gestation, and i am trying to parse that now. i KNOW that most women will disagree with it, and i am respectful of that, but again, i think the LOGIC dictates that i take the position that i just did, even if my deep respect for women would cause me to PERSONALLY acquiesce. edit: for the record, i came into this discussion with Richard's question. i INTERPRETED that question a certain way, which may or MAY NOT have been in continuity with the discussion. if i have derailed this discussion into a minor area, i apologize, but i am actually not all that interested in discussion the negative outcomes, for reasons i have already addressed. this question of carrying the pregnancy to term interests me, as it has a different dimension to it- namely the responsibility for the care and upbringing of a human being, post gestation. i PERSONALLY think that is an interesting aspect of the problem. if you don't, that's cool.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:32:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 14:23:23 GMT -5
Nothing like watching a bunch of men decide what women can or cannot do with their bodies & reproduction. It is interesting that some women think men should not talk about women's bodies reproduction rights. I guess we should just be told what to think. It is obvious Steff did not even look at the conversation so she is criticizing that a conversation exists. That seems arrogant to me.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 9, 2015 14:42:06 GMT -5
I came into it at #136, where I rejected Richard's question as unfair.
|
|
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 9, 2015 14:49:10 GMT -5
I didn't say we should get rid of a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, just that maybe we should look at changing the section of the law that deals with forcing a man to support a child that he never wanted against his will. i will admit that it is SIMPLER to just say that the man has no say in gestation, period. that is how the law is written, and that makes all of these arguments go away. but i am not sure how moral or just that is for either parties, if you look at the issues involved.
|
|
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 9, 2015 14:55:59 GMT -5
I came into it at #136, where I rejected Richard's question as unfair. i never even saw that reply. but i generally agree with it. i think where we differ is that you see the intrinsic unfairness of the situation as an invitation to acquiesce in favor of the absolute right of women in this situation. but clearly that is not entirely just. there is also an inherent unfairness in the man having no choice in a mutually created "problem". both parties have the same responsibility in that situation. it is TRUE that the woman would have to make the greater sacrifice during gestation, but it is equally true that if the man accepts the responsibility for the child, that the sacrifices for her would end at birth. i am of the mind that just compensation could be given for women in that situation, and that this could all be resolved- but believe me, i am QUITE sympathetic to the women's point of view on this argument.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 9, 2015 15:35:20 GMT -5
About the only way that I could absolve him of responsibility were if he could prove (or she admitted) that he was forced into the sexual encounter in the first place. No choice = no responsibility. If he entered into it of his own volition then he is responsible for outcomes from it. I don't see a way around that unless she gives him the option, which she may very well do just to have him out of the picture and out of their lives.
SDG's friend's case as presented is symptomatic of something very wrong with the system. I will grant that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:32:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 17:59:23 GMT -5
You mean that fact that there is no depth because I'm actually not a misogynist? That word doesn't mean what you think it means... Here's what it actually means And here's why it doesn't apply to me: I am not "against women"... I am "against inequality". I'm not "for male power and domination", I'm " for equality for everyone when and where possible". I don't dislike or despise women (well...not "because they are women" anyway... I do dislike some people because they are ignorant though, their gender is irrelevant to that, and some of them ARE women... but there are some men that are ignorant as well... sometimes on the same subject!) Bye again, though. Women can give birth, men cannot. How do you propose to make that equal? Women's lives are put at risk during childbirth, men are at no health risk. How do you propose to equalize that? Or are you okay with that inequality? You bolded the wrong one to ask that question. I bolded the answer to your question for you. Obviously there can be no TRUE equality since men physically/biologically can't become pregnant... BUT... there could be a limited equality in the ability to "opt out" of parentage (which is something women can do currently, but men are not allowed to).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:32:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 18:03:20 GMT -5
Nothing like watching a bunch of men decide what women can or cannot do with their bodies & reproduction. I believe you are misunderstanding the debate. This debate isn't questioning "what women can or can't do with their bodies"... it's questioning whether they have the right to force that choice (if the choose to keep the pregnancy) on men.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:32:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 18:05:44 GMT -5
Women can give birth, men cannot. How do you propose to make that equal? Women's lives are put at risk during childbirth, men are at no health risk. How do you propose to equalize that? Or are you okay with that inequality? You bolded the wrong one to ask that question. I bolded the answer to your question for you. Obviously there can be no TRUE equality since men physically/biologically can't become pregnant... BUT... there could be a limited equality in the ability to "opt out" of parentage (which is something women can do currently, but men are not allowed to). so unequal problems and equal solution?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 16:32:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2015 18:13:50 GMT -5
I didn't say we should get rid of a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, just that maybe we should look at changing the section of the law that deals with forcing a man to support a child that he never wanted against his will. i will admit that it is SIMPLER to just say that the man has no say in gestation, period. that is how the law is written, and that makes all of these arguments go away. but i am not sure how moral or just that is for either parties, if you look at the issues involved. I agree with the man having no say in gestation. What I don't agree with is if the woman's choice is to continue a gestation that it is then forcing consequences on the man.
|
|