or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › My Body My Choice- For men too..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My Body My Choice- For men too.. - Page 8

post #281 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Yes. She's aborting a fetus. By aborting a fetus what does the woman avoid?

Accidental death during birth?

Logic eludes your side of the argument. The opt-out vs. abortion is a one way gate. Many possibilities on one side, one possibility on the other side.

You can't pick one of a multitude of possibilities and use that as a blanket example to base your laws on. That's what you're trying to do. It's simple logic.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #282 of 382
BR--

LOL!
Nice post! I think you summed it up better than I did, certainly with more humor.

james808 (aka "Someone")
post #283 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Accidental death during birth?

Oh come on. You are just doing this for laughs now aren't you? You can't possibly believe that is why the majority of abortions take place in this country.
post #284 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Accidental death during birth?

Logic eludes your side of the argument. The opt-out vs. abortion is a one way gate. Many possibilities on one side, one possibility on the other side.

You can't pick one of a multitude of possibilities and use that as a blanket example to base your laws on. That's what you're trying to do. It's simple logic.

Man would I be rich if I could figure out a way to stab people with ice picks through the computer screen.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #285 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by james808
When the women is making a decision about her fetus, you say her decision is about her fetus. "She's aborting a fetus, nothing more."

When the man is making a decision AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME (the opt out), then all of a sudden it is not a fetus anymore (the present), but already a child (from the future), according to your argument. "A man is opting out of raising the child that would come from the fetus."

Do you see how this is a problem?

Don't bother capitalizing the 'AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME' because that's still not the issue. I'm not arguing the when something is asked, but the what that is asked.

The initial thread started is asking for an opt-out clause that allows a man to opt-out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. That's not my qualification, that's the thread starter's qualification.

With abortion a woman says cut this part of my body out of me today. With the proposed opt-out plan a man would be allowed to say if that zygote grows into a human I'm not responsible for it. Abortion and opt-out inherently are discussing two different periods of time in the development of a child/fetus and are thus not equitable or comparable.

I didn't create this inequitable scenario, the thread does. It's the problem I've been highlighting all along. This scenario shows that abortion and this fabled opt-out have nothing in common and shouldn't be compared as equals.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #286 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Don't bother capitalizing the 'AT THE SAME POINT IN TIME' because that's still not the issue. I'm not arguing the when something is asked, but the what that is asked.

The initial thread started is asking for an opt-out clause that allows a man to opt-out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. That's not my qualification, that's the thread starter's qualification.

With abortion a woman says cut this part of my body out of me today. With the proposed opt-out plan a man would be allowed to say if that zygote grows into a human I'm not responsible for it. Abortion and opt-out inherently are discussing two different periods of time in the development of a child/fetus and are thus not equitable or comparable.

I didn't create this inequitable scenario, the thread does. It's the problem I've been highlighting all along. This scenario shows that abortion and this fabled opt-out have nothing in common and shouldn't be compared as equals.

And your line of reasoning has been proven to be more flawed than an object that is so flawed it is REALLY REALLY REALLY flawed and yet you still insist on being right.

The sky is blue.

No it isn't. It's shit brown.

No, it's blue. Look. See?

LIES! IT'S SHIT BROWN!

DAMMIT MAN THE SKY IS BLUE!

LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE EXTREME NOISE CAUSED BY THE SHIT BROWN SKY!

What? Colors don't make noise! ARGGGGGGGH

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #287 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Man would I be rich if I could figure out a way to stab people with ice picks through the computer screen.

Use some logic instead. It'll get you into less trouble.

Abortions have many motivations and thus can't be tied to any single one. If it could, then that single motivation could undermine the legality of abortions in general. Much the same killing someone isn't illegal, but murder is. Killing someone has many motivations and is thus not illegal across the board while murder on the other hand is always illegal.

Opt-out, in this analogy, is murder. That is, it has one motivation and that motivation is not comparable to the multitude of motivations behind abortions. That motivation is by definition to absolve a father of parenting responsibilities, one of many possible motivations for an abortion.

The argument works in one direction but not the other. That's how logic works sometimes.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #288 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
And your line of reasoning has been proven to be more flawed than an object that is so flawed it is REALLY REALLY REALLY flawed and yet you still insist on being right.

"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #289 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Use some logic instead. It'll get you into less trouble.

Abortions have many motivations and thus can't be tied to any single one. If it could, then that single motivation could undermine the legality of abortions in general. Much the same killing someone isn't illegal, but murder is. Killing someone has many motivations and is thus not illegal across the board while murder on the other hand is always illegal.

Opt-out, in this analogy, is murder. That is, it has one motivation and that motivation is not comparable to the multitude of motivations behind abortions. That motivation is by definition to absolve a father of parenting responsibilities, one of many possible motivations for an abortion.

The argument works in one direction but not the other. That's how logic works sometimes.

So, you believe that general abortion should be illegal and only allow prescription abortion as a last resort to save a mother's life that is clearly in danger?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #290 of 382
The only way logic could be that warped is if you placed it just outside a black hole, pissed on it, then gave it a good kick to send it spinning.

What you're saying makes NO sense.

Maybe I'm just slow here, but could you elaborate a bit on what you mean. I am completely lost by where you're trying to go with your "logic".

A nice logic tree like BR's would help.
post #291 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
So, you believe that general abortion should be illegal and only allow prescription abortion as a last resort to save a mother's life that is clearly in danger?

No. Why don't you research the many number of reasons a woman might get an abortion.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #292 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Longhorn
What you're saying makes NO sense.

What I'm saying is that allowing a man to opt-out of parenting responsibilites of a human being, giving all of the responsibilities to the other parent, is not equivalent to an abortion. That's pretty straight forward (even for someone as slow as you. )
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #293 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
No. Why don't you research the many number of reasons a woman might get an abortion.

Abortion to avoid having to raise a kid is murder in your eyes. A GOOD PORTION of abortions are for that very reason. Deal with it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #294 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
The initial thread started is asking for an opt-out clause that allows a man to opt-out of raising the child that would come from the fetus. That's not my qualification, that's the thread starter's qualification.

Think of it as an opt-out from the fetus. There? Are you OK with the opt-out now? Now there is no opting out of raising the child for the man, the abortion-for-men has legally killed it from his perspective.

The initial post simply asked for an alternative for men that is similar to a woman's right to an abortion. The qualifications are coming from you.

From that first post:
"The premise:
On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court eliminated a checkerboard of state laws on reproductive freedom and guaranteed American women choice throughout the country. Thirty years later, American men are still waiting for the same right.

Women participate in ending their parental rights via abortion, adoption or in some states even abandonment within the first couple months after the pregnancy. All with absolutely no consequences for her actions.

Why should men, if they don't so desire be subjected to 18 years of child support demands if they didn't even desire the child in the first place?"
post #295 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by james808
Think of it as an opt-out from the fetus. There? Are you OK with the opt-out now? Now there is no opting out of raising the child for the man, the abortion-for-men has legally killed it from his perspective.

The initial post simply asked for an alternative for men that is similar to a woman's right to an abortion. The qualifications are coming from you.

I've asked if trumptman would change the argument to opting out of responsibilities during the fetus stage and he wouldn't do it.

My opinion is just that an opt-out isn't similar to an abortion.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #296 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Abortion to avoid having to raise a kid is murder in your eyes. A GOOD PORTION of abortions are for that very reason. Deal with it.

Um, no. It's not murder to me. And I'm aware that a good portion of abortions are for this reason. It's just not the sole reason. Unlike opt-out as discussed here, where opting out of parental responsibilites is the sole reason.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #297 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Um, no. It's not murder to me.

Quote:
Use some logic instead. It'll get you into less trouble.

Abortions have many motivations and thus can't be tied to any single one. If it could, then that single motivation could undermine the legality of abortions in general. Much the same killing someone isn't illegal, but murder is. Killing someone has many motivations and is thus not illegal across the board while murder on the other hand is always illegal.

Opt-out, in this analogy, is murder.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #298 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I've asked if trumptman would change the argument to opting out of responsibilities during the fetus stage and he wouldn't do it.

My opinion is just that an opt-out isn't similar to an abortion.

bunge,

You know I really try never to be rude. But I have NO idea what you are talking about. I don't have a magic thread control button. Likewise I don't understand what sort of question you are attempting to rephrase the discussion to with regard to different from what it is now.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #299 of 382
I'm glad to "hear you say that", because I looked through the thread again (it is very long, I did not re-read every single post) and I couldn't figure out what he was talking about either.

I did notice this on page 2, written by Bunge.
"And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body."

After seeing this post in light of his more recent ones, it all starts to make more sense.
post #300 of 382
BR, re-read what you quoted. I didn't say anything near what you've accused me of saying.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
bunge,

You know I really try never to be rude. But I have NO idea what you are talking about. I don't have a magic thread control button.

You're not a magician?

The issue that's been regurgitated is that the opt-out only effects a fetus because it's only allowed during the fetus/first two trimesters of the pregnancy. And because it's only allowed during the same time period as an abortion it is equivalent to an abortion.

What I'm saying is that this is not the case.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #301 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by james808
I did notice this on page 2, written by Bunge.
"And the man has the choice before conception, after that, it's in the woman's body and he shouldn't have a say until the child is out of body."

After seeing this post in light of his more recent ones, it all starts to make more sense.

I also said this on page one:

Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Yes. I say men should be able to abort any fetuses inside their bodies.

Prior to birth, both sexes have basically the same choices. Those being birth control, or surgery, to avoid pregnancies. After birth they still have the same choices. Those being keeping the kid, adoption or abandon. During the pregnancy current biology supports the fact that a woman has control of her body, not anyone else.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #302 of 382
Damn, now I know I've done seen this cross-street a few times already. The only way that's possible is if bunge is driving us around in circles until we get bored and leave the topic. I believe this premise has been addressed already. The man's "opt-out" does not affect a woman's choice over her own body. She is free to abort, carry to gestation, and put up for adoption, regardless of the man's choice. Her body has NOT been infringed upon.

I think what bunge has been getting at all along, in his own brand of perverse logic, is that the man's opt-out cannot be allowed to have an affect upon the fetus while it is still inside the woman's body. Being inside there mandates that only the woman can affect it. Therefore, the only time a man's opt-out can take effect (in bunge's logic, that is) is until after the fetus or baby has left the woman's body. If it is the fetus, then obviously the woman caused this via abortion (barring medical complications which would have induced this state, beyond the woman's control, of course), in which case the man is opted-out by default since the fetus will likely not survive into a baby, anyway. If it is the baby that leaves the woman's body, then bunge's logic suggests that opting-out would be "murder" of the baby. Of course, this is all bunk, anyway, as the man isn't murdering a baby by opting-out. He is simply refusing to give child support (as should have been apparent very early in the pregnancy when the man would opt-out within an accepted grace period, but of course, bunge has chosen to not acknowledge/disregard this "letter of unintent" until only after the embryo/fetus/baby has been expelled from the woman's body). Whether or not the baby lives or not entirely depends on if the woman chooses to raise it or not. Therein you might see where bunge is unable to equate opt-out to abortion, no matter how trivial a point it is compared to more practical matters such as "getting something done to protect the exploited" and/or discouraging the formation of single parent families instead of encouraging them.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #303 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
Damn, now I know I've done seen this cross-street a few times already. The only way that's possible is if bunge is driving us around in circles until we get bored and leave the topic. I believe this premise has been addressed already. The man's "opt-out" does not affect a woman's choice over her own body. She is free to abort, carry to gestation, and put up for adoption, regardless of the man's choice. Her body has NOT been infringed upon.

I think what bunge has been getting at all along, in his own brand of perverse logic, is that the man's opt-out cannot be allowed to have an affect upon the fetus while it is still inside the woman's body. Being inside there mandates that only the woman can affect it. Therefore, the only time a man's opt-out can take effect (in bunge's logic, that is) is until after the fetus or baby has left the woman's body. If it is the fetus, then obviously the woman caused this via abortion (barring medical complications which would have induced this state, beyond the woman's control, of course), in which case the man is opted-out by default since the fetus will likely not survive into a baby, anyway. If it is the baby that leaves the woman's body, then bunge's logic suggests that opting-out would be "murder" of the baby. Of course, this is all bunk, anyway, as the man isn't murdering a baby by opting-out. He is simply refusing to give child support (as should have been apparent very early in the pregnancy when the man would opt-out within an accepted grace period, but of course, bunge has chosen to not acknowledge/disregard this "letter of unintent" until only after the embryo/fetus/baby has been expelled from the woman's body). Whether or not the baby lives or not entirely depends on if the woman chooses to raise it or not. Therein you might see where bunge is unable to equate opt-out to abortion, no matter how trivial a point it is compared to more practical matters such as "getting something done to protect the exploited" and/or discouraging the formation of single parent families instead of encouraging them.

I've said this far too often lately but it's just too apropos...

I love you and want your babies.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #304 of 382
It's funny you should say something like that. It wouldn't be the first time someone has said just that to me over an Internet board. Seriously, I'm not kidding about this! Now if only I could get women (or even A woman) to say that to me in real life...

...or were you just propositioning to acquire any babies I might be opting-out of in the future?
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #305 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
It's funny you should say something like that. It wouldn't be the first time someone has said just that to me over an Internet board. Seriously, I'm not kidding about this! Now if only I could get women (or even A woman) to say that to me in real life...

No no no. You don't want women to say that to you. You want women to say "I love you and I want hours and hours of rough sweaty hot monkey sex every day but I most certainly DO NOT want your babies and I will abort any accident that happens. I'm also using fourteen forms of birth control."

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #306 of 382
Randycat,

Seriously, just about every sentence you wrote was wrong. I could go over it sentence by sentence, but not until I've had more to drink.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #307 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I've had more to drink.

Ahh, so that explains it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #308 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
No no no. You don't want women to say that to you. You want women to say "I love you and I want hours and hours of rough sweaty hot monkey sex every day but I most certainly DO NOT want your babies and I will abort any accident that happens. I'm also using fourteen forms of birth control."

Yes, I'd like that, too, but being a man who is getting past the "wild oats" stage, I can acknowledge the sincerest sentiment in a woman who would look into my eyes and say they would like to give me the ultimate gift (no not any that virgin crap or teh butt sex)- the gift of perpetuating my genes. They want to have a baby, and they want it to be the sum of all that I am made of and all that she is made of. It just seems something far more endearing than simply, "I want you for some sex tonight." It fills an emptiness that is unfillable in any other way when it seems as if natural selection is/has been turning its back to you. (What else could make you question your self-worth in society than that?) Sorry to get all Ally McBeal on all a ya. Am I gay now or what?!
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #309 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Randycat,

Seriously, just about every sentence you wrote was wrong. I could go over it sentence by sentence, but not until I've had more to drink.

Well, of course it will be wrong. Your meanings change quicker than a Borg defense grid. Hence, the endless circle dance for what, 8 pages? You're a moving target in a discussion if I ever saw one.
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #310 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Randycat99
Well, of course it will be wrong. Your meanings change quicker than a Borg defense grid. Hence, the endless circle dance for what, 8 pages? You're a moving target in a discussion if I ever saw one.

That's BS if I've ever read it. I've been consistent since my first post, the third one in this thread. The only time I wasn't set was early on in the discussion when I was questioning and formulating a stance on the subject. Since I made my stance, I haven't heard anything intelligent enough to sway me.

Here's the cliff notes version.

Three stages of birth: before conception, during pregnancy, after birth.

Two out of the three are equal. The only period in question is during the pregnancy.

Trumptman suggests we men have something that equates to an abortion. I say I haven't heard of anything that's remotely similar to an abortion for a man.

I'm still waiting.

Quote:
The man's "opt-out" does not affect a woman's choice over her own body. She is free to abort, carry to gestation, and put up for adoption, regardless of the man's choice. Her body has NOT been infringed upon.

I've never argued this in the least so don't attribute it to me. Thanks.

Quote:
I think what bunge has been getting at all along, in his own brand of perverse logic, is that the man's opt-out cannot be allowed to have an affect upon the fetus while it is still inside the woman's body. Being inside there mandates that only the woman can affect it.

Time and again I've said that I would support an opt-out that only effects the fetus. Your argument here is that I'm saying exactly the opposite. You're just confused, and it's not because I'm running you in circles. It's because you refuse to listen. I'm not creating circles, I haven't changed my argument since page one.

Quote:
Therefore, the only time a man's opt-out can take effect (in bunge's logic, that is) is until after the fetus or baby has left the woman's body.

Wrong again. The premise of trumptman's original argument is that the opt-out effects the baby stage. Those are the rules that were set up by the original argument, not me.

Quote:
If it is the baby that leaves the woman's body, then bunge's logic suggests that opting-out would be "murder" of the baby.

I never said anything remotely similar. You're reading too much BR.

Quote:
Therein you might see where bunge is unable to equate opt-out to abortion, no matter how trivial a point it is compared to more practical matters such as "getting something done to protect the exploited" and/or discouraging the formation of single parent families instead of encouraging them.

Here is the meat and potatoes of the pro opt-out crowd. "Screw law and equality, I want special treatment!" What happened to personal responsibility?

I'm all for something that's equitable. The problem is, you're creating a band-aid over a problem but not addressing the problem directly. There are problems in the child support system that should be fixed. That's where the basis for this argument lies. Unfortunately opt-out doesn't address any of the problems.

Just because a woman can have an abortion doesn't mean any device you think of can be used to give men another option. Find a solution that's remotely equitable. I've already said that giving both parents the opt-out even if the pregnancy goes though option is at least equitable, even if it's stupid. But that's not good enough for most of you. You want inequity.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #311 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by BR
Ahh, so that explains it.

Whatever floats your boat sailor.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #312 of 382
No one of you has changed your own opinions since the thread started 8 pages ago, nor managed to challange anyone else to change their own opinions on the same time. 8 pages, over 300 posts. Where do you want to go?

My points are clear, and very close to bunge's view. And many of the repeatingly anti-bunge points of view seem to just repeat and repeat themselves. Can someone bring some new points, or some new SOLUTIONS?

Restating: 1) I think everybody should be able to control their own body, and what's included in it. Therefore: a woman who simply does not want to have a completed pregnancy or kids, should be allowed to have an abort anytime she is pregnant not planned or against her own will. (e.g. failed protection, so not used as the main 'protection')

2) If you are male and have sex with a woman, never trust what she says "I'm on the pill" etc. At least if she is not THE woman of your life. Use more than 1 form of protection (condom + foam etc, or just have oral sex) to be sure. I think - knowing about the sperm hijacking cases - that is it NOT an exaggeration if you really have a paper to be signed by the female you have sex with, before the sex where she promises you that she and you are using the a, b, and c etc forms of protection, and she does not plan to get pregnant of you, and should any failure in all of your protections occur leaving her pregnant, she will NOT get any kind of help from you, and that you will sue her for an xx tot $$ (e.g. 50'000 $) for emotional pain and stress etc. Ridiculous? I don't think so, and I'm not a male.

3) Other means: a) Have only oral sex. b) have sex only with same sex than you and eliminate the problem of potential pregnancies. c) have sex only with women aged significantly under or over the possible age of getting pregnant (roughly 10-50), or with women with a bmi over 13 (e.g. someone 5'10" & 70 lb or under rarely can cause you trouble by getting pregnant) or d) have sex ONLY with your "significant other" and just find your common ideal of how many kids you will likely enjoy having in your relation and in which time (e.g. 0,1,2,3, whatever amount, in 1, 2, 5, 10, whatever period of time). Remember also that there are e) persons that do not want to have sex before marriage, or just ever. Oh - the tabasco drops in the condom sound still good, I'll suggest for those of you that "need" to have sex with the "not permanent significant one" to put some drops of really hot tabasco to the condoms after, or use e.g. transparent washing (machine) liquids. They are insanely burning on bare skin, I can't imagine what they do elsewhere. You have the right of disposing your own bodily liquids at your own home on the way you prefer.



I think prevention makes a lot more sense than trying to resolve the case after.

If you are a male, and want the kid youur woman is waiting and that she wants to abort, she should be allowed to abort it - or you should be allowed to have the fetus transplanted to your OWN BODY (like Arnold in Junior). As long as the fetus is in her body (i.e. it is not born) it is her problem.

If she wants it and you don't .. If you have requested her to sign the paper where you wnt 50'000 $ for your emotional stress from her if she becomes pregnant from you, should likely do it. If you know where your body liquids are (e.g. in your own trash can in your bathroom, with 10 added drops of habanero tabasco or washing liquid in the same condom) you are safe. Or just make her swallow every time. If she'll try to vomit your sperm later to recycle it for the other purpose, her stomach acids have already made it non-functional for the other purpose. (I can't imagine anyone trying that though. You wanted to go complicated in the thread, there we go).

I think people who want to abandon their kids then years after they are born should not have kids at all. So no comments on those cases.
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
How many problems have you modified or originated in the past 1 day?
Reply
post #313 of 382
So bunge, you're saying that abortion isn't an opt-out option because woman have a variety of reason for having an abortion?

Would it make a difference to you if a vast majority of them have abortions for lifestyle/economic reasons? (i.e. same reasons men would want to opt out at this stage)
post #314 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Longhorn
So bunge, you're saying that abortion isn't an opt-out option because woman have a variety of reason for having an abortion?

Would it make a difference to you if a vast majority of them have abortions for lifestyle/economic reasons? (i.e. same reasons men would want to opt out at this stage)

I am saying that abortion isn't solely an opt-out option. It's a multitude of reasons and even if a majority of them are for lifestyle/economic reasons, it's irrelevant to me. There are more than enough examples of exceptions to dilute the motivations.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #315 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Here is the meat and potatoes of the pro opt-out crowd. "Screw law and equality, I want special treatment!" What happened to personal responsibility?

I'm all for something that's equitable. The problem is, you're creating a band-aid over a problem but not addressing the problem directly. There are problems in the child support system that should be fixed. That's where the basis for this argument lies. Unfortunately opt-out doesn't address any of the problems.

Just because a woman can have an abortion doesn't mean any device you think of can be used to give men another option. Find a solution that's remotely equitable. I've already said that giving both parents the opt-out even if the pregnancy goes though option is at least equitable, even if it's stupid. But that's not good enough for most of you. You want inequity.

I want to start this reply with this quote from the mission statement of planned parenthood.(note not motherhood)

Reproductive freedomthe fundamental right of every individual to decide freely and responsibly when and whether to have a childis a reaffirmation of the principle of individual liberty cherished by most people worldwide. It helps ensure that children will be wanted and loved, that families will be strong and secure, and that choice rather than chance will guide the future of humanity.

A choice should determine when somene is a parent, not a chance.

Bunge, you say what has happened to personal responsibility. In our society we have determined that sex is about much more than just reproduction. If we followed your logic, then abortion shouldn't be allowed. Women should just be "responsible" for their sex.

However we know this not to be true because feminism and women have taught us that sex does not equal reproduction. Reproduction should be a choice.

What you need to do is come out of the dark ages my friend. There are many women who are capable and desire to raise a child without the issues a man brings. They make their own money and pay their own way in this world. They are liberated, capable and likely insulted by the notion that they need a man. This is true for buying a house, changing the oil in the car, or being able to financially afford a child.

You have repeatedly claimed that fathers should not be allowed to opt out because there will be ongoing costs associated with the child after it is born. I haven't avoided this issue. I have said quite plainly that women know their ability to raise a child alone and will choose whether to do so via abortion. Shawn at least politely admitted that he thought this was an infringement on their right to choose. I told him, yes to choose to parent, but that isn't what is guaranteed by the Constitution.

You keep harping on the issue as well without really stating it or addressing it head on.

The Constitution does not guarantee financial support for a woman when she has a child. It does not guarantee that parenting will be easy, financially comfortable, shared or anything else. Why anyone would expect this to be so, especially when no commitment has been made is even more ludicrous.

These independent, capable women that we have are intelligent enough to see how having and raising a child alone will affect them. If they believe it will affect them negatively. They will abort. If they believe it won't they will keep it. If morally they disagree with abortion, they can easily put it up for adoption since the father has already given up his parental rights.

Under every scenario the mother is fully in charge and fully decides her fate. That is freedom.

The reverse is not true. The man is left waiting, wondering, and hoping that his concerns might even be weighed in the decision. He may not want the child, but now he has 18 years of court fights and support issues.

You ask where is the responsibility on the father's part. They are taking it. If they want a child they will support it and if they don't they shouldn't have to. Responsibility as you define it is like accepting the punishment for a crime. Well last time I checked sex wasn't a crime. In fact last I checked with you, you viewed very negatively anyone who tries to criminalize sex between two consenting adults.

As I mentioned earlier, if the courts shouldn't care if I have sex with a man. Why should they care if I have sex with a woman?

What you refuse to discuss is the woman's responsibility. Her reproductive choice makes her weigh some options as well. Her responsibility is to decide whether she has the time, finances and desire to care for this child, possibly alone. If she feels she doesn't then that is why society give her the choice of not parenting. If she chooses to parent knowing she cannot meet the needs of the child. Then she has been irresponsible. Petitioning the government, sperm donor, or anyone else does not change the fact that she didn't weigh her choice responsibly.

Parenting should be a choice for both parties involved. Men being able to opt out is beneficial for women. It helps them truly understand his intent and the likelyhood of his support both physically and financially. In this regard it gives her more freedom of choice because she cannot be deceived about his intent and thus choose parenting with a partner who won't provide.

It solves many support issues because right now they revolve around women who are attempting to force men to parent against their will.

It can also be used to refocus public aid. Instead of a stream of women who demand public aid because the father of the child did not provide, we can instead focus it on women who truly were left in a bad spot via divorce, widowed, etc.

You say where is the responsibility of the man. I ask you where is the responsibility of the woman to insure that her child will have more in it's life than a garnished wage from a father that never wanted it. If a child truly needs two parents, then a woman has a responsibility to only choose when she knows the child will be supported, loved by two parents, and a cherished choice.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #316 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
...

And I politely said that if you're willing to give this opt-out power to women as well, then at least we're looking at an equitable situation. Equal rights for both parties. Until then, there's an 'abortion gap' that opt-out doesn't address adequately. A different plan might, might not.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #317 of 382
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
And I politely said that if you're willing to give this opt-out power to women as well, then at least we're looking at an equitable situation. Equal rights for both parties. Until then, there's an 'abortion gap' that opt-out doesn't address adequately. A different plan might, might not.

And I said I would, so then what is left to discuss. Start marching for men's rights!

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #318 of 382
blechhh! No, no, no... it should be "opt in"

Trying another approach...

Currently...

Risk (at copulation) = 50/50 (discounting contraceptive choices)
Information (upon conception) = 100% woman (no obligation to tell father)
Choice (during 2/3 of pregnacy) = 100% for woman / 0% for man
Responsibility (after birth) = 50/50 financial & 100/0 personal for single mother, 0/100 father adopts, 0/0 adoption to others

So bottom line, the woman has 100% of the choice and the man get's 50% of the financial responsibility.

Result:

Women can have children without a father without a financial penalty. Men have zero say unless you assume that the risk taken at copulation implies consent to raising a child they don't want (sorta like eating pork implies a consent to get trichinosis).

Alternative:

Man still has zero say on whether a woman aborts or not, but is not automatically required to provide support. NOTE: I didn't say "opt out" because that implies that he must take some affirmative action to decline responsibility. Unless married the man should have to "opt in" to be responsible for raising a child produced by a consensual copulation.

Result:

Women who cannot financially support a child on their own or get the father to contractually "opt in" will have the choice to abort or adopt out. This may result in more abortions/adoptions, but there will also be a significant drop in out-of-wedlock pregnacy as women come to understand that responsibility comes with choice. My guess is it would actually reduce abortions.

Caveats:

1. There may be an issue with a man who wants to adopt a child after deciding not to opt in during pregnacy when the mother has informed him. I might suggest requiring compensation and/or consent of the mother.
2. Explicit contracts at any stage can alter the situation (i.e. Man in long-term, unmarried relationship agrees to support any resulting children).
3. Provable deception can alter the situation.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
post #319 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
blechhh! No, no, no... it should be "opt in"

Why not "opt in" for the mother? After 9 months she's done her job. After that any sperm doner is 100% responsible unless he can get the mother to sign on the dotted line.

That makes just as much sense as your example.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #320 of 382
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Why not "opt in" for the mother? After 9 months she's done her job. After that any sperm doner is 100% responsible unless he can get the mother to sign on the dotted line.

That makes just as much sense as your example.

Any sperm doner? So if she goes to a sperm bank she can then legally oblige the doner to be 100% responsible? What, exactly, would be the legal distinction between a sperm bank doner and a participant in a one night stand? The sperm bank doner is at least fully aware that his sperm is meant to result in conception.

And what job? Is the woman obliged to bring the child to term? Is she providing a marketable service in return for salary? Has she contracted with anyone for this service? No, she has made a choice. A choice she alone posesses. With a choice comes responsibility.

The ONLY counter-argument to my position is that engaging in sex implies consent to bear the responsibility of raising a child. I don't accept this proposition. It certainly doesn't apply in the case of the woman, because she still has the choice to terminate the pregnacy.

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › My Body My Choice- For men too..