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.
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...
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?
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."
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?!
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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 freedom?the fundamental right of every individual to decide freely and responsibly when and whether to have a child?is 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.
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 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!
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).
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.
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.
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.
'Sperm doner' was just facetious. I was actually referring to whatever guy had sex and placed his sperm in a woman's birth canal.
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
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.
The ONLY one? Does that mean I'm not allowed to counter-argue with a different argument?
Engaging in sex implies consent to a pro-choice world where a woman has the right to abort, or birth, any child in her body. If she makes that choice, you are responsible as is the woman for whatever outcome.
So I take it you wouldn't support the opposite situation with regards to "opt-in"? Because you can see that it's folly? Just as it is for a man.
Comments
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.
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.
...or were you just propositioning to acquire any babies I might be opting-out of in the future?
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."
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.
Originally posted by bunge
I've had more to drink.
Ahh, so that explains it.
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?!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by BR
Ahh, so that explains it.
Whatever floats your boat sailor.
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.
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)
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.
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 freedom?the fundamental right of every individual to decide freely and responsibly when and whether to have a child?is 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
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.
'Sperm doner' was just facetious. I was actually referring to whatever guy had sex and placed his sperm in a woman's birth canal.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
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.
The ONLY one? Does that mean I'm not allowed to counter-argue with a different argument?
Engaging in sex implies consent to a pro-choice world where a woman has the right to abort, or birth, any child in her body. If she makes that choice, you are responsible as is the woman for whatever outcome.
So I take it you wouldn't support the opposite situation with regards to "opt-in"? Because you can see that it's folly? Just as it is for a man.