NationStates Jolt Archive

I know a woman who is about to undergo that precise procedure for that precise reason. I sure don't know any men doing the equivalent.
Well, they should step up and take one for the team. I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but Chuck Norris got a vasectomy, and then had it reversed 32 years later and fathered twins.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001569/news

Chuck Norris Unprepared For Fatherhood
23 May 2001 (WENN)
Action star Chuck Norris is eagerly awaiting the arrival of his twins - though he's not nearly ready for them. The 61-year-old Walker, Texas Ranger star - real name Carlos - is a father of three and grandfather of nine, and was convinced his child-conceiving days were over after a vasectomy 32 years ago - until he married second wife Gena in November 1998. The pair are now poised for parenthood, but have only gone as far as to name their arrivals. Chuck explains, "We're expecting twins in September, a boy and a girl - and I'm far from prepared! We have names for them so far, which are Dakota Allen for the boy and Danni Lee Kelly for the girl." And Chuck's son and daughter may grow up to be stunt people like their father - he adds, "They're well set for a life doing stunts - they're kicking already!"

If he could do it and still not give up his fatherhood options, I don't see why any other "real" men should be whining about it.

That is an issue with biology. The law ignores biology. Biology is irrelevant to the law.

biology is irrelevant to the law except when its an issue regarding a biological process.

when men get pregnant, they will have an equal right to abort or to carry the pregnancy to term.

that is equal under the law

when a embryo is not in anyone's body (as in a frozen embryo) both parent have equal rights regarding it and both have 100% veto power in denying that embryo the possibility of becoming a living baby.

that is equal under the law

when a baby is born, both have equal rights to the baby and equal responsibility to support it

that is equal under the law

when a baby is given up for adoption both parent have to agree

that is equal under the law

a paper abortion is NOT the equivalent to a real abortion. a woman has no right to deny support of any child she might bring into the world. neither does a man.

that is equal under the law.

Because babies are human beings with rights, like the right to be financially supported by their parents.

I can ignore anything else you said by focusing on this one phrase.

So you don't support adoption then?

a woman has no right to deny support of any child she might bring into the world. neither does a man.

Then give it to both of them. That's fine with me too. In fact I argued that.

that is equal under the law.

How many chances does the male have to avoid parenthood?

How many does a woman have?

Count em up.

How's that equal?

Not nearly as much as having your wages garnished for the rest of your life.

pardon me?

what situation are you thinking of where a man has to pay child support and a woman doesnt have a child in her home that she works to support, spends her days taking care of, loses untold numbers of opportunities because she is the sole care for her child?

the absentee parent never pays as much financially as the custodial parent (except for the rare case where the absentee parent is rich and the custodial parent is poor)

There is no totally fair answer. Since men don't carry the child, they can't possibly, and shouldn't, have the right to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy. But it's not really fair to have no say. It's just a lot more unfair for someone to have say over someone else's body.

pardon me?

what situation are you thinking of where a man has to pay child support and a woman doesnt have a child in her home that she works to support, spends her days taking care of, loses untold numbers of opportunities because she is the sole care for her child?

the absentee parent never pays as much financially as the custodial parent (except for the rare case where the absentee parent is rich and the custodial parent is poor)

She has a choice to have to pay a small fee for an abortion. HE has no choice and may be billed according to the choice of a person he may of only met once.

Both of these options (tubal ligation and vasectomy) are reversible procedures(unless they changed it while I wasn't looking).

in rare cases and for extraordinary amounts of money not covered by insurance, you can sometimes get your tubal ligation or vasectomy reversed. in most cases, its permanent and is done so as to minimize the chances of spontaneous reversal making it that much harder to reverse on purpose.

She has a choice to have to pay a small fee for an abortion. HE has no choice and may be billed according to the choice of a person he may of only met once.

you are not making any sense

if she pays for an abortion he pays nothing

if she bears a live child they both pay for a minimum of 18 years. in the majority of cases, he pays far less than she does. (but she gets more of the joy of having a child)

Then give it to both of them. That's fine with me too. In fact I argued that.



How many chances does the male have to avoid parenthood?

How many does a woman have?

Count em up.

How's that equal?

its not equal

but its equal in the law.

by law, both have the exact same rights. its not the laws fault that man isnt the one who is pregnant, but if a man ever IS pregnant, he will have equal protection.

its not equal

but its equal in the law.

by law, both have the exact same rights. its not the laws fault that man isnt the one who is pregnant, but if a man ever IS pregnant, he will have equal protection.

No, it is not. She has the right to preemptively terminate future legal responsibilities up to 6 months after conception.

He does not.

The law should always attempt to ELIMINATE inequality based on gender, never FAVOR it.

No, it is not. She has the right to preemptively terminate future legal responsibilities up to 6 months after conception.

He does not.

The law should always attempt to ELIMINATE inequality based on gender, never FAVOR it.

They arnt they are treating right to body higher then right to money

and rightfully so

As is they can either A) ensure both have the right of body or B) That both have the right to money afterwords

I dont see a way of balancing both

And I dont see a way of allowing the paper abortion while still making sure that born children are still taken care of

No, it is not. She has the right to preemptively terminate future legal responsibilities up to 6 months after conception.

He does not.

The law should always attempt to ELIMINATE inequality based on gender, never FAVOR it.

That isn't a gender-based inequality, that's simple physical inequality. The law should recognize when natural physical inequalities require an inequality in the legal system.

That isn't a gender-based inequality, that's simple physical inequality. The law should recognize when natural physical inequalities require an inequality in the legal system.

No it should not.

The law should promote equality, in all things, at all times, in all instances.

It should never accept inequality. And when inequality exists as a result of physical inequality then the law should correct it, not support it.

The equivalent is saying that handicapped are physically inequal so the law should recognize that and just let them deal, rather than act to correct that.

No, it is not. She has the right to preemptively terminate future legal responsibilities up to 6 months after conception.

He does not.

The law should always attempt to ELIMINATE inequality based on gender, never FAVOR it.

no. she has the right to control her body. so does a pregnant man

she has NO right to deny her responsibility to any child who results from the sex act they both shared. neither does the man.

the law is equal, biology isnt.

she has NO right to deny her responsibility to any child who results from the sex act they both shared.

What, exactly, do you think an abortion does?

No it should not.

The law should promote equality, in all things, at all times, in all instances.

It should never accept inequality. And when inequality exists as a result of physical inequality then the law should correct it, not support it.

The equivalent is saying that handicapped are physically inequal so the law should recognize that and just let them deal, rather than act to correct that.

*reads back over thread*

Ah, I wasn't trying to argue for an acceptance of inequality, rather recognition and correction of it. I just took the wrong approach because I misread your comment.

The law is. Sally has the legal ability to do something Billy does not. That is unequal under the law. The law should change.
You are wrong. Neither party has any legal ability that the other party does not have if you look at the issue at the surface. The differences that occur are the result of biology.

Both parties have the right to consent to sex and to decline to consent. Both parties have the right to choose to not undergo invasive medical proceedures, neither party has the right to abandon their legal obligations to their living off-spring. The rights under law are exactly the same, the fact that those rights might play out differently in application is a common outcome that is entirely consistent with the general principals of law and justice.

Biology, as you say, isn't equal. However the law must be equal REGARDLESS of biology.
Right, which means the law cannot step in to cut off the rights of innocent and vulnerable members of society who the law is obliged to take a special and particular role in protecting the rights of, in order to provide a special gender specific right to a sub-group of males. The law doesnt exist, nor should it exist to nulify gender-difference.

In fact if you go below the surface, since women may not drink during pregnancy in many states (it is considered 'child endangerment'), but the law doesnt require the father of an unborn child to refrain from drinking, women in such states are treated unequally at law, they are required to take on a greater range of legal obligations than men are in connection with pregnancy.
I dont hear you crying out for males who are expectent fathers in such states to be prosecuted for having a bevy or two after work....I guess you only care about the differences that occur when biology meets the law when those differences are percieved by you as being negative to the interests of males....:rolleyes:

Ok. It was a high intensity day at work for me today so bare with me.

You understand what is involved with a vasectomy right?

Or was that an attempt of humor?

I understand, that was an attempt at humor.
:)

I support paper abortions for men. There is no reason that sex should have any unwanted consequences for anybody.

you are not making any sense

if she pays for an abortion he pays nothing

if she bears a live child they both pay for a minimum of 18 years. in the majority of cases, he pays far less than she does. (but she gets more of the joy of having a child)
I'm saying she chooses whether her life will be affected, he doesn't.

A good question too might be, why the fuck was she still drinking and blacking out on the frat lawn for the 9 months she had the baby.

Or did she have the baby soley to break her drunken fall?

In fact if you go below the surface, since women may not drink during pregnancy in many states (it is considered 'child endangerment'), but the law doesnt require the father of an unborn child to refrain from drinking, women in such states are treated unequally at law, they are required to take on a greater range of legal obligations than men are in connection with pregnancy.
I dont hear you crying out for males who are expectent fathers in such states to be prosecuted for having a bevy or two after work....I guess you only care about the differences that occur when biology meets the law when those differences are percieved by you as being negative to the interests of males....:rolleyes:

Because "child endangerment" is not a single act. The law is not "you may not drink while pregnant" it is "you may not act in such a way as to endanger the fetus". Neither may do so. Your analogy would be more proper if say...the mother couldn't drink but the father was free to punch her in the stomach.

No it should not.

The law should promote equality, in all things, at all times, in all instances.

It should never accept inequality. And when inequality exists as a result of physical inequality then the law should correct it, not support it.

The equivalent is saying that handicapped are physically inequal so the law should recognize that and just let them deal, rather than act to correct that.
There are several serious problems in this argument.

1) First of all, you are conflating "equal" with "equivalent." You are not talking about equality as a condition of status before the law. You are talking about using the law to apportion out -- hell I don't know what it is you think you are doing -- apportioning out some kind of right to participate in some fanciful notion of what abortion is so that a man can avoid a financial commitment. But this is a ridiculous proposition. You are trying to make two completely dissimilar things equivalent and then trying to claim that equivalence = equality. It's a fallacy upon a fallacy. Abortion is a medical procedure that deals with pregnancy. It is physically impossible for a man to be pregnant. Therefore, there is no way for a man to get an abortion. Anything that would give him any right to do so would effectively allow him to enslave the pregnant woman. It will not fly. Especially since what you are really arguing for is allowing a man to opt out of parental obligation to a baby he doesn't want in order to avoid paying out money. This is nothing like an abortion. Nothing at all. Abortion is a medical procedure. You are talking about a financial arrangement. Calling it a "paper abortion" is silly. Give it a better name, such as a "writ to cede parental rights" or some such and quit trying to make it an equal rights issue, when it isn't.

2) Your appeal to "equality" is also flawed on the basis that the law does not grant or guarantee or even seek equality. What the law seeks is justice. Just as equality =/= equivalence, so too equality =/= justice. Justice is the re-establishment of a harmonious or balanced condition when something happens to unbalance things. It is a payback system. You kill a person, the law punishes you by taking away your liberty for what is considered an appropriate amount of time. You destroy someone's property, you must make restitution of equal value. And so forth. It is a principle I have heard described as "making whole." The crime or tort takes something away from a person or from society, and the punishment/judgment is designed to repay that loss, i.e. make the victim or society whole again.

If your problem is that US courts are not interested in granting "writs to cede parental rights" to men who do not want to pay for the upkeep of their unwanted babies, it is probably because the courts do not consider that doing that would serve justice. The attitude seems to be that the baby, who is powerless and has had no say in the matter, will suffer more by losing that financial support than the man will suffer by paying it. Thus, from the pov of justice, the "paper abortion" would be creating an injustice against a party who is utterly blameless in the entire transaction.

If you want to change that attitude, then you should address it directly, rather than cry about "equal rights" over pregnancy. The issue is parental rights, not pregnancy rights. In effect you are bringing your argument against the wrong party, which brings me to:

3) Another flaw in your appeal to equality is that, in order to serve justice, the law often must treat people unequally. For instance, in this issue: What you are really seeking is to cede parental rights/obligations. Parental rights/obligations have nothing to do with pregnancy because they don't kick in until AFTER the pregnancy is over. You are trying to make this an issue of what's fair between you and the woman, who is your equal in social status and power. But in fact, the dispute is between you and the baby, who most certainly is not your equal. Since the power balance between you and the baby is already so unequal, the law must treat you more harshly than it would treat the baby, and give the baby a greater advantage over you than you have over the baby in order to achieve the balance that is justice.

Because of these flaws in your argument, the more you carry on about "equality" for men viz pregnancy/abortion, the less likely you are to carry your argument that men should be allowed to opt out of the financial obligations of childrearing.

Find me woman that are trying to avoid paying support for their children and we can talk about it.
I know such a woman, although with privacy issues I dont think naming her is appropriate.

She's been ordered to pay back the thousands she owes at 20 dollars a month, if she starts paying the back pay this month (she hasnt yet paid a cent in backpay), it'll be paid off by the time her son turns 30....

She evidently earns in excess of $40,000 per anum and has a live in partner who has 2 jobs including one that provides a house, electricity, phone-line rental, and suppliments the grocery bill.....apparently it would cause her hardship to make her pay up at a rate that might benefit her son (ie getting the money paid before he leaves home or in time to help pay for his tertiary education).

I too support paper abortion for men, because if women can get abortion, if women can abort their legal and parental responsibility for a child, then so can men. Whether or not a man can carry around a child is irreverent, he may not experience physical pain, but he'll feel financial pain. To force a man to pay for a child that he did not want to come to term is wrong, and it's stupid. The child deserves a loving, and caring home, and the child is not going to get that from the father because he'll resent the fact that he has to pay to support the child in which he did not want. Now as for "well he shouldn't have stuck his wee wee into her pee pee." Comon, unless it was rape, or incest, both parties has consented to sex, and both parties in doing so should realize what it may entails. Remember, it takes two to tango, and the woman has as much of a part in creating the child as the father did, and thus the father should receive the same rights as the mother. With that being said, here is my version of the paper abortion.

*Both parties can perform an abortion up to six month.

*After that six month as passed, and the child is carried to term by the mother, and the father has not signed a paper abortion, then both parties are responsible for the child financially.

*In signing the paper abortion, the father realize that he is giving up all legal and financial responsibility of the child, and gives all responsibility, legal, financial, or other to the mother.

That's pretty much it.

I can ignore anything else you said by focusing on this one phrase.

So you don't support adoption then?
Nice non-sequitor, or at least it might be if all non-sequitors were not inherently flawed.

Your miscomprehension of the legal aspects of the issues you are discussing is astonishing. Under law a parent is a legal entity. Under law a person is not the parent of their biological off-spring if their status as a parent has been legally voided by for instance a legal adoption....

Perhaps you might want to find out something about the issues concerned before you comment on them.

What, exactly, do you think an abortion does?
Abortion aborts a pregnancy. It does nothing to a baby. And before anyone starts carrying on, I remind all that elective abortions are not carried out after about 18 or so weeks, at which time it is still pure fantasy to be talking about "babies." If we are talking about what people choose to do, then we are talking about elective abortions. So, that out of the way --

A woman who chooses to abort her pregnancy is making a decision about what she is going to do with her own body, not someone else's.

AFTER SHE GIVES BIRTH, the baby exists. She is no longer dealing with a quasi-living, parasitic, semi-entity that is still partially part of her own body. It is now an entirely separate person, and she DOES NOT have any right to simply walk away from her obligations to it. Even if she wants to do that, she is obligated to actually hand the baby over to someone else, not just abandon it, or else she will face criminal charges.

So, in this way, too, your attempt to equate a man refusing to accept parental obligation with abortion is false. Pregancy rights and parental rights/obligations are not equivalent, and even the woman is bound by her parental obligations after the pregnancy, just as the man is. No out for you there.

Especially since what you are really arguing for is allowing a man to opt out of parental obligation to a baby he doesn't want in order to avoid paying out money. This is nothing like an abortion.

I have to sleep so I can't answer the whole thing, but, that is EXACTLY what an abortion is. What else does it do other than allow a woman to opt out of a praental obligation to a baby she doesn't for...well, whatever reason?

What else is it other than EXACTLY that? It's an opt out of parental obligation to a baby she doesn't want. There is no other way to describe it.

it takes the form of a medical procedure because well, that's the form it takes. Men, as you said, as a biological situation don't get pregnant and don't have the medical procedure.

However what you've missed is I have already said, a few times, quite clearly, that I also fully support a woman's right for this "paper abortion", or "writ to cede parental rights" or...call it what you wish. I would have no problem with that, and in fact would suggest it's necessary for a truly equal system.

Never have I said women shouldn't have an equal argument. And considering that the rest of your argument deals with theoretical arguments about how this is not an equality situation, saying that it should be applicable to both genders largely undercuts that.

AFTER SHE GIVES BIRTH, the baby exists. She is no longer dealing with a quasi-living, parasitic, semi-entity that is still partially part of her own body. It is now an entirely separate person, and she DOES NOT have any right to simply walk away from her obligations to it. Even if she wants to do that, she is obligated to actually hand the baby over to someone else, not just abandon it, or else she will face criminal charges.

So, in this way, too, your attempt to equate a man refusing to accept parental obligation with abortion is false. Pregancy rights and parental rights/obligations are not equivalent, and even the woman is bound by her parental obligations after the pregnancy, just as the man is. No out for you there.


And I have also said, many times, that the option for a male to "opt out" via (insert prefered name for legal procedure here) should only extend to the same time period that a woman can have an abortion (6 months, 18 weeks, whatever).

Once that window of opportunity closes, it closes for both. A male wouldn't be able to walk away from a born child any more than a woman can terminate it after it's born.

It's a decision made BEFORE birth

If a man doesn't want to have to worry about this then he should make sure he doesn't have sex with women who won't have abortions. Simple as that.

It's the same deal for men who oppose abortions, they shouldn't have sex with women who would have one if they don't want their "future child" or whatever they want to call it aborted.

Yes, women have more say, but we also have more reponsabilities and have to deal with a lot more physical issues when it comes to pregnancies. After the kid is born, then both parties have the same level of responsability for it, but ultimately it's up to the woman to deceide whether it comes to that or not.

First off, I don't plan to debate this, I just want to see what the reaction is to this concept of abortion. I'm not heartless, I'm just curious. So, here goes.

Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Billy and Sally are two young people. They have no clearly defined religious beliefs, and are attending the same college. Billy has a part time job to pay for expenses, and Sally's parents cover hers.

Billy and Sally meet at a party and really hit it off. They leave together and go to Billy's apartment. They spend a night getting to know each other in the biblical sense (while using a condom of course). They bid each other adieu the following morning both accepting it as a one night stand.

A month later, Sally is concerned because she is far over due for her period, and has been missing classes because of nausea. She goes to her doctor to discover that she is pregnant.

Calling Billy, she relays the information. He is shocked and doesn't know how to respond. He can't support a baby financially without quitting school and going to work full time, but that would ruin his hope of one day being a doctor. Turning to the only alternative he could see, he suggests an abortion. Sally is appalled, for she is morally opposed to abortion, and would never do such a thing. Because of the laws in his nation, Billy has no say in the matter.

Several months later, Sally gives birth to the baby. The baby suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome from Sally's college drinking binges, and requires significant medical attention. The baby will need extensive medical care through out its development, but is mentally fine.

Billy is forced by his state to pay child support for the following 18 years and is forced from college and into the workforce so that he can meet the high payments. He leads a life not at all comparable to the one he would have had he finished school or not been forced to pay child support.



So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?

The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $250,000 working out to about $20,850 a year. That is a significant dent to almost anyone's income, but especially if you are not college educated and can not attain a high salary position. This is not even considering that a mentally or physically retarded baby would cost astronomically more.

It seems unfair to me that men are on the really short end of the stick here. They have no part in the decision making process, but have atleast half the financial responsibility.

I'm not suggesting that fathers should have the power to force mothers into getting an abortion, but instead that if the mother opts not to get an abortion, the father should be able to, through legal action, sever himself from the financial burden of the unwanted child.

It takes two parties to make a baby, but only the mother gets to decide whether or not the baby goes to term or is aborted, and by extension, the fate of the father.

Thoughts, criticisms (constructive preferably)?

abortion seems a feasible conclusion to this drama....and if the women says no..well then your on your own...cept in the socialist paradise most seem to live in here...lol

and i am the fucking neo con...lol...i am soooo pro abortion...which i recall is a left wing tenet...
but then again..i would never abort my child(tried too)but my wife would not cotton to that..but i would never be so arrogant to presume whether or not the women had the right to do with her body what she would.

what a pickle..lol

*shrug* Because it's her body being destroyed by the parasite within.

oh bloody hell...:headbang: you make it sound like she's got tapeworms or those aliens from "dreamcatcher"...

I too support paper abortion for men, because if women can get abortion, if women can abort their legal and parental responsibility for a child, then so can men.
FLAW: Pregnancy is not a parenting situation, therefore, abortion has no impact on parental responsibility. You don't become a parent until a baby is born. No baby is born at the time an elective abortion may be performed, so the woman is not, at that time, a parent.

Whether or not a man can carry around a child is irreverent, he may not experience physical pain, but he'll feel financial pain. To force a man to pay for a child that he did not want to come to term is wrong, and it's stupid. The child deserves a loving, and caring home, and the child is not going to get that from the father because he'll resent the fact that he has to pay to support the child in which he did not want. Now as for "well he shouldn't have stuck his wee wee into her pee pee." Comon, unless it was rape, or incest, both parties has consented to sex, and both parties in doing so should realize what it may entails. Remember, it takes two to tango, and the woman has as much of a part in creating the child as the father did, and thus the father should receive the same rights as the mother. With that being said, here is my version of the paper abortion.

*Both parties can perform an abortion up to six month.
FLAW: Forcing a person to do something with their body against their will is ethically wrong and legally prohibited, whether you are forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy or to abort one.

*After that six month as passed, and the child is carried to term by the mother, and the father has not signed a paper abortion, then both parties are responsible for the child financially.
FLAW: If the father is allowed to sign the "paper abortion" (stupid name, as I said in another post) prior to the birth, then why should he have any rights whatsoever over the first six months of the woman's pregnancy? Let him sign his piece of paper on day one and piss off, if he's going to.

*In signing the paper abortion, the father realize that he is giving up all legal and financial responsibility of the child, and gives all responsibility, legal, financial, or other to the mother.

That's pretty much it.
This version of the idea has the same problem as Arthais's. It tries to equate pregnancy with parenting, abortion with finance, and pre-birth conditions with post-birth conditions. They are not equivalent and cannot be made to function as if they are. For instance, if you are giving the man the right to abandon parental responsibility for any eventual baby, then why should he also have any right to force an abortion on a woman who doesn't want one? Why shouldn't she be allowed to have her baby if she wants to, if he is already guaranteed the right to avoid paying for it?

If your problem is that US courts are not interested in granting "writs to cede parental rights" to men who do not want to pay for the upkeep of their unwanted babies, it is probably because the courts do not consider that doing that would serve justice. The attitude seems to be that the baby, who is powerless and has had no say in the matter, will suffer more by losing that financial support than the man will suffer by paying it. Thus, from the pov of justice, the "paper abortion" would be creating an injustice against a party who is utterly blameless in the entire transaction.

It doesn't matter worth a damned what a court wants (despite your use of the word "writ", a writ in this case does not seem applicable). As a matter of LEGISLATION, the court would be duty bound to uphold it.

I don't care what a court thinks about it, a law would be a law, and if a court has to suck it up, well ok.

then why should he also have any right to force an abortion on a woman who doesn't want one? Why shouldn't she be allowed to have her baby if she wants to, if he is already guaranteed the right to avoid paying for it?

woah. Woah woah woah woah woah.

When have I EVER said that? ever at all? Even once HINTED at that? It would be absolutly and tremendously unethical and illegal beyond all extreme to FORCE a woman to abort her pregnancy at a whim of the father.

No, absolutely, not, never ever ever ever.

Even under my hypothetical scheme, she would NEVER be told she had to, it would fully be her choice to have it if she wished to support it herself.

I don't think anyone here is supporting or proposing the idea that a man should have that ability of control. I find the idea reprehensible. Make no mistake the idea that the father would have ANY say as to whether the woman would terminate her pregnancy or not is in no way my position on this.

That is an issue with biology. The law ignores biology. Biology is irrelevant to the law.

The law should promote equality, in all things, at all times, in all instances.

It should never accept inequality. And when inequality exists as a result of physical inequality then the law should correct it, not support it.
One thing that tends to be interpreted as proof that you are arguing not for the sake of logic, truth or fairness, but rather from a 'me, me, me' perspective is when you make statements that you clearly dont believe in order to have your way. Any time a person makes two statements that are mutually contrary (ie that cannot both be simultaneously either true or believed by the person), that person is making at least one statement they cannot believe.

So when it suits your desired end, the law must ignore biology and when it suits your desired end the law ought to take steps to notice biology and remedy inequalities that arise from its (biology's) function...clearly you will say whatever it takes to reach your desired end...obviously you just want things a certain way and logic and fairness are to your mind just tools you might be able to use to get your way.


Because "child endangerment" is not a single act. The law is not "you may not drink while pregnant" it is "you may not act in such a way as to endanger the fetus". Neither may do so. Your analogy would be more proper if say...the mother couldn't drink but the father was free to punch her in the stomach.
And here is a further proof that your true intent has nothing to do with equality, fairness or logic. The law states both males and females may refuse to undergo invasive medical proceedures, the law states neither a male nor a female may unreasonably endanger a child. The first you choose to interpret according to potential effect (as a right to terminate potential legal obligations to a not currently existing child) because that suits your purposes, the second you choose to interpret legalistically (as the obligation to not unreasonably endanger a child) because that suits your purpose.

The fact is both are equal so far as a legal interpretation is concerned, but neither is necessarily equal in practise, in the case where the inequality inpinges on females, that's fine by you, when it might impinge on males it's a national emergency....you've made yourself and your true intent sufficiently clear. You dont care about justice, or logic, you only care that your interests be optimised in every instance at the expense of every and anyone else.

One thing that tends to be interpreted as proof that you are arguing not for the sake of logic, truth or fairness, but rather from a 'me, me, me' perspective is when you make statements that you clearly dont believe in order to have your way. Any time a person makes two statements that are mutually contrary (ie that cannot both be simultaneously either true or believed by the person), that person is making at least one statement they cannot believe.

Can the law take the pain away from childbirth?

Can it?

No?

Then the law can do nothing about the PAIN OF CHILDBIRTH.

Here's a hint, QUOTE IN CONTEXT you jackass. The issue was "a paper abortion is painless for a man but a real abortion is not for a woman" my response is that...the law can not fix that. It can only fix that for requiring the man to endure some pain to undergo a "paper abortion" which, if you bothered to read, you'd see is fine by me.

The law must ignore gender. It must disregard gender. It must give the same rights to everyone REGARDLESS of gender, and if gender creates a LEGAL inequality, then the law should correct that inequality.

However the law can not CHANGE gender. That's my point, as a matter of law you should be able to do the EXACT SAME THING as a matter of LAW regardless of your gender.

However the law's not going to change that one gender bares children and the other does not. And the law's not going to change that one gender will feel pain in childbirth and the other will not.

It doesn't care about that. All it cares about is that both genders are given equal rights.

There is no hypocracy in that statement, no inconsistancy. If you bothered to read that, you'd understand.

So when it suits your desired end, the law must ignore biology and when it suits your desired end the law ought to take steps to notice biology and remedy inequalities that arise from its (biology's) function...clearly you will say whatever it takes to reach your desired end...obviously you just want things a certain way and logic and fairness are to your mind just tools you might be able to use to get your way.

Yup, that's me, sexist unfair bastard, even when I said that this type of law would only be fair if:

a) the man was forced ot undergo the same degree of physical discomfort that a woman does when undergoing an abortion

AND

b) that the option for a "paper abortion" be available to women too.

Yup, that's me, all about the unfairness of it all, just looking for me and my interests, even when I say that it should be available to ALL.

Try to read what I've said, ALL of what I've said, before putting words in my mouth, k?

Once again, read in context. The law can not make abortion a more pleasant experience for women, it can not in any way change the pain she will endure. it can not make signing a paper an equally physically traumatic experience as getting an abortion.

It just...can't. at all. All it can do is make men endure equal physical unpleasantness. Which, if you had BOTHERED to read, is fine by me.

But unless you can show me, somehow, in some way, that the law can make a physical abortion less unpleasant, you're talking out of your ass and haven't bothered to read context.

And here is a further proof that your true intent has nothing to do with equality, fairness or logic. The law states both males and females may refuse to undergo invasive medical proceedures, the law states neither a male nor a female may unreasonably endanger a child. The first you choose to interpret according to potential effect (as a right to terminate potential legal obligations to a not currently existing child) because that suits your purposes, the second you choose to interpret legalistically (as the obligation to not unreasonably endanger a child) because that suits your purpose.

The law exists, I didn't make it. It got brought up in conversation so I responded in kind. I was not the one who was discussing the law. Regardless of whether I think that legal abortion but illegally "endangering a fetus" laws are contradictory or not, guess what?

I DIDN'T MAKE THEM. It was brought up, and I clarified the statement. If I had passed both laws then you might have a point, yet I am not a legislature so...I think you're talking out of your ass here.

Moreover your statment is absolute bullshit nonsensical because, after all to unreasonably endanger a child might well be a POTENTIAL EFFECT of ones actions including smoking, or kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach, wouldn't it?

How could you say there's a difference? Having an abortion produces a potential effect. Punching a pregnant woman has a potential effect. Both have legal ramifications.

Really, think before you type, k? It will save me effort and you looking like a jackass.

I'd like to pose a slightly different argument.

Being that the said child is a quasi-living parasite, that, as can be ascertained from the acceptance of abortion, belongs to the mother and the mother alone, the father should have no right at all to that particular piece of biological property, or anything that comes about as a result of it, unless a contract (in whatever form) is agreed to by both parties.

If pregnancy is not a parental situation, and the mother chooses to produce a parental situation from it, then that parental situation is solely hers, due to the fact that, if the father has neither the rights to nor the responsibilities of what happens from the biological situation, he also has neither from the resulting parental situation (unless otherwise agreed upon)

Thus, as if one tosses a machine part to a mechanic building something, says "here" and doesn't say another word, the person giving the part should neither have any inherent right to (unless agreed upon beforehand) the machine (if the machine is in the mechanic's possession) nor should the person have to pay for any of the upkeep/upgrading of said machine.

(BTW, I am a male who's getting cut ASAP. (this is only hindered by my status as poor and jobless (Due to my status as only just barely eighteen)(which I am actively working to remedy(the poor and jobless bit, not the eighteen bit(I love parentheses)))))

If a man doesn't want to have to worry about this then he should make sure he doesn't have sex with women who won't have abortions. Simple as that.

It's the same deal for men who oppose abortions, they shouldn't have sex with women who would have one if they don't want their "future child" or whatever they want to call it aborted.

Yes, women have more say, but we also have more reponsabilities and have to deal with a lot more physical issues when it comes to pregnancies. After the kid is born, then both parties have the same level of responsability for it, but ultimately it's up to the woman to deceide whether it comes to that or not.
^ I would just like this to be responded to.


And also, I would like to add that others have made a good point about the pregnancy not being equal to parenting. The woman can give birth and then both parents can choose to give the kid up for adoption. If the woman doesn't want to be a parent at that point but the man does, then she'll have to pay him child support and if the man doesn't want to be a parent at that point he'll have to pay her child support, if neither want to be a parent then it works out and someone else takes responsability for their kid. The law is fair about parenting (well, except if they both want to be parents, in which case it's more likely that the woman will get custody, but I don't know how much that is built into the law and how much it is up to the judge's discretion) and while a woman can choose to prevent this whole parenting issue with an abortion, well, that's just the unfairness of the biology there.

At any rate, men shouldn't be able to get paper abortions, especially not when abortion access for women is limited at best.

It doesn't matter worth a damned what a court wants (despite your use of the word "writ", a writ in this case does not seem applicable). As a matter of LEGISLATION, the court would be duty bound to uphold it.

I don't care what a court thinks about it, a law would be a law, and if a court has to suck it up, well ok.
Yeah, but this law you want doesn't exist. The point I was trying to make is that, if you want to create such a law, then you are going to have to understand WHY it doesn't exist in order to convince lawmakers and the judiciary to change their minds. The fact is, when you parse it out, you see that the rules affecting parental rights/obligations ARE NOT the related to the rules affecting pregnancy. The reason for this is that the two situations -- pre-birth and post-birth -- are fundamentally different.

Pre-birth, during pregnancy, there is only one party involved for about half the time, and only two involved the other half. The one party is the woman, and the two parties are the woman and the viable, late term fetus. The man is not a party to it at all and has no functioning relationship to the pregnancy or any of the parties who are involved in it.

Now look at post-birth. The situation is completely different. Now it is a three-party situation. The three parties are the baby, the woman and the man, but HOW are they related? The fact is that, in the question of parental rights/obligations, there is no relation between the man and the woman EXCEPT through the baby. So in effect, we can say that the woman has parental rights/obligations to the baby, and the man has parental rights/obligations to the baby, but the man and the woman do not have parental rights/obligations to each other. This is why, in divorce, there is a difference between child support and alimony. Alimony is money paid to the woman. Child support belongs to the child. It is also why, when one parent dies, there is no change to the parental rights/obligations of the other parent. And it is also why a child of divorce may make a claim on its dead father's estate, even though the mother/ex-wife may not.

So, you see, your argument is flawed in two ways.

First, you try to equate the party relationships of pregnancy with the party relationships of parenting, when you can clearly see, they are two completely different things with completely different parties relating in completely different ways. They are in no way comparable, so when you try to compare them to support your argument for a new law, you fail.

Second, you try to make your parental rights/obligations argument be about a party relationship between you and the woman, when in fact, the party relationship is between you and the baby. So on the basis that you are dealing with the wrong party, your argument also fails.

I personally don't care about this issue one way or another. I suppose very good arguments could be made for allowing men to opt out of parental obligations, and I suppose good arguments could be made for why they shouldn't. I am just pointing out why this particular argument for it is bogus. You will never achieve your goal if you continue to approach it this way because why would any competent legislator pay any attention to such nonsense?

The inequality you claim is not between you and the woman; it is between you and the baby, and the baby makes a far more sympathetic petitioner than you do.

Let me explain this in a generally simple way.

Let's go back to 1918 America. Men and women.

Men could vote.
Women could not.

Women could get pregnant.
Men could not.

Now, do we all see the difference between these two clauses? One details a legal right, one details a biological difference.

Now the first statement, that's bad. And you know why it's bad? Because the law should never ever ever draw distinction on gender. If you get to do something by law, I get to do something by law. If you get a right, I get a right. If you have the opportunity to commit an act under the law, I have the opportunity to commit an act under the law.

That's how law works. That's how justice works. Otherwise it's discrimination.

The second statement, that's a matter of biology. It's not discrimination (perhaps by god maybe...), it's not injustice, it's not inequality. It's a fact of genetics. And the law can't change that. the law can't make men capable of childbirth. it just can't.

When one group has a right that another does not have then the law must give that right to the lacking group. If women have a right to do something men do not then the law, in all justice, MUST give that right to men. It doesn't matter how, or in what way the women got this ability and the men do not, but if women can do something under the law, then men, as a matter of equality, must also be able to do that.

If women have some biological capability to do something that men can't...well that's not something the law CAN fix. The fact that women can have children and men can not is not something the law can change. However the law also can not use that as justification to seperate rights.

In other words, the law can not get men pregnant, but it also can not use men's lack of pregnancy as a justification not to grant them rights a woman has, even if the rights that a woman has stems from her ability to get pregnant.

If a man doesn't want to have to worry about this then he should make sure he doesn't have sex with women who won't have abortions. Simple as that.

It's the same deal for men who oppose abortions, they shouldn't have sex with women who would have one if they don't want their "future child" or whatever they want to call it aborted.

Yes, women have more say, but we also have more reponsabilities and have to deal with a lot more physical issues when it comes to pregnancies. After the kid is born, then both parties have the same level of responsability for it, but ultimately it's up to the woman to deceide whether it comes to that or not.
I don’t agree with your conclusions about paper abortions, but your reasoning is much more devolved than most who disagree with me on the issue. Mostly just because it’s there.

I'd like to pose a slightly different argument.

Being that the said child is a quasi-living parasite, that, as can be ascertained from the acceptance of abortion, belongs to the mother ands the mother alone, the father should have no right at all to that particular piece of biological property, or anything that comes about as a result of it, unless a contract (in whatever form) is agreed to by both parties.

If pregnancy is not a parental situation, and the mother chooses to produce a parental situation from it, then that parental situation is solely hers, due to the fact that, if the father has neither the rights to nor the responsibilities of what happens from the biological situation, he also has neither from the resulting parental situation (unless otherwise agreed upon)

Thus, as if one tosses a machine part to a mechanic building something, says "here" and doesn't say another word, the person giving the part should neither have any inherent right to (unless agreed upon beforehand) the machine (if the machine is in the mechanic's possession) nor should the person have to pay for any of the upkeep/upgrading of said machine.

(BTW, I am a male who's getting cut ASAP. (this is only hindered by my status as poor and jobless (Due to my status as only just barely eighteen)(which I am actively working to remedy(the poor and jobless bit, not the eighteen bit(I love parentheses)))))

I would love to tell that to the judge too, but s/he'll still expect you to give your baby's mother a large chunk of your earnings for the next 18 years. The mother may be more likely to agree with you, and not put your name on the birth registry (not fill in a father's name).

Even though you're right, you'll be told otherwise.

I have to sleep so I can't answer the whole thing, but, that is EXACTLY what an abortion is. What else does it do other than allow a woman to opt out of a praental obligation to a baby she doesn't for...well, whatever reason?<snip>
These comments show a lack of understanding of abortion and the decisions that go into managing a pregnancy. There are many reasons for choosing abortion. Sometimes it is to avoid the burden of parenting a child (or another child). Sometimes it is to avoid the burden of the pregnancy itself, for medical, social, financial, psychological or other reasons. That complexity, and the nature of the decisions that have to be made and the things those decisions will be about, are what make pregnancy decisions not comparable to parenting decisions.

However what you've missed is I have already said, a few times, quite clearly, that I also fully support a woman's right for this "paper abortion", or "writ to cede parental rights" or...call it what you wish. I would have no problem with that, and in fact would suggest it's necessary for a truly equal system.
I didn't miss it. I just didn't address it. Yet. Give me a chance. I came late to this party.

Never have I said women shouldn't have an equal argument. And considering that the rest of your argument deals with theoretical arguments about how this is not an equality situation, saying that it should be applicable to both genders largely undercuts that.
That's beside the point I have been trying to make. I am not attacking the idea that men should be allowed to opt out of parenting an unwanted child. I am criticizing the specific argument you are making in support of the idea.

First, you try to equate the party relationships of pregnancy with the party relationships of parenting, when you can clearly see, they are two completely different things with completely different parties relating in completely different ways. They are in no way comparable, so when you try to compare them to support your argument for a new law, you fail.

That's just it, and I do not support your idea that they are so easily seperable. The decisions made in pregnancy have the capacity to effect the furture relationship of parenting, but only for the woman.

It's how the decisions in one relationship impact the next. A woman can remove any future relationship she has as a parent, she can do that preemptively. The man can not. I do not agree with you that the concepts are so seperate, in this argument they are very much intertwined.

Second, you try to make your parental rights/obligations argument be about a party relationship between you and the woman, when in fact, the party relationship is between you and the baby. So on the basis that you are dealing with the wrong party, your argument also fails.

I've never argued about any relationship between the male and the female.

Not at all.

I've argued about the future relationship of the male to his child, and the future relationship between the female and her child. I have also noted that the woman has the capacity to define that future relationship (to the extend of preemptively eliminating it entirely) that the man does not. This is where the inequality comes from.

Women have a degree of legal control to impact the future relationship between her and her child that the male does not. That's where the problem comes from.

You will never achieve your goal if you continue to approach it this way because why would any competent legislator pay any attention to such nonsense?

Oh I make my life making legal arguments, you shouldn't assume I'm on my best at 2am on an internet forum =P

The inequality you claim is not between you and the woman; it is between you and the baby, and the baby makes a far more sympathetic petitioner than you do.

As I said, I never said it was between male and female. It was comparing the ability of the woman to impact future relationship with her child versus the ability of the man to impact future relationship with his child, and noting an inequality there.

I would love to tell that to the judge too, but s/he'll still expect you to give your baby's mother a large chunk of your earnings for the next 18 years. The mother may be more likely to agree with you, and not put your name on the birth registry (not fill in a father's name).

Even though you're right, you'll be told otherwise.

The question is, though, should I be told otherwise?

oh bloody hell...:headbang: you make it sound like she's got tapeworms or those aliens from "dreamcatcher"...

Or an unwanted pre-person. :(

And I have also said, many times, that the option for a male to "opt out" via (insert prefered name for legal procedure here) should only extend to the same time period that a woman can have an abortion (6 months, 18 weeks, whatever).

Once that window of opportunity closes, it closes for both. A male wouldn't be able to walk away from a born child any more than a woman can terminate it after it's born.

It's a decision made BEFORE birth
I have no problem with this. As I said, I have no opinion about it because I am still considering all the pros and cons. What I am criticizing is your argument, which is based on an approach that I think is so wrong, it serves to invalidate your argument by making it appear self-serving.

These comments show a lack of understanding of abortion and the decisions that go into managing a pregnancy.

I'm not talking about the decision, or the reasoning, or the justification.

I'm talking about the result. That's what matters, the result.


That's beside the point I have been trying to make. I am not attacking the idea that men should be allowed to opt out of parenting an unwanted child. I am criticizing the specific argument you are making in support of the idea.

I think you might not be getting my argument exactly right (and that might be my fault). You seem to think I'm arguing about the relationship between the man and the woman, I'm not, I'm analysing the ability of both of them to impact the future relationship with their child, and an inequality I perceive.

woah. Woah woah woah woah woah.

When have I EVER said that? ever at all? Even once HINTED at that? <snip>
You never said that. Wilgrove said it. I was responding to Wilgrove.

Getting confused? :p

What I am criticizing is your argumen.

Which again I don't think you're getting, at least not fully. I think you think I'm saying something that is slightly different on words, yet radically different on concept. This has NOTHING to do with the relationship between the parents.

The question is, though, should I be told otherwise?

No, I think not. At least not if the woman has full access to abortion options through-out the whole period you're able to opt-out. If she can't choose to have nothing to do with the pregnancy, you certainly can't.

I don’t agree with your conclusions about paper abortions, but your reasoning is much more devolved than most who disagree with me on the issue. Mostly just because it’s there.
I don't think I actually stated a stance on paper abortions in that quote. I just said that if a man didn't want to have a kid, then he should make sure his sexual partners will abort if they become pregnant. If not then that's his problem. It's like if someone gets an STD, if they really didn't want one, they should have made their partner get tested before having sex with them.

My stance on paper abortions came later, essentially, they shouldn't be available until abortions are freely and widely available to all women (which isn't even close to the case now, and they're becoming more and more restricted in the US as it is) and even then they should come with clauses to the extent of the man agreeing to fund half the abortion and after care should the woman deceide to undergo an abortion after he signs such an agreement. And even then I'm not sure it's such a good idea.

I believe that men should have the right to paper abortions that terminate their obligations of fatherhood.

I agree with that. She should discuss it with the guy who got her pregnant and see if he is willing to support this child that she wants to have. If she can't persuade him to give her child support then maybe she should reconsider having an arbortion. If not, then she has to live with her choice. Why should a woman be able to make a decision that ruins a mans life?

I don't think I actually stated a stance on paper abortions in that quote. I just said that if a man didn't want to have a kid, then he should make sure his sexual partners will abort if they become pregnant.

See, once again inequality under the law. If a male does not wish to have a child he must either abstain, or only find sexual partners that share his outlook.

A female needs never, ever, to consider the viewpoint of her sexual partner. At all.

An STD is equal, however. There's no law that says "women can cure her STDs but men can not". That would be equally unfair.

So for the situation to be equal either the woman must consider the man's wishes (which I would NEVER advocate) or, the man must have the same right to not be involved in raising a child regardless of the consent of the mother.

That's beside the point I have been trying to make. I am not attacking the idea that men should be allowed to opt out of parenting an unwanted child. I am criticizing the specific argument you are making in support of the idea.

Criticize mine! I like how you speak.

That's just it, and I do not support your idea that they are so easily seperable. The decisions made in pregnancy have the capacity to effect the furture relationship of parenting, but only for the woman.

It's how the decisions in one relationship impact the next. A woman can remove any future relationship she has as a parent, she can do that preemptively. The man can not. I do not agree with you that the concepts are so seperate, in this argument they are very much intertwined.
Well, I disagree (no surprise), and the point I have been trying to make is that US lawmakers also disagree with you on this. The law is structured so that ALL your dealings in re parental rights are going to be between you and the child ONLY, so any appeal to anything that is reserved solely to women is going to be automatically dismissed as irrelevant, and frankly, nothing you have said so far has shown any reason why it should not be thought irrelevant.


I've never argued about any relationship between the male and the female.

Not at all.
Then why do you keep comparing what women can do versus what men can do, when the real question is what an adult can do versus what a baby can do? As you do yet again in the very next paragraph, below.

I've argued about the future relationship of the male to his child, and the future relationship between the female and her child. I have also noted that the woman has the capacity to define that future relationship (to the extend of preemptively eliminating it entirely) that the man does not. This is where the inequality comes from.

Women have a degree of legal control to impact the future relationship between her and her child that the male does not. That's where the problem comes from.

Oh I make my life making legal arguments, you shouldn't assume I'm on my best at 2am on an internet forum =P
Yeah, I thought you said you were going to sleep. I really think you should.

Btw, until recently, I made my living editing (read: improving :p) legal arguments, so unless you start throwing citations at me, which I'm too lazy to read and look up counters to, I think I'll be able to keep up.

As I said, I never said it was between male and female. It was comparing the ability of the woman to impact future relationship with her child versus the ability of the man to impact future relationship with his child, and noting an inequality there.
And yet, as I said, all your examples, comparisons and complaints have been about the rights and powers of men versus the rights and powrs of women, when as I have said several times already, the real person you are up against is the baby, not the woman.

Which again I don't think you're getting, at least not fully. I think you think I'm saying something that is slightly different on words, yet radically different on concept. This has NOTHING to do with the relationship between the parents.
You need to get 7-8 hours of sleep and then review the way you have structured your argument.

See, once again inequality under the law. If a male does not wish to have a child he must either abstain, or only find sexual partners that share his outlook.

A female needs never, ever, to consider the viewpoint of her sexual partner. At all.
Yeah, so? A man never has to consider what happens if his period is late, both genders have their own specific concerns about the pregnancy issue. There's no way around the biology issue in this instance. Besides, is it a huge fucking inconvenience to ask your partner "So, if the condom breaks and the morning after pill doesn't work, will you go to the clinic? I'll come with you and support you if you choose to do so..." before getting it on.

The guy I'm dating now stopped dating an ex because she said that if she got pregnant, she wasn't going to get an abortion and he wasn't willing to take the chance of becoming a father. This is what responsable adults who don't think with their cocks do.

An STD is equal, however. There's no law that says "women can cure her STDs but men can not". That would be equally unfair.
No, you missed my point entirely. The STD example applies to both men and women. If you don't get your partner tested for every STD, you have no one to blame but yourself (well, and them if they were aware of it and hid this knowledge) if you get one. There's nothing against curing it.

So for the situation to be equal either the woman must consider the man's wishes (which I would NEVER advocate) or, the man must have the same right to not be involved in raising a child regardless of the consent of the mother.
But this only works in an ideal world. In the real world, women can't always get abortions. A woman who wants an abortion might not be able to get one due to various laws imposed by the government, various restrictions on the procedure, hell, even not being able to afford it whereas you're advocating that this option is available to all men all the time. Do you not see how your paper abortion is also unfair in the current state of the world?
What about cases where a woman has regular periods and doesn't know that she's pregnant until it's too late to abort? Does the man still get to choose to have his paper abortion after her window to choose has come and gone? Does he get to sign the papers the day before her time to get an abortion is up leaving her no option but to carry to term and care for the kid herself afterwards? Does he even have to notify her at all while she still has the option to abort?

Criticize mine! I like how you speak.
Thanks, I'll be happy to. Say something I disagree with. :)

And yet, as I said, all your examples, comparisons and complaints have been about the rights and powers of men versus the rights and powrs of women, when as I have said several times already, the real person you are up against is the baby, not the woman.

Yes, exactly. Rights and powers of men versus the rights and powers of women, vis a vi the future relationship with his/her child.

That's the whole thing. As a matter of legal justice, if YOU have a right, I have a right. If you can do something, I can do it.

That's the fundamental point of my argument. If you can do something that carries a legal effect, I should be able to do something that has the EXACT SAME legal effect.

The child is, in a general sense, irrelevant. If you can bring about a legal effect, I, as a matter of legal equality, should be able to bring about the same legal effect

Has anything new been said in the last 300 posts? It's like watching a game of musical chairs where no one sits down.

I agree with that. She should discuss it with the guy who got her pregnant and see if he is willing to support this child that she wants to have. If she can't persuade him to give her child support then maybe she should reconsider having an arbortion. If not, then she has to live with her choice. Why should a woman be able to make a decision that ruins a mans life?

Because it's his child too. It takes two people to make a child, and this child will ruin the woman's life too. Plus, she will probaly be the one with whom the child lives. Added to the trials or preganancy and child birth, a woman inherenly has more responsibility towards a child. So, in a sense, the father is still getting the better end of the deal.

One also has to take in the fact that the child too has rights. Before he was born, he really didn't have any. However, after he was born, a third person is added to the equation. The child will suffer much more than either parent if forced to be supported by a single parent.

Can the law take the pain away from childbirth?

Can it?

No?

Then the law can do nothing about the PAIN OF CHILDBIRTH.
Nice strawman you've built there. One question, why you beating up on it, what did it ever do to you?

Here's a hint, QUOTE IN CONTEXT you jackass.
Here's a hint, obey the forum rules.

The issue was "a paper abortion is painless for a man but a real abortion is not for a woman" my response is that...the law can not fix that.
Just as the law cannot fix the fact that men are not capable of undergoing a medical proceedure that ends a pregnancy.

It can only fix that for requiring the man to endure some pain to undergo a "paper abortion" which, if you bothered to read, you'd see is fine by me.
But isnt fine by me. You'll note that this 'paper abortion' impinges on the basic rights of an innocent party, which will no doubt be fine by you so long as you get your 'get out of consequences free card'.

The law must ignore gender. It must disregard gender.
Then it cannot enact a gender-specific 'right' at the expense of the basic rights of innocent third parties (be they the unsupported child or the taxpayers made to pick up the short fall).

It must give the same rights to everyone REGARDLESS of gender, and if gender creates a LEGAL inequality, then the law should correct that inequality.
Which is fine and well but the law doesnt create such a gender inequality when it comes to the rights of both males and females to refuse to undergo invasive medical proceedures.

However the law can not CHANGE gender. That's my point, as a matter of law you should be able to do the EXACT SAME THING as a matter of LAW regardless of your gender.
Right like drinking after the conception but prior to the birth of one's child - mmm, apparently not. Or how about having the same right to refuse to undergo invasive medical proceedures...mmm, well only if males get an additional gender-specific right to legally void their obligations to another innocent third party (thus depriving that human being of their rights), on a pre-emptive basis.

However the law's not going to change that one gender bares children and the other does not.
That's right, so the ramifications of one gender baring the child and the other not, are not something the law is necessarily equipped for or tasked with 'fixing'.
And the law's not going to change that one gender will feel pain in childbirth and the other will not.
Right, which is fine expect you wish to add to this additional burdens by providing gender specific rights to one sub-group of males at the expense of everyone else.

It doesn't care about that. All it cares about is that both genders are given equal rights.
No kidding. The problem that you cannot get around is that they have equal rights, both have the right to refuse invasive medical proceedures, neither have the right to void their legal obligations to their living off-spring prior to the off-spring's birth.

There is no hypocracy in that statement, no inconsistancy. If you bothered to read that, you'd understand.
I understand that when the law can be interpreted as legally applying the same rights and obligations and this in effect somehow might be unfair to men you think it's a problem even though if the circumstances are exactly the same but it's women who get the raw end of the deal you think that's fine and beyond purvue of the law...

Yup, that's me, sexist unfair bastard, even when I said that this type of law would only be fair if:
Are you sexist as well? I just figured you were self-obsessed, spoilt, and aflicted by an over-developed sense of unjustifiable entitlement.

a) the man was forced ot undergo the same degree of physical discomfort that a woman does when undergoing an abortion
Really, and will we randomly kill some of these men on equal numbers with the percentage of women who die as a result of terminations, will we also make a percentage of such men sterile? How ridiculous!
AND

b) that the option for a "paper abortion" be available to women too.
Right, and fuck the rights of the innocent third party...you know the child....meanwhile good 'ol Joe Sucker the Taxpayer can come to the party. Why should people be forced to deal with the consequences of their actions if they dont want to, unless said people are Joe Sucker the Taxpayer right? It's not fair parents should pay for unwanted children but it is fair taxpayers ought to?

Yup, that's me, all about the unfairness of it all, just looking for me and my interests, even when I say that it should be available to ALL.
Perhaps you say such things because you dont think "I want this just because I'm a selfish spoilt brat" will you get far.....

Try to read what I've said, ALL of what I've said, before putting words in my mouth, k?
I did read all you said. As for putting words in other people's mouths, you truely are a hypocrite

Once again, read in context. The law can not make abortion a more pleasant experience for women, it can not in any way change the pain she will endure. it can not make signing a paper an equally physically traumatic experience as getting an abortion.
No and it cannot make a man able to prevent a pregnancy from coming to term by undergoing an invasive medical proceedure, and that is the crux of your problem. It's one the law cannot deal with, get over it.

It just...can't. at all. All it can do is make men endure equal physical unpleasantness. Which, if you had BOTHERED to read, is fine by me.
I did bother to read, but frankly I find it a stupid idea and since you've already made it clear you'll say anything to try to make it appear your argument is based on logic rather than a belief in self-entitlement, I dont believe you're sincere. You're looking to have the law altered, you dont believe for a moment the law will be altered to include a 'torture of paper-abortion aborters' provision, so you have no problem throwing it into your argument to hide your real intent.

But unless you can show me, somehow, in some way, that the law can make a physical abortion less unpleasant, you're talking out of your ass and haven't bothered to read context.
You're still working over that strawman. I realise the context is different honey, the first is in a context where if the law ignores biology your argument is not destroyed and the second is one where if the law ignores biology your argument is destroyed, hence your conflicting statements in each of the contexts.

The law exists, I didn't make it. It got brought up in conversation so I responded in kind. I was not the one who was discussing the law.
You responded in kind, meaning you responded by discussing law, all without discussing law...? Er, well done.....I think.....:rolleyes:

Regardless of whether I think that legal abortion but illegally "endangering a fetus" laws are contradictory or not, guess what?
Except that no one stated these two things were contrary (much less contradictory)...perhaps you would keep up better if you paid more attention.

I DIDN'T MAKE THEM. It was brought up, and I clarified the statement. If I had passed both laws then you might have a point, yet I am not a legislature so...I think you're talking out of your ass here.
Gee, the first strawman must be all knocked out, because here you have built another for yourself.
You complained because even though legally the rights of males and females are the same, in at least one regard this can have an effect that you perceive as unequal and see as unfair to males, another law gives males and females the same legal rights and obligations but even though in effect this can result in inequality and be unfair to females, you defended it. When you get called on your hypocrisy, suddenly you want everyone to believe you were not even discussing the law (while responding in kind to discussion of the law)....wow your arguments have turned so many full circles, even you've forgotten quite where on the wheel you are at....:rolleyes:

Moreover your statment is absolute bullshit nonsensical because, after all to unreasonably endanger a child might well be a POTENTIAL EFFECT of ones actions including smoking, or kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach, wouldn't it?
Right, just as a woman not terminating a pregancy is a POTENTIAL EFFECT of one's right to refuse invasive medical proceedures...calling the 'child endangerment laws' unfair because they in effect place more obligations on one gender than another is no more absurd than your own argument that because an equal right might in effect result in one gender having more choices, this is somehow unfair....

How could you say there's a difference? Having an abortion produces a potential effect. Punching a pregnant woman has a potential effect. Both have legal ramifications.
Yeah, because just like punching people, drinking booze is generally illegal...oops hang on, oh then it must be that, just like drinking booze punching people is legal....oh hang on.....
The law requires that neither males nor females punch others, the law allows both males and females to drink booze if they of age except where one is a female expectant parent....

The law allows both males and females to refuse invasive medical proceedures, that this has different effects when applied to various people (said effects varying in accordance with the inherent characteristics of those people) is not necessarily unfair or unjust, it's reality.

Really, think before you type, k? It will save me effort and you looking like a jackass.
[sarcasm] Wow we are all so impressed that you can type throw away lines that accuse others groundlessly of not having read previous posts and infers name calling (in addition to the name calling you started your post with) at the same time....really we are all very impressed, can you also do stuff like chant "I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?"....'cause that would be like so cool and mature [/sacarcasm] and so worthy of you.

Yes, exactly. Rights and powers of men versus the rights and powers of women, vis a vi the future relationship with his/her child.
I know this is nitpicky, but this is annoying me like mad.

It's "vis-a-vis" technically there's an accent on the a but I can't remember how to get it there. But yeah, stop using french phrases if you don't know how to spell them.

You need to get 7-8 hours of sleep and then review the way you have structured your argument.

Probably.

Let me structure my argument in the easiest way possible, before sleep.

If you get a right, I get a right.

If you get to own property, I get to own property.

If you get to vote, I get to vote.

If you get bodily autonomy, I get bodily autonomy.

If you get privacy, I get privacy.

If you get freedom of religion, I get freedom of religion.

If you get freedom of speech, I get freedom of speech.

If you get to have wierd kinky sex where you're tied up and beat with a whip, then I get to have wierd kinky sex where I'm tied up and beat with a whip.

If you get protection against cruel and unusual punishment, I get protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

If you get to preemptively terminate your legal relationship with your future child, I get to preemptively terminate my legal relationship with my future child.

If you can do it, I can do it. No exceptions. And it doesn't matter what gender we are. Or what religion we are, or what age we are (past the age of majority), or how smart we are, or what color we are, or where we're from.

It doesn't matter. if you can do it, I can do it. That's justice, that's fairness. Anything else, ANYTHING ELSE is inequality, and thus injustice.

THAT is my argument.

If you get to preemptively terminate your legal relationship with your future child, I get to preemptively terminate my legal relationship with my future child.

If you can do it, I can do it. No exceptions. And it doesn't matter what gender we are. Or what religion we are, or what age we are (past the age of majority), or how smart we are, or what color we are, or where we're from.

It doesn't matter. if you can do it, I can do it. That's justice, that's fairness. Anything else, ANYTHING ELSE is inequality, and thus injustice.

THAT is my argument.
The thing is that first of all, abortion is about bodily autonomy, not "preemptively terminating your legal relationship with your future child" because in the case of to abort or not to abort, there is a good chance that there will be no child.

Furthermore, you didn't address the issues I raised about abortion access.

I stop using french phrases if you don't know how to spell them.

It's "French" not "french". Please stop typing if you can't capitalize correctly....

that sounds a bit ludicrus doesn't it? I left out an "s", you didn't capitalize an F

It's "French" not "french". Please stop typing if you can't capitalize correctly....

that sounds a bit ludicrus doesn't it? I left out an "s", you didn't capitalize an F
You made a spelling error multiple times in the same thread. I think you used that phrase at every available opportunity.

And I'm not even sure that that I made a mistake. I was using the word french as an adjective, not discussing the French people or French, the language...

The thing is that first of all, abortion is about bodily autonomy, not "preemptively terminating your legal relationship with your future child" because in the case of to abort or not to abort, there is a good chance that there will be no child.

It is about both. The reason there will be no child is exactly the way it preemptively terminates that legal relationship.

This is at the point where i may differ from you. It's a matter of perspective. If you don't think so...ok. I do.

Furthermore, you didn't address the issues I raised about abortion access.

Abortion access is of course a problem, however this is a theoretical argument. I think, in a general sense, and this is the only answer I'm capable of answering with right now, is that they should be reasonably, equally comparable and reasonably, equally accessable.

I'm really not sure how to do that at this time of night.

You made a spelling error multiple times in the same thread. I think you used that phrase at every available opportunity. I made a typing error once. Huge fucking difference, buddy.

Those in glass houses and all that....if you're going to attack my spelling errors...don't make one of your own, k? Just makes you look stupid.

Those in glass houses and all that....if you're going to attack my spelling errors...don't make one of your own, k? Just makes you look stupid.
Look again, I recanted on my spelling error admission, I'm pretty sure it wasn't one.

And using pretentious sounding phrases without being able to spell them makes one look incredibly stupid.

I've always made it clear to the woman I was with that I'm not ready to have a child. I've always slept with women ok with that and more than one had already been through an abortion. If the woman did decide to have the baby... I'd help support it, at least monetarily. That's just something I'd do.

It is about both. The reason there will be no child is exactly the way it preemptively terminates that legal relationship.
No, one can't terminate a relationship with a non-entity. Especially with a never-was entity.

Abortion access is of course a problem, however this is a theoretical argument. I think, in a general sense, and this is the only answer I'm capable of answering with right now, is that they should be reasonably, equally comparable and reasonably, equally accessable.
So basically, it should vary with geography and with the current laws and the finances of those involved. Not something that often happens with such contractual issues as you're arguing.

Probably.

Let me structure my argument in the easiest way possible, before sleep.

If you get a right, I get a right.

*snip*

If you can do it, I can do it. No exceptions. And it doesn't matter what gender we are. Or what religion we are, or what age we are (past the age of majority), or how smart we are, or what color we are, or where we're from.

It doesn't matter. if you can do it, I can do it. That's justice, that's fairness. Anything else, ANYTHING ELSE is inequality, and thus injustice.

THAT is my argument.


But what about the child? Doesn't he/she get rights too?

And since the child is too young to stand up for it's rights, isn't it the law's job to protect it?

No, one can't terminate a relationship with a non-entity. Especially with a never-was entity.

Which is why I've said "preemptively". Before it occurs.


So basically, it should vary with geography and with the current laws and the finances of those involved. Not something that often happens with such contractual issues as you're arguing.

Yes, of course that's stupid. Which is why it is entirely theoretical, and wouldn't be very fair to apply it today, obviously for there to be equality there has to be actual EQUALITY.

But what about the child? Doesn't he/she get rights too?

At that point, there IS no child. It's a less than 18 week old fetus. When and if it becomes a child it will have the rights to be protected by those that have entered into the agreement to protect it.

Which is why I've said "preemptively". Before it occurs.
I don't think that's still quite right for describing the situation. There is no relationship at all, there never is one in an abortion case and really, giving birth to a child is not the same as being a parent to one. There is always adoption.
This isn't the same issue at all. Abortions are about a woman's right to control her own body and deceide her own medical procedures. Both genders have the same results with being a parent. Either you are a parent or you pay child support to the parent or adopt it away.

Yes, of course that's stupid. Which is why it is entirely theoretical, and wouldn't be very fair to apply it today, obviously for there to be equality there has to be actual EQUALITY.
Ok, then why are you arguing this as though women have the absolute right in this situation and men are the only ones getting the short end of the stick?

I'm not talking about the decision, or the reasoning, or the justification.

I'm talking about the result. That's what matters, the result.
Not to the law, as it currently stands, and not to current legal thinking.

What matters to the law is that being pregnant is one thing and being a parent is another.

In pregnancy, the woman bears all the risk (which can be considerable), and the woman is the only thinking, communicating party to the pregnancy, and the only "legal person" involved with the pregnancy, and thus, on three counts, the only person with the right to make decisions controlling the pregnancy.

However, in parenting, the man also bears risks which are at least equal to the woman's, but there is now a third party involved, the baby, who will eventually become competent to speak for itself and until then can be provided with legal counsel to represent its interests if need be (such as a Guardian Ad Litum).

Now, it is this third party that throws off your argument because, it is the presence of this third party that separates the issues of parenting from the issues of pregnancy.

This was brought up in another post by two other people. Let's say you make an agreement with the woman, on the very first day she learns she is pregnant, that you don't want to be a father and want to cede all your parental rights. She agrees, and the two of you sign a contract to that effect.

That contract will have no force or effect and will be null and void in the event the CHILD wants to demand support from you because the rights/obligations you tried to get out of were not connected to the woman, but to the child. THE WOMAN HAD NO AUTHORITY TO CEDE THOSE RIGHTS ON BEHALF OF THE CHILD BECAUSE (A) THEY WERE NOT HER RIGHTS TO CEDE, (B) THE CHILD DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME SHE CEDED THEM, THEREFORE, (C) THE RIGHTS THEMSELVES DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME SHE CEDED THEM. She can say anything she likes about the child's rights before the child is born. Once the child is born and legally exists as a person, THEN the rights attach TO THE CHILD, and the child has the capacity to enforce them on its own behalf (or through legal counsel).

This is why, no matter what agreement you make with the woman, any US court will tell you "tough shit; sucks to be you" if the child comes after you later.

If you want to cede your parental rights, you have to disown the child after it is born, like rich folks did in days of yore. In such a case, you would be waiting until the child is born, and its legal rights attach to it, and then breaking that (essentially contractual) connection with the appropriate party -- the child itself.

I guess US law does not allow you to do that, but that is what you should be arguing for, not some half-assed let's-pretend with the woman who, when the time comes, will have no more to do with your relationship to your child than you have to do with her management of her pregnancy.

By the way, did I happen to mention that I used to edit and rewrite the legal arguments of corporate, contract, and estate lawyers? Does it show at all? ;)

I think you might not be getting my argument exactly right (and that might be my fault). You seem to think I'm arguing about the relationship between the man and the woman, I'm not, I'm analysing the ability of both of them to impact the future relationship with their child, and an inequality I perceive.
You perceive it, and you may be right that it exists, but it's still not relevant to what you are trying to achieve.

At that point, there IS no child. It's a less than 18 week old fetus. When and if it becomes a child it will have the rights to be protected by those that have entered into the agreement to protect it.


I'm talking about after the child's birth. The child has a right to a father that supports him/her and needs to be protected from an the effects of an irresponsible father.

Yes, exactly. Rights and powers of men versus the rights and powers of women, vis a vi the future relationship with his/her child.

That's the whole thing. As a matter of legal justice, if YOU have a right, I have a right. If you can do something, I can do it.

That's the fundamental point of my argument. If you can do something that carries a legal effect, I should be able to do something that has the EXACT SAME legal effect.

The child is, in a general sense, irrelevant. If you can bring about a legal effect, I, as a matter of legal equality, should be able to bring about the same legal effect
The bolded part is where you are 100% wrong. Treating the child as irrelevant in this context has the effect of treating the child like a piece of property that you and the woman are arguing over, but a born child is no more property than a grown man or woman, and the law recognizes its legal rights in the balance of what would constitute justice in any given situation. And as in all such situations, the law achieves justice by recognizing and using inequality (by balancing one inequality against another) -- the least powerful party who stands to lose the most gets the greatest consideration, and THAT is the child, my friend. The law gives the CHILD the right to demand fulfillment of obligations from you, so it is the CHILD you need to be arguing with about equality, not the woman. By this point, the woman is the one who is irrelevant.

I'd like to pose a slightly different argument.

Being that the said child is a quasi-living parasite,
No, a human child is not legally a quasi-living parasite, nor do I expect that the majority of people in many (if any) societies would accept such a legal definition.

that, as can be ascertained from the acceptance of abortion, belongs to the mother and the mother alone
Incorrect.

the father should have no right at all to that particular piece of biological property,
Legally a human child is not property.

or anything that comes about as a result of it, unless a contract (in whatever form) is agreed to by both parties.
Slavery is illegal in most countries, it's probably illegal where you live.

If pregnancy is not a parental situation, and the mother chooses to produce a parental situation from it, then that parental situation is solely hers, due to the fact that, if the father has neither the rights to nor the responsibilities of what happens from the biological situation, he also has neither from the resulting parental situation (unless otherwise agreed upon)
If and when we reinstitute slavery where I live, I will reconsider the implications as per your comments. Certainly if we suppose that ownership of people is a legally recognised and enforcable right, then what you suggest is not unreasonable on the surface, however, in the meantime I'll gladly fight tooth and nail to prevent any re-emergence of legalised slavery.

Thus, as if one tosses a machine part to a mechanic building something, says "here" and doesn't say another word, the person giving the part should neither have any inherent right to (unless agreed upon beforehand) the machine (if the machine is in the mechanic's possession) nor should the person have to pay for any of the upkeep/upgrading of said machine.

(BTW, I am a male who's getting cut ASAP. (this is only hindered by my status as poor and jobless (Due to my status as only just barely eighteen)(which I am actively working to remedy(the poor and jobless bit, not the eighteen bit(I love parentheses)))))
Woah! 12, well maybe a bit immature, but hey sometimes it happens, but eight-fucking-teen.....er is slavery legal where you live or did you manage to get to 18 in the modern world without realising that slavery is not nice and for the most part, somewhat frowned on in polite company...?:eek:

Probably.

Let me structure my argument in the easiest way possible, before sleep.

If you get a right, I get a right.

If you get to own property, I get to own property.

If you get to vote, I get to vote.

If you get bodily autonomy, I get bodily autonomy.

If you get privacy, I get privacy.

If you get freedom of religion, I get freedom of religion.

If you get freedom of speech, I get freedom of speech.

If you get to have wierd kinky sex where you're tied up and beat with a whip, then I get to have wierd kinky sex where I'm tied up and beat with a whip.

If you get protection against cruel and unusual punishment, I get protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

If you get to preemptively terminate your legal relationship with your future child, I get to preemptively terminate my legal relationship with my future child.

If you can do it, I can do it. No exceptions. And it doesn't matter what gender we are. Or what religion we are, or what age we are (past the age of majority), or how smart we are, or what color we are, or where we're from.

It doesn't matter. if you can do it, I can do it. That's justice, that's fairness. Anything else, ANYTHING ELSE is inequality, and thus injustice.

THAT is my argument.
But you're still arguing with the wrong party. You're starting to remind me of one of those lost guys who refuse to ask directions or consult a map and just stay on the wrong highway for miles and miles.

First off, I'd like to state that I'm pro Choice.

Both prospective parents chose on the night of conception to NOT have a child.(ie: condom usage)

Sally and only Sally should have the right to choose whether or not she should have an abortion. Due largely to the fact that it is her body that would be subjected to this invasive and potentially dangerous procedure.
+1 point for Sally

Billy should have the right at this point to choose whether or not he wishes to care for his unwanted offspring. As should Sally.
+1 point for Billy and Sally

Now, considering that neither parent wants said child, and both parents would be financially incapable of raising said child whilst continuing their prospective educations. This leaves us with a parentless, slightly-retarded child with no financial assistance.

I had proposed a UN Resolution to address this matter, but unfortunately it was never 'Adopted' (Mind the Pun). Perhaps I should make a re-write...

The gist of my solution is as follows, State Subsidised Childcare...

This would involve revamping the educational system to offer full childcare to said unwanted children. All schools would be required to offer full childcare to all their wards.
(ie: food, clothing, shelter, education, entertainment, security)

This would level the playing field in terms of an indivindual's success potential by:
a) Not forcing underfunded/undereducated parents to care for offspring.
b) Allowing underfunded children to have the same education as the rich.
c) Children would be raised by childrearing 'Professionals' rather than ignorant students, giving them a leg up in that respect as well.
d) Parents would be allowed to continue their educations unburdened, and become successful individuals that benefit society.

Granted, this would require additional funding to implement. There would be a net savings however, considering that doing anything 'in bulk' is much more cost effective than on an individual basis. The state could easily absorb the costs with little-to-no tax increases. Funding could be diverted from other areas.

Finally, as Sally chose to consume Alcohol during her pregnancy, and chose to not have an abortion, She should recieve a slight amount of extra taxation due to the fact that she is burdening the state with a less-than-ideal ward.
-1 point for sally

Final 'Fairness' tally...
1 point for Sally
1 point for Billy

There... Fair. *Nods*

they made the choice, the decision when they had sex that night.


This is a very dangerous line to take if you are Pro-Choice as it also implies that the woman also had a choice when she choose to have sex and should not be allowed to retract that choice afterwards.

The situation is currently:
Women can choose to abort a child if they feel it will harm their life and that they do not want the financial or social responsibility.
Men cannot choose.

Both had equal involvement in the girl getting pregnant, but only one has a choice about being held financially or socially responsible.

Seeing as I am not in favor of forced abortions I say tough shit to a guy wanting a women to be forced to abort a baby.

However it is not exactly unknown for women to delibrately get pregnant by deception - say going off the pill while telling their boyfriend they are still on it - to try force a guy into commitment. There was also that Boris Becker case where he (claims he) got a BJ and the woman inseminated herself without his knowlege. In a case where the man either has reasonable case to believe his act will not get the woman pregnant - BJs or masterbation, etc or is lied to about the womans pill status - I would be seriously inclined to say he should not be held legally responsible at all - particulary since the consent of the act is very questionable. In the UK a woman can give consent to sex on the condition that the man wears a condom, if he takes it off without telling her he is committing rape - and can be jailed (fair enough). By the same logic if a man consents to sex with a woman on the basis she is on the pill and she stops taking it without telling him a simila rule should apply.

This is a very dangerous line to take if you are Pro-Choice as it also implies that the woman also had a choice when she choose to have sex and should not be allowed to retract that choice afterwards.
No it isnt a dangerous line to take; women cannot retract the choice to have sex after they have had sex.

The situation is currently:
Women can choose to abort a child if they feel it will harm their life and that they do not want the financial or social responsibility.
Men cannot choose.
Wrong.
The situation is currently;
the state has no right to interfere in peoples' rights to choose to undergo certain medical proceedures such as an early term abortion. The state fails to have the right to interefer regardless of the the sex/gender of the person at issue.

Both had equal involvement in the girl getting pregnant, but only one has a choice about being held financially or socially responsible.
Firstly your statement is incorrect.
Secondly, even if it were true, so what? The law doesnt exist to magically make consequences go away.
The fact is both people going in knew the respective consequences, the female knew that if there were an unwanted pregnancy then it was she (and not the co-partner) who would have to undergo a termination of some kind of the birth giving process, the male knew that if there were an unwanted pregnancy he could neither force his co-partner to have a termination of carry to term against her wishes. Both face consequences, both have the same ability to know and pick the potentiality of those consequences, both made their respective choices and if it comes to an unwanted pregnancy both have their consequences to suffer.
It is true those consequences are not identical, but that isnt due the law discriminating against either party, or favouring either party. The consequences are different due to inherent biological differences inherent to the two parties. The law cannot 'fix' that, the law has no power to cause unwanted pregnancies to manifest in the body of males rather than females...

Seeing as I am not in favor of forced abortions I say tough shit to a guy wanting a women to be forced to abort a baby.

However it is not exactly unknown for women to delibrately get pregnant by deception - say going off the pill while telling their boyfriend they are still on it - to try force a guy into commitment.
Then guys ought to be careful where they put their penis.

There was also that Boris Becker case where he (claims he) got a BJ and the woman inseminated herself without his knowlege. In a case where the man either has reasonable case to believe his act will not get the woman pregnant - BJs or masterbation, etc or is lied to about the womans pill status - I would be seriously inclined to say he should not be held legally responsible at all -
I would seriously suggest that sex education be improved. I was taught that any ejaculation (including pre-ejaculative seepage) by the male could result in pregnancy (cross contamination and all). I was taught that 'the pill' is not fail safe, that condoms are not fail safe that even vasectomies are not fail safe.
The state cannot force women to undergo the invasive proceedure of pregnancy termination, the state is obligated to protect the rights of living children. There is no way for men to be let-off free from the consequences of their sexual acts should a pregnancy occur without violating standing rights of demonstrated importance. The right to be free from the consequences of one's voluntary acts (even when deceived) is not an established principal at law or in justice, nor should it be.

particulary since the consent of the act is very questionable.
No actually it isnt. It's as clear as the consent of a women who didnt know the guy she met out at the bar tonight had taken his wedding ring off for the evening and isnt single as he claims.

In the UK a woman can give consent to sex on the condition that the man wears a condom, if he takes it off without telling her he is committing rape - and can be jailed (fair enough). By the same logic if a man consents to sex with a woman on the basis she is on the pill and she stops taking it without telling him a simila rule should apply.
Er, no. The first consists of a person stating that only certain things may occur to their own body, the second refers to a person lying about the things they have done to their own body. Further the first could be fatal (AIDS), the second could not cause the death of the man.

The state isnt here to regulate mens' sex lives, it's not here to rescue them if they choose to have sexual relations with an arsehole, anymore than it's there to rescue women from the same. Whatever a women gets up to it doesnt void the rights of any child that she may be the mother of (so letting males off their paternity obligations isnt an acceptable response), it's not rape to mislead someone about what hormones you've put in your body, it isnt rape to choose how to dispose of something someone put in your mouth (without any expectation of the thing being returned to them).

While there might be other more appropriate legal remedies or punitive measures, rape isnt appropriate in such cases, nor is it acceptable to deny an innocent third party (any child born of such interactions) their rights.

No it isnt a dangerous line to take; women cannot retract the choice to have sex after they have had sex.
They can retract themselves fro the responsibilities of unwanted pregnancy. I think that is pretty clear from the context.

If you argue a man must bear full responsibility for raising any children as he consented to sex it would also imply a woman should also bear full responsibility for any children. (I am very pro-choice btw).

One of the main Anti-Choice arguements is that the woman made her choice when she had sex. And you are making the exact same statement about men. This only gives succor to the Anti-choice arguement. There are better reasons than "He made his choice when he had sex".


Wrong.
The situation is currently;
the state has no right to interfere in peoples' rights to choose to undergo certain medical proceedures such as an early term abortion. The state fails to have the right to interefer regardless of the the sex/gender of the person at issue.

And the practical real world effect of this is exactly as I stated.


Firstly your statement is incorrect.
Secondly, even if it were true, so what? The law doesnt exist to magically make consequences go away.

How exactly does a woman have less involvement in getting pregnant than the man? (With the obvious exception of rape)
And - the law DOES allow for women to (almost) magically make the consequences of possible child rearing go away.


I was taught that 'the pill' is not fail safe

I am not talking about failure of contraception, but people lying about their status and delibrately misleading someone to get pregnant.


No actually it isnt. It's as clear as the consent of a women who didnt know the guy she met out at the bar tonight had taken his wedding ring off for the evening and isnt single as he claims.

Er, no. The first consists of a person stating that only certain things may occur to their own body, the second refers to a person lying about the things they have done to their own body. Further the first could be fatal (AIDS), the second could not cause the death of the man.
No.
The possibility of creating a life is also a part to play in deciding consent.

If a woman tells a man halfway through sex that she is not pregnant and is trying to get pregnant he is 100% within his rights to withdraw consent and stop having sex. Your definition would seem to state that the woman would ahve the right to continue having sex with him.
(say the gyus handcuffed to the bed (willingly) and the girl is on top - if she announces she is not on the pill when she had led him to believe she was, and continued having sex with him dispite his protests it would be a case of rape, or non-consensual sex). The same principle applies if she tells him after - if he would not have consented knowing she was trying to get pregnan
If she lies to him about her pill status she is getting him to consent through fraud/deception.

it's not rape to mislead someone about what hormones you've put in your body,
Consent is perfectly allowed to have conditions. If someone consents only on the condition the woman is on the pill and she lies then she is obtaining consent by fraud.
Say... in the instance of a possible male pill - if a guy leads a woman to believe he is on it, and she agrees to have sex with him only on the condition that he is on the male pill, and it turns out he is lying she would have a case for non-consensual sex.




NOTE: I am NOT anti-choice. I am very PRO-choice. I AM NOT suggesting forced abortions. I think the arguement "The man made his choice" only plays into Anti-Choicers views on women making choices.

Here is where I disagree with the state funded childcare idea. The state does not have unlimited money... Here is a truth which most people don't want to hear.

When you have a child, the child should be protected and provided for whether or not the parents want it or not. Unwanted and neglected children are more likely to become criminals. This is a proven fact. Statistically abortion reduces crime because there are less people who are unwanted.

State funded orphanages do not do a very good job of raising children. It is better to not increase the amount of people being put into adoption. The state is very good at turning orphans into criminals. Essentially putting a combination of social services and the civil service into raising children is not a good idea.

This is especially true for disabled children. Disabled children have a much harder time than regular children in orphanages. The majority of adopters do not want them.

This is one of the reasons the state stopped allowing people to just turn over the child to an adoption agency so quickly. No matter what people say about adoption being better than abortion, turning over a child to the state is terrible for the child most of the time.

No matter what people say about adoption being better than abortion.

I hate the "Put them up for adoption" arguement. They cite huge numbers of people waiting to adopt, which should in theory magically make abortions or raising unwanted children a thing of the past. What they do not point out is that the people waiting to adopt have normally been waiting several years, while the number of abortions is every year. Sure you get 1 year of adoptions, where the entire waiting list vanishes - then the next year you are stuffed.

They can retract themselves fro the responsibilities of unwanted pregnancy. I think that is pretty clear from the context.
How can it be altogether clear when it is erroneous?
Women cannot retract themselves from the consequences of unwanted pregnancy if they find themselves unwantedly pregnant. That is an inarguable fact unless you wish to challenge the laws of physics.

If you argue a man must bear full responsibility for raising any children as he consented to sex it would also imply a woman should also bear full responsibility for any children. (I am very pro-choice btw).
But neither I nor the law argue any such thing. The fact that you can choose to interpret a possible way of arriving at a conclusion as being the way the conclusion is arrived at, doesnt make it necessarily the way the conclusion was arrived at.
Actions, functions and processes have consequences, surely you can agree with that much?
Most people agree that the state should not have arbitary rights to interfere in private matters such as whether or not they choose to undergo an elective medical proceedure. In many cases this is enshrined in law as a legal right.
At the same time, most people agree that the state should not have arbitary rights to force people to undergo invasive elective medical proceedures. In many cases this is enshrined in law.
Most people agree that children cannot support themselves, they are dependent and ought to have an enforced right to have their immediate needs met. Such a belief necessitates that children are not able to take action to enforce the right concerned and so the state is often as a consequence of the belief, tasked with providing particular and special protection of and vigilence in enforcing the right. In many cases the state is legally required by internal legislation and/or international treaties to provide such protection for children.

From the above it is clear that women cannot be prevented from having an abortion without sufficient cause, nor forced to have one. The creation of a gender-specific right doesnt fit the criteria of just cause.

The child is entitled to have rights that consist of obligations on others, the a priori persons tasked with the obligations are the biological parents of the child (for obvious reasons). The fact that the consequence of meeting those obligations is an undesired one, simply means that a person's acts have resulted in a forseeable but undesired consequence. Why ought an innocent child have their rights removed so a person can escape the forseeable consequences of their own actions? How can any state that has been tasked with applying special vigilence and special care in enforcing and protecting the rights of children possibly compromise those rights for such an unnecessary and unjustifiable purpose?

The issue of obligations to a live child is seperate from issues of abortion and contraception so far as the law is concerned. Entirely different principals and rights are operating. The right of a woman to decide with regards to her own pregnancy (at least in the early stages) is a necessary consequence of not allowing the state to arbitarily interefere by forcing or preventing elective surgery on its citizenary. The right of a child to have the obligations of its parents to it, enforced rigorously, is a necessary consequence of the 'dependent' status children have at law (including the legal reasoning of the status).

One of the main Anti-Choice arguements is that the woman made her choice when she had sex.
Which is a spacious argument. How does 'having sex' void one's right to be free from the State interfering in one's choice to undergo or not undergo elective medical proceedures? It doesnt, whether one ends up pregnant or not.

And you are making the exact same statement about men.
No I am not. I am not suggesting the state should take a role in deciding what elective medical proceedures a male can undergo, if he has ever had sex, or even just ever had sex that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy.

This only gives succor to the Anti-choice arguement. There are better reasons than "He made his choice when he had sex".
No better reason is needed. We dont create rights, obligations and other legal devices just because there isnt a compelling reason not to.
There is no compelling reason to create the right, there are compelling reasons not to.
It gives no succor to the Anti-choice argument, any argument that revolves around abridging an existing, universal right, for the arbitary reason 'they had sex' or 'I think that proceedure is icky' isnt 'succor-able'. The thing about dead horses is, twitch as they might, no matter how much you keep flogging them, they're not getting up again.

And the practical real world effect of this is exactly as I stated.
The effect of males working out with weights for 20 minutes is that they increase their muscle mass more than a women working with the same weights for the same 20 minutes....boys and girls are different, the law cannot change that, nor can it legislate some way to equalise everything (fancy a law that requires males to limit their upper-body strength, funding spent on finding a way for men to be pregnant....).
The law itself ought not dicriminate on gender lines, and in this case it doesnt.
The real world effect is that everyone has the same legal rights, and no one has their rights compromised. Any alternative suggested in this thread has been worse on one or more counts.

How exactly does a woman have less involvement in getting pregnant than the man?
How exactly did this irrelevent question get inserted into the conversation?

(With the obvious exception of rape)
And - the law DOES allow for women to (almost) magically make the consequences of possible child rearing go away.
So what if it does? I didnt say the law exists to ensure that particular consequences are always the outcome of particular acts or circumstances.
I stated that the law doesnt exist for the purpose of making consequences magically go away.
More to the point your semantic hi-jinks are ridiculous. The law does allow (much less provide specifically for) the disappearance of the consequences of unwanted pregnancy for females. Your silly game of substituting 'consequences' for 'child rearing' in order to pretend that only one gender bares consequences is pointless. No one is any more fooled than they would be if I tried to pretend males bore no consequences by stating 'the law allows males to escape all the consequences of either undergoing a termination or a full-term pregnancy culminating in agonising child-birth'....

I am not talking about failure of contraception, but people lying about their status and delibrately misleading someone to get pregnant.
Not relevent. The point is that if you engage in sex acts, whether your partner is on contraception or lying about being on contraception, unwanted pregnancy is a potential consequence, and so are any legal obligations that might arise in connection with said unwanted pregnancy. The fact that it was a lie instead of a contraceptive failure doesnt change the fact that the consequence is a forseeable one.

No.
The possibility of creating a life is also a part to play in deciding consent.
No it isnt. Your understanding of what constitutes a legal definition/criteria of rape is clearly lacking.

If a woman tells a man halfway through sex that she is not pregnant and is trying to get pregnant he is 100% within his rights to withdraw consent and stop having sex.
Just as the woman is 100% within her rights to put a stop to activity if halfway through the man tells her that he oughten be too late getting home to his wife, or that he lied about his vasectomy.

Your definition would seem to state that the woman would ahve the right to continue having sex with him.
No. You are either being blatently absurd or miscomprehended something along the way.

(say the gyus handcuffed to the bed (willingly) and the girl is on top - if she announces she is not on the pill when she had led him to believe she was, and continued having sex with him dispite his protests it would be a case of rape, or non-consensual sex).
Of course it would, it would be regardless whether or not she was on the pill, had ever mentioned the pill, or was in the pill manufacturing business.

The same principle applies if she tells him after -
Right, but the pill has nothing whatsoever to do with the principal. The principal is about consent, not about reasons why consent might be withheld or is revoked prior or during the act. Once the act is finished, it's too late to revoke or with-hold consent. The law allows only a very few grounds for claiming that consent was with-held in the absence of protests at the time of the event. Being misled about the personal practises of the person prior to the interaction just doesnt cut it.

if he would not have consented knowing she was trying to get pregnan
If she lies to him about her pill status she is getting him to consent through fraud/deception.
Which doesnt necessarily nulify the consent. If I lied to a woman and told her I was a big-shot Hollywood producer, to get her to 'give out' and she did only because she believed me, that wouldnt be rape. Scummy - sure, rape - nope.

Consent is perfectly allowed to have conditions. If someone consents only on the condition the woman is on the pill and she lies then she is obtaining consent by fraud.
Fraud and rape are different charges entirely. If a woman only consents because I promise that I love her and that I will respect her in the morning, but I dont love her, and come the morning, I dont respect her either, that doesnt make it rape.

Say... in the instance of a possible male pill - if a guy leads a woman to believe he is on it, and she agrees to have sex with him only on the condition that he is on the male pill, and it turns out he is lying she would have a case for non-consensual sex.
No she wouldnt.

NOTE: I am NOT anti-choice. I am very PRO-choice. I AM NOT suggesting forced abortions.
Note that either you must accept forced abortions, or you must accept denying the rights of an innocent and particularly vulnerable party that the state has a particular obligation to protect, or you must accept that males who end up fathers of unwanted children have legal obligations to those children. There isnt a fourth alternative.

I think that a man should be able to sever himself from the baby if he wants an abortion and the woman refuses to have one.

How can it be altogether clear when it is erroneous?
Women cannot retract themselves from the consequences of unwanted pregnancy if they find themselves unwantedly pregnant. That is an inarguable fact unless you wish to challenge the laws of physics.
Are you saying abortion does not allow a woman to retract herself from the consequence of being financially and socially responsible for an unwanted child?

Why ought an innocent child have their rights removed so a person can escape the forseeable consequences of their own actions?

The issue of obligations to a live child is seperate from issues of abortion and contraception so far as the law is concerned. Entirely different principals and rights are operating. The right of a woman to decide with regards to her own pregnancy (at least in the early stages) is a necessary consequence of not allowing the state to arbitarily interefere by forcing or preventing elective surgery on its citizenary. The right of a child to have the obligations of its parents to it, enforced rigorously, is a necessary consequence of the 'dependent' status children have at law.
Correct me if I am wrong, but sperm donors through sperm clinics have NO legal financial or social responsibility to any child sired with their sperm. How does this law tie in with your claims on the rights of the innocent third party child?


How exactly did this irrelevent question get inserted into the conversation?

I states that both parties are equally responsible for getting pregnant, you said this was incorrect. Unless of course you were somehow trying to say that a women does not ahve the choice of being financially or socially responsible for a child she becomes pregnant with.


Your silly game of substituting 'consequences' for 'child rearing' in order to pretend that only one gender bares consequences is pointless.
I'd say responsibility for rearing a child is one hell of a consequence. At present only one party can legally withdraw from that consequence during pregnancy.


No it isnt. Your understanding of what constitutes a legal definition/criteria of rape is clearly lacking.
You DON'T consider the contraceptive status of your girlfriend/boyfriend when you choose to consent to have sex?



Right, but the pill has nothing whatsoever to do with the principal. The principal is about consent, not about reasons why consent might be withheld or is revoked prior or during the act. Once the act is finished, it's too late to revoke or with-hold consent. The law allows only a very few grounds for claiming that consent was with-held in the absence of protests at the time of the event. Being misled about the personal practises of the person prior to the interaction just doesnt cut it.
A woman can have a man charged with rape if she discovers AFTER that she consented to having sex on the condition he used a condom and she finds out after that he lied or took it off. She does not need to get pregnant ot catch a disease for her to be able to press this charge.
Consent can be given on ANY condition the person desires. If a guy says he'll only have sex with a girl if she is on the pill and she lies then she is violating the terms of his consent.
If a woman gives consent on the condition that the guy wears a condom and he takes it off without telling her he is violating the terms of the consent.

Which doesnt necessarily nulify the consent. If I lied to a woman and told her I was a big-shot Hollywood producer, to get her to 'give out' and she did only because she believed me, that wouldnt be rape. Scummy - sure, rape - nope.
Actually depending on which state you are in pretending to be someone you are not to gain consent does count as rape.


Fraud and rape and different charges entirely.
Consent obtained by fraud is not consent. Consent requires the person to be informed of their actions and what they are consenting to.

This is a large part of the reason drugging someone to get them to have sex is considered rape - you are depriving them of the reasoning capacity to make informed consent.


Note that either you must accept forced abortions, or you must accept denying the rights of an innocent and particularly vulnerable party that the state has a particular obligation to protect, or you must accept that males who end up fathers of unwanted children have legal obligations to those children. There isnt a fourth alternative.
Ummm.... I'm not talking about unwanted children. I'm talking about children wanted only by the mother.

Can you give your views on the legality of not requireing a sperm donor to be legally or socially responsible for any children sired by use of their sperm?

she cant avoid responsibility. she is pregnant. she cant walk away.

It's called the abortion. Or the morning-after pills.

as it turns out it would have indeed been better if either or both of them had decided to abstain.\


Probably, but who actually WANTS that kind of society?

Because it's his child too. It takes two people to make a child, and this child will ruin the woman's life too. Plus, she will probaly be the one with whom the child lives. Added to the trials or preganancy and child birth, a woman inherenly has more responsibility towards a child. So, in a sense, the father is still getting the better end of the deal.

Sure it takes two people to make a child, but only one of these can make the choice whether or not to actually have it. If she wants to ruin her own life then fair enough, but she shouldn't be able to do the same to another person. I don't care if the woman has more hardships, she chooses to go through all that. A man shouldn't have to pay for a kid he never wanted.
One also has to take in the fact that the child too has rights. Before he was born, he really didn't have any. However, after he was born, a third person is added to the equation. The child will suffer much more than either parent if forced to be supported by a single parent.

If a woman chooses to have a child and is struggling with cash, then she will be recieving money from the governement. Although it's not much, she and her kid will just have to live with it. She made the choice to have the child despite not being able to afford it.

Men currently enjoy the right to choose, in reference to the abortion debate. The right to choose refers to the right to choose how one's own body participates in reproduction. Men have the right to choose when, how, and with whom they have sex. They have the right to choose to use contraception if they wish.

Because of the way human biology works, the male body's participation in reproduction ends with the sexual act. That is when the "right to choose" debate ends for men.

Men do not have the right to choose how somebody else's body participates in reproduction. That is called "rape."

If we believe in equality, then women should also enjoy the right to choose how their own bodies participate in reproduction. For women, this will include when, how, and with whom they have sex, whether or not they use contraception, and whether or not their reproductive organs will participate in gestating an embryo/fetus/etc. No woman has the right to choose how a man's body (or another woman's body) participates in reproduction. That would be rape.

The issue of obligation to a born infant is a totally different topic. The question of a parent's obligation to their born children has nothing to do with choosing how one's own body participates in reproduction. In my opinion, men and women should have equal legal obligations to their born children.

I guess what we should do is find out what women are charging to be surrogate mother's these days and attach a price tag to the whole thing so that the man pays a one time fee to get out of the affair.

I think this could definately be a step in the right direction.

You're much better at wording things than me.

Men currently enjoy the right to choose, in reference to the abortion debate. The right to choose refers to the right to choose how one's own body participates in reproduction. Men have the right to choose when, how, and with whom they have sex. They have the right to choose to use contraception if they wish.
Agree 100%

Because of the way human biology works, the male body's participation in reproduction ends with the sexual act. That is when the "right to choose" debate ends for men.
Agree 100%

Men do not have the right to choose how somebody else's body participates in reproduction. That is called "rape."
Agree 100%


If we believe in equality, then women should also enjoy the right to choose how their own bodies participate in reproduction. For women, this will include when, how, and with whom they have sex, whether or not they use contraception, and whether or not their reproductive organs will participate in gestating an embryo/fetus/etc. No woman has the right to choose how a man's body (or another woman's body) participates in reproduction. That would be rape.
Agree 100%

The issue of obligation to a born infant is a totally different topic. The question of a parent's obligation to their born children has nothing to do with choosing how one's own body participates in reproduction. In my opinion, men and women should have equal legal obligations to their born children.
Agree ~75%. I don't think a man should have legal obligations if the woman got pregnant by deception - lied about the pill or used sperm from a discarded condom or similar when the man thought he was consenting to sex with these protections in place. In cases where contraception is used but fails I think they should ahve equal obligations as they should boith be aware no contraception is 100% effective. If both know no contraception is being used then they should have also equal obligations. IMO.

Are you saying abortion does not allow a woman to retract herself from the consequence of being financially and socially responsible for an unwanted child?
No, are you saying that being financially and socially responsible for an unwanted child are the only possible consequences of unwanted pregnancy?

Correct me if I am wrong, but sperm donors through sperm clinics have NO legal financial or social responsibility to any child sired with their sperm.
It's not that you are wrong in the statement itself, but I suspect your understanding of the legal happenings involved is less than complete.

How does this law tie in with your claims on the rights of the innocent third party child?
Legal systems have generally not caught up with fertility technology. Anomalies abound because the legislative and common-law tools needed to ensure the consistent application of standing principals to instances involving fertility technology do not yet exist.
None the less, various individual legal jurisdictions do have provisions that ensure that children born as a result of fertility treatments that include sperm donation, do have rights referred to.

I states that both parties are equally responsible for getting pregnant, you said this was incorrect.
No I didnt.

Unless of course you were somehow trying to say that a women does not ahve the choice of being financially or socially responsible for a child she becomes pregnant with.
I doubt I said any such thing, in fact I'm sure I didnt.

I'd say responsibility for rearing a child is one hell of a consequence.
Right, but it's only one consequence. And if the two parents dont have shared custody, it's one that is unevenly distributed....but then so is giving birth, not to mention having to undergo a risky surgical proceedure....and so?

You seem to entirely miss the point. Any male who finds himself the father of a completely unwanted baby, is not penalised nor loses any rights if there is the potential for the pregnancy to be terminated. He might luck out, or he might not. Either way his rights are exactly the same as they would be if abortion didnt exist.

At present only one party can legally withdraw from that consequence during pregnancy.
So what? At present only one party can physically be subjected to the consequence of giving birth. These variances in consequences are not caused by the law, and it doesnt appear the law can appropriately 'fix' or change them.

You DON'T consider the contraceptive status of your girlfriend/boyfriend when you choose to consent to have sex?
I consider all kinds of things, including the possiblity of deception. I'd be naive if I didnt. Hopefully I make good chooses more often than bad. If not I might well be subjected to consequences I dont like. That's not necessarily something the law can or should address though.

A woman can have a man charged with rape if she discovers AFTER that she consented to having sex on the condition he used a condom and she finds out after that he lied or took it off.
Right, we've been over this ground before.
The law about condoms isnt about potential for pregnancy, it applies even if you are a man who has had a vasectomy having sex with a post-menopausal woman.

She does not need to get pregnant ot catch a disease for her to be able to press this charge.
That's because the charge of rape doesnt arise due to the potential to become pregnant or even to catch a disease. It arises because the two acts are legally distinguishable from each other.

Actually depending on which state you are in pretending to be someone you are not to gain consent does count as rape.
Yeah, like pretending to be someone's husband, which is entirely different to pretending things about yourself. If I sneak into someone's dark room under the pretense that I am their spouse, you got grounds for rape, if I pretend that I have bunji-jumped off Mount Everest and that I am rich and that I make movies for a living, and a person thinks these are good reasons to get at it with me, that isnt rape.

Consent obtained by fraud is not consent. Consent requires the person to be informed of their actions and what they are consenting to.
Actually the law only protects people from misleading conduct to particular degrees and the degree evidently differs from context to context. You get much more protection against pretence as a customer than you do as a lover. The law isnt here to regulate your love-life and keep tabs on the honesty of your lovers. That's your personal responsiblity. The extent to which the law will interfer in your right to fuck up your own life is limited....thankfully.

Ummm.... I'm not talking about unwanted children. I'm talking about children wanted only by the mother.
Nice quibbling if you like that kind of thing. I didnt specify who was doing the unwanting so you dont even win the technical semantic round.

Can you give your views on the legality of not requireing a sperm donor to be legally or socially responsible for any children sired by use of their sperm?
If such technology is to be employed then conception should only be allowed to go ahead if the right of the child to be supported by at least two parent is provided for at the outset (ie at the time of conception).

First off, I don't plan to debate this, I just want to see what the reaction is to this concept of abortion. I'm not heartless, I'm just curious. So, here goes.

Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Billy and Sally are two young people. They have no clearly defined religious beliefs, and are attending the same college. Billy has a part time job to pay for expenses, and Sally's parents cover hers.

Billy and Sally meet at a party and really hit it off. They leave together and go to Billy's apartment. They spend a night getting to know each other in the biblical sense (while using a condom of course). They bid each other adieu the following morning both accepting it as a one night stand.

A month later, Sally is concerned because she is far over due for her period, and has been missing classes because of nausea. She goes to her doctor to discover that she is pregnant.

Calling Billy, she relays the information. He is shocked and doesn't know how to respond. He can't support a baby financially without quitting school and going to work full time, but that would ruin his hope of one day being a doctor. Turning to the only alternative he could see, he suggests an abortion. Sally is appalled, for she is morally opposed to abortion, and would never do such a thing. Because of the laws in his nation, Billy has no say in the matter.

Several months later, Sally gives birth to the baby. The baby suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome from Sally's college drinking binges, and requires significant medical attention. The baby will need extensive medical care through out its development, but is mentally fine.

Billy is forced by his state to pay child support for the following 18 years and is forced from college and into the workforce so that he can meet the high payments. He leads a life not at all comparable to the one he would have had he finished school or not been forced to pay child support.


I assume she had to drop out of school aswell?
Could the parents who are paying for tuition not have helped?
Her career probably went down the toilet aswell, since she had to take care of handicaped child.
and the only alternative he could think of was abortion? Thank god he did'nt become a doctor, not very imaginative is he? can't pay? well kill it!
He could have earned money holding seminars. "if your going to have one night stands, make sure you won't see her again"

Agree ~75%. I don't think a man should have legal obligations if the woman got pregnant by deception - lied about the pill or used sperm from a discarded condom or similar when the man thought he was consenting to sex with these protections in place. In cases where contraception is used but fails I think they should ahve equal obligations as they should boith be aware no contraception is 100% effective. If both know no contraception is being used then they should have also equal obligations. IMO.
I think it's going to be essentially impossible to prove that a woman became pregnant by deception. A man can always claim he was deceived, and a woman can always claim it was contraceptive failure or a mistake, or even that he wanted her to get pregnant but has now changed his mind.

Furthermore, the obligation to a born child is (in my opinion) an obligation to THE CHILD. Not to the woman. What she may or may not have done is beside the issue, when it comes to a parent's obligation to his child. That's just my opinion, again, and I know a lot of people don't share it.

Of course, I say all this as a person who strongly believes that any child would be better off without the kind of "father" who is trying to find legal ways to ditch his own offspring.

Does that mean that Sally, or any other woman, needs to be willing to accept responsibility for her actions and their consequences? Do you not support their right to an abortion?



What is to stop women tricking some man by telling him she's on birth control and not being on it?



Asking again. Does that mean that Sally, or any other woman, needs to be willing to accept responsibility for her actions and their consequences? Do you not support their right to an abortion?


Sally, or any other woman, also needs to be held accountable--I did not mention this because this is not the point I was arguing. It is, efectively, irrelevant to the course of debate at this point. That much is understood; I was addressing the point that men should not be able to cop out of responsibility. Don't fight the hypothetical.

No I didnt.

I doubt I said any such thing, in fact I'm sure I didnt.


Both had equal involvement in the girl getting pregnant, but only one has a choice about being held financially or socially responsible.

Firstly your statement is incorrect.
Can you clarify exactly which part of my statement is incorrect?


Right, we've been over this ground before.
The law about condoms isnt about potential for pregnancy, it applies even if you are a man who has had a vasectomy having sex with a post-menopausal woman.
Then what is the law about? - you seem to state it is not about disease OR pregnancy.
The law is that the woman can consent to the man based on her own conditions. If the man lies about his actions to gain the consent then this voids the consent. Likewise if a man requires a woman to use the pill for consent and the woman lies.

Pregnancy/Disease - the principle is that BOTH parties can apply conditions of consent and if the other person does not meet that condition then the consent is void.


Actually the law only protects people from misleading conduct to particular degrees and the degree evidently differs from context to context.
I think the responsibility of starting a new life is a pretty big degree.


Nice quibbling if you like that kind of thing. I didnt specify who was doing the unwanting so you dont even win the technical semantic round.
I introduced option 4. I did not specify who was doing the unwanting for your option three, I proposed an option 4 and made my specifications on that case.


If such technology is to be employed then conception should only be allowed to go ahead if the right of the child to be supported by at least two parent is provided for at the outset (ie at the time of conception).
Are you saying single women should not be allowed to use sperm banks?

so is that the cost of human life? renting a child for 20k a year? i love the
21st centuary.

I think it's going to be essentially impossible to prove that a woman became pregnant by deception. A man can always claim he was deceived, and a woman can always claim it was contraceptive failure or a mistake, or even that he wanted her to get pregnant but has now changed his mind.
Same as other matters. The consent issue should be a criminal issue and should be tried under the burden of reasonable doubt, and the support one should be a civil issue and be judged on a balance of probabilities.


Of course, I say all this as a person who strongly believes that any child would be better off without the kind of "father" who is trying to find legal ways to ditch his own offspring.

True. Personally I know one guy who had this happen to him - but he was a willing father, he ditched the girl as he did not want to be in a relationship wiht someone who would tell lies with such huge consequences in an attempt to get him to marry her. Then he successfully (by some massive miricle) sued for custody and won.

In cases where the woman gets pregant against the mans wishes I don't think she is doing it for the mans benefit but for her own. I think I would have a lot less objection if there was a way to ONLY benefit the child and not give benefit to the person who throught deception acted in a selfish way with the goal of extracting by law commitment or financial support.

so is that the cost of human life? renting a child for 20k a year? i love the
21st centuary.

Even less: the cost of a life is the cost of a bullet. Which can be less than ten cents.

Even less: the cost of a life is the cost of a bullet. Which can be less than ten cents.

seems to me it sounds like people are more interested in money than taking responsibility for thier actions. if you dont want kids, dont have sex or get yourself sterilized.

A female needs never, ever, to consider the viewpoint of her sexual partner. At all.


This is a false statement.

A woman needs to consider her partner's viewpoint on pre-emptive anti-pregnancy methods such as condoms. Some men refuse to use them (still), so she has to consider whether or not the person she's chosen to have sexual relations with will be open to using a condom.

Paper abortion is one choice.The other is just saying that it is not his.Deny a DNA test.Deny deny deny...(not that I believe that this is moral of course)

Same as other matters. The consent issue should be a criminal issue and should be tried under the burden of reasonable doubt, and the support one should be a civil issue and be judged on a balance of probabilities.

*Shrug* Like I said, I think it's going to be pretty impossible to prove. I think it's more likely to turn into a way for men and women to harass one another at the expense of kids. It's also only going to be an actual issue for the wealthy, since guys who can't afford to be paying child support aren't going to have the money for a civil trial either. Women who need those child support payments to feed the baby aren't likely to be able to afford lawyers' fees.


True. Personally I know one guy who had this happen to him - but he was a willing father, he ditched the girl as he did not want to be in a relationship wiht someone who would tell lies with such huge consequences in an attempt to get him to marry her. Then he successfully (by some massive miricle) sued for custody and won.
I had a male friend who, at 17, became a father. His girlfriend did not tell him she was pregnant until she was 7 months along, and she claimed she didn't know that she was pregnant until then. Granted, she was kind of a big girl, and she carried the pregnancy very low (so you might not notice the belly), but nobody really believed that a sexually-active young woman would simply not notice she'd missed her period for 7 straight months. It was pretty obvious to most of us that she'd intentionally gotten pregnant and hidden it.

Did it suck? Hells yeah. Did Phil's life get royally muddled up by it? Hells yeah. Did any of the shitty things his girlfriend did change his obligations to the born child? In my opinion, hells no.

His "freedom to choose" extended to his choices of how he used his body. One of the risks you take when you are sexually active is that you are dealing with another autonomous human being. They may make choices you really don't like. As long as those choices are choices about their own body, you don't get to control them. That's a risk you take. If you don't want to take that risk, don't have sexual contact with other people.

seems to me it sounds like people are more interested in money than taking responsibility for thier actions. if you don't want kids, dont have sex or get yourself sterilized.

Think that's what you meant ;)
Yes, I entirely agree. Just look at society today--EVERYTHING revolves around money, compensation, suing...you wanna know why the world is run by lawyers? Because people are obsessed with money, rather than assuming responsibility. Why be held accountable when I can get off scot-free?
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your argument.

Think that's what you meant ;)
Yes, I entirely agree. Just look at society today--EVERYTHING revolves around money, compensation, suing...you wanna know why the world is run by lawyers? Because people are obsessed with money, rather than assuming responsibility. Why be held accountable when I can get off scot-free?
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your argument.

its grand. i'm sure you're a better typer anyway! :p

Can you clarify exactly which part of my statement is incorrect?
Neither have an absolute choice about being socially or financially responsible. At the very least someone is going to have to front up the minimal cost of a termination, the degree to which the female involved will be culpable for this cost varies from case to case but isnt simply a matter of her choice. If you dont think there might be social costs involved in having people know you had a pregnancy intentionally terminated, or of keeping the fact secret from others, then you have not thought it through clearly.
If the pregnancy goes to terms, the issue becomes more complex again, but in either case there are financial, social and physical costs for the female involved.

Then what is the law about? - you seem to state it is not about disease OR pregnancy.
It's about sexual assault. Can you deny that the law would apply even if both parties knew that pregnancy was impossible and the male who removed the condom knew that he was disease-free? Unless you can prove otherwise, we have to conclude that risk of pregnancy and disease are not the traits by which the act referred to is characterised as a rape.

The law is that the woman can consent to the man based on her own conditions. If the man lies about his actions to gain the consent then this voids the consent.
No, that isnt the law. Dont you think those screaming women on Geraldo would prosecute those 'lying dogs' who told them they were not married while having sex with them and ten other women if it were the law?

Likewise if a man requires a woman to use the pill for consent and the woman lies.
Wrong. It isnt a matter of being able to place legally binding conditions so far as the law is concerned. What is at issue is consent to particular acts. The ability to claim that the act itself is materially different to the act consented to is the necessary condition for claiming the act consented to was different (obviously).
Pretence is only relevent if it can be construed as resulting in the belief that one was consenting to a materially different act to the act that occurred.

Pregnancy/Disease - the principle is that BOTH parties can apply conditions of consent and if the other person does not meet that condition then the consent is void.
No, that is not the principal at all.

I think the responsibility of starting a new life is a pretty big degree.
That responsiblity is a potential consequence whether or not your partner is honest about his or her contraceptive practises.

I introduced option 4. I did not specify who was doing the unwanting for your option three, I proposed an option 4 and made my specifications on that case.
What option 4? Not a single option doesnt include one of the three consequences as a potential outcome.

Are you saying single women should not be allowed to use sperm banks?
No, if they can provide someone who is willing and able to commit to (legally) be the second parent (they dont even have to co-habit), I dont see why provisions at law cannot be made to accomodate such an arrangement.

Finally, as Sally chose to consume Alcohol during her pregnancy, and chose to not have an abortion, She should recieve a slight amount of extra taxation due to the fact that she is burdening the state with a less-than-ideal ward.
-1 point for sally

Final 'Fairness' tally...
1 point for Sally
1 point for Billy

There... Fair. *Nods*


So basiclly you're saying that all pregnant women must have an abortion or must be penalized for not having an abortion? This sounds highly wrong to me.

It's about sexual assault.
Can you say explicitly why if a woman requires a man to wear a condom and he takes her off without telling her is a sexual assult.
What makes it a sexual assult and why? And how this condition fundamentally varies from the pill. What is the special case for condoms?

You seem to have very odd views on this. I'm trying to work out where on earth you are coming from


Wrong. It isnt a matter of being able to place legally binding conditions so far as the law is concerned. What is at issue is consent to particular acts. The ability to claim that the act itself is materially different to the act consented to is the necessary condition for claiming the act consented was different (obviously).
It is the same principle as condoms.


What option 4? Not a single option doesnt include one of the three consequences as a potential outcome.
You said the was not an option 4 when there was one. I pointed it out.


No, if they can provide someone who is willing and able to commit to (legally) be the second parent (they dont even have to co-habit), I dont see why provisions at law cannot be made to accomodate such an arrangement.
And if they wish to raise the child on their own without their support it would be illegal?

It's called the abortion. Or the morning-after pills.
Which are both forms of taking responsability for becoming pregnant.

Can you say explicitly why if a woman requires a man to wear a condom and he takes her off without telling her is a sexual assult.
What makes it a sexual assult and why? And how this condition fundamentally varies from the pill. What is the special case for condoms?
Not wearing a condom can cause bodily harm to one or both partners in the from of a sexually transmitted disease.

Can you say explicitly why if a woman requires a man to wear a condom and he takes her off without telling her is a sexual assult.
What makes it a sexual assult and why? And how this condition fundamentally varies from the pill. What is the special case for condoms?

I'm not entirely sure how a man could remove a condom and proceed with sex without the woman noticing that he has done so. I would assume she would protest this sort of thing, if she had initially said that she would only have sex if he wore a condom. If she protests and he continues with the sex, that's rape.

However, it is true that there is no law against lying to somebody to get them to sleep with you. Maybe they wouldn't consent to have sex with you if they knew the truth, but (as far as I know) that doesn't make the sex automatically rape.

If it were possible for a man to deceive a woman about his contraceptive use without her knowing, and if she consented to have sex with him, I don't think that automatically makes it rape. It might be possible to classify this as some other sort of crime, though.

Interesting question, I think.

I'm not entirely sure how a man could remove a condom and proceed with sex without the woman noticing that he has done so.


Sometimes the girl isn't in a state of mind that allows her to notice (ie being drunk or high or some other similar state of mind) whether or not the guy has complied with her condom requirement.

I'm not saying this is an excuse or anything, just that it happens.

Sometimes the girl isn't in a state of mind that allows her to notice (ie being drunk or high or some other similar state of mind) whether or not the guy has complied with her condom requirement.

I'm not saying this is an excuse or anything, just that it happens.
I may be wrong here, but if the woman is in such a state then might the sex qualify as rape anyhow? I mean, if she's too drunk to notice the condom, isn't she probably too drunk to give consent?

It bothers me that I'm not more aware of the laws on this, frankly. :(

If it were possible for a man to deceive a woman about his contraceptive use without her knowing, and if she consented to have sex with him, I don't think that automatically makes it rape. It might be possible to classify this as some other sort of crime, though.

Interesting question, I think.

Not sure about a crime but I'm pretty sure that you could argue that it would constitute a breach of contract and sue the guy.

seems to me it sounds like people are more interested in money than taking responsibility for thier actions. if you dont want kids, dont have sex or get yourself sterilized.
Getting an abortion is taking responsability for one's actions if one cannot provide care for an infant.

I may be wrong here, but if the woman is in such a state then might the sex qualify as rape anyhow? I mean, if she's too drunk to notice the condom, isn't she probably too drunk to give consent?

It bothers me that I'm not more aware of the laws on this, frankly. :(

what if both are drunk?

I'm not entirely sure how a man could remove a condom and proceed with sex without the woman noticing that he has done so.
Maybe they were changing positions?

Getting an abortion is taking responsability for one's actions if one cannot provide care for an infant.

i cant provide for most people, should go on a killing spree? at least you have a solution to the homeless problem. rond them up and shoot them. they wont feel pain if its in thier sleep.

Not sure about a crime but I'm pretty sure that you could argue that it would constitute a breach of contract and sue the guy.
Yeah, I'm not quite sure how I feel about it.

On the one hand, I don't think we should be passing laws that make it illegal to lie to somebody. I think it's scummy as hell to lie to get somebody in bed, but I don't think criminal law is the way to deal with this sort of thing.

At the same time, sex is serious business, now more than ever. There are at least 150 diseases that can be transmitted by sexual contact, and a great many of them have no cure. Some can leave people with permanent scars or can render them infertile. Some are fatal.

It is illegal to knowingly engage in reckless behavior that endangers other peoples' safety and lives. Engaging in unprotected sex, particularly with a partner who has expressed their desire to use protection, seems to fit under that heading.

Gah, but on yet another hand, I really really really don't like when government starts regulating sexual practices between consenting adults. Such a muddle.

i cant provide for most people, should go on a killing spree? at least you have a solution to the homeless problem. rond them up and shoot them. they wont feel pain if its in thier sleep.

Why not? Soylent Green FTW.

Maybe they were changing positions?
Well, yeah, but...

Ok, I don't want to give too much information here, but I can tell if a guy is wearing a condom or not. I mean, I feel stuff down there. Is this unusual? Are most women unable to tell if their partner is wearing a condom by the feel of it?

i cant provide for most people, should go on a killing spree?
If most people are living inside your body and sustaining their lives using your organs and tissues, then it's your business whether or not you want to continue allowing them to live inside you and use your organs.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure how I feel about it.

On the one hand, I don't think we should be passing laws that make it illegal to lie to somebody. I think it's scummy as hell to lie to get somebody in bed, but I don't think criminal law is the way to deal with this sort of thing.

At the same time, sex is serious business, now more than ever. There are at least 150 diseases that can be transmitted by sexual contact, and a great many of them have no cure. Some can leave people with permanent scars or can render them infertile. Some are fatal.

It is illegal to knowingly engage in reckless behavior that endangers other peoples' safety and lives. Engaging in unprotected sex, particularly with a partner who has expressed their desire to use protection, seems to fit under that heading.

Gah, but on yet another hand, I really really really don't like when government starts regulating sexual practices between consenting adults. Such a muddle.

I agree, the whole thing is a bit too much of a mess for any simple leislation to sort it out. For example, a law that would prevent people from possibly causing injury to their partner could have an impact on those into the more kinky side of things. Any law would have to be so precisly worded as to make it not flexible enough for actual use.

Well, yeah, but...

Ok, I don't want to give too much information here, but I can tell if a guy is wearing a condom or not. I mean, I feel stuff down there. Is this unusual? Are most women unable to tell if their partner is wearing a condom by the feel of it?

ive always found the difference extremely obvious.

Can you say explicitly why if a woman requires a man to wear a condom and he takes her off without telling her is a sexual assult.
Why do you think I need to provide the evidenciary basics to your argument? You have not stated what jurisdictions, much less whether you refer to law that is legislative or common-law. I didnt introduce any argument whatsoever about removing condoms being rape, you did, so it's up to you to prove your argument, not up to me to guess, find, summarize and then argue against any evidence that might exist for it.

If you wish to argue that risking pregnancy and risking disease by a greater degree than your partner is aware, is sufficient cause for a rape conviction, then it's up to you to prove it.

What makes it a sexual assult and why? And how this condition fundamentally varies from the pill. What is the special case for condoms?
You tell me. I accepted your assertion without evidence since it isnt really the point either way (a raped woman is still legally obligated to any resulting live off-spring...), but being asked to provide the evidence and even apparently the possible justifications for your argument, for you, is where I draw the line.

You seem to have very odd views on this. I'm trying to work out where on earth you are coming from
Simple legal reasoning. If you dont 'get it' and find it 'odd' that might explain your misunderstanding.

It is the same principle as condoms.
In whose court of law?

You said the was not an option 4 when there was one. I pointed it out.
Well then I clearly missed it....I've not noticed any option that doesnt result in one of the 3 consequences that I listed, I know you say 'I pointed it out', but it'd be easier to just cut and paste it, because I dont see it.

And if they wish to raise the child on their own without their support it would be illegal?
Not really. Why would such a legal consequence suddenly magic itself out of thin air when the principal being applied is already applied elsewhere without such a consequence?
The law doesnt actually require that both parents take an active role in caring for their child. If the needs of the child are all met, and neither parent takes an action before the court, nor enters into particular agreements with the state that transfer some of their parental exercise, then the State has no standing to initiate a legal action. Just what would the charge be, "Failure to not fight tooth and nail over every cent and to every extent possible with your non-cohabiting co-parent"?

I'm not entirely sure how a man could remove a condom and proceed with sex without the woman noticing that he has done so. I would assume she would protest this sort of thing, if she had initially said that she would only have sex if he wore a condom. If she protests and he continues with the sex, that's rape.

However, it is true that there is no law against lying to somebody to get them to sleep with you. Maybe they wouldn't consent to have sex with you if they knew the truth, but (as far as I know) that doesn't make the sex automatically rape.

If it were possible for a man to deceive a woman about his contraceptive use without her knowing, and if she consented to have sex with him, I don't think that automatically makes it rape. It might be possible to classify this as some other sort of crime, though.

Interesting question, I think.
It's pretty easy to take a condom off real quick, say you switch positions that would be an easy time. Or if it's dark put it on and then take it off quickly before sex starts.

I accept it does feel different, but I am not so sure they would automatically notice - most people only notice a split condom after sex is over.

I'm basing this on a case in the UK a while ago - looking for a link - where a man was (rightfully IMO) convicted for doing this.

Well, yeah, but...

Ok, I don't want to give too much information here, but I can tell if a guy is wearing a condom or not. I mean, I feel stuff down there. Is this unusual? Are most women unable to tell if their partner is wearing a condom by the feel of it?
I can't tell, I mean I can feel "stuff" down there, but I can't tell say texture or generally if it's laytex covered. While I was on the pill and in a long, monogamous relationship I learned that the only differences are essentially when he's come. (Well, I suppose that sensation is different, but it's really no good at that point...)

i cant provide for most people, should go on a killing spree? at least you have a solution to the homeless problem. rond them up and shoot them. they wont feel pain if its in thier sleep.
You're under no obligation to provide for most people. And your strawman doesn't prove in some way that having an abortion isn't taking responsability for one's actions.

I can't tell, I mean I can feel "stuff" down there, but I can't tell say texture or generally if it's laytex covered. While I was on the pill and in a long, monogamous relationship I learned that the only differences are essentially when he's come. (Well, I suppose that sensation is different, but it's really no good at that point...)
Hmm, then that does make the deception possible. Good to know.

That actually makes me see the discussion quite differently. I hadn't honestly considered the possibility of a man being able to deceive his partner about contraceptive use, other than lying about having a vasectomy, but now I know it's quite possible for him to do so.

I think the advent of the "Male Pill" might also put an interesting wrinkle in this kind of topic. Male hormonal birth control may soon be as commonly available as female birth control options. Once that happens, I'd say men will have to stop bothering with the "she lied about being on the Pill" thing.

First of all my personal beliefs are
- Yes abortion is wrong
- Yes a man should have to pay child support

However, if you do not think that abortiong is wrong, then as I see it you have no position to suggest that a man should be forced to pay child support seing as the women has the right to absolve herself from the responsabilty of the consequences of sex, thus the man should have the same rights.

I'm basing this on a case in the UK a while ago - looking for a link - where a man was (rightfully IMO) convicted for doing this.
Huh, didn't know there'd already been a case on something like this. So the guy was convicted of rape for removing a condom and then proceeding with sex? Or was he convicted of something else?

Once that happens, I'd say men will have to stop bothering with the "she lied about being on the Pill" thing.

Yep.

(I am aware condoms are currently available - but to be honest they are not that great - they split waaay too easily.)

However, if you do not think that abortiong is wrong, then as I see it you have no position to suggest that a man should be forced to pay child support seing as the women has the right to absolve herself from the responsabilty of the consequences of sex, thus the man should have the same rights.
The consequence of sex, in this case, is that the woman has become pregnant. A woman can't "absolve herself" of that responsibility. She can choose to stop being pregnant, or she can choose to continue being pregnant, but she can't magically change things so that she never became pregnant. She will have to face the consequence (the pregnancy) no matter what she does.

Sometimes choosing to end a pregnancy is the most responsible choice a woman can make. It would, of course, be wonderful if we could ensure that no woman is ever pregnant when she doesn't want to be, but we've got a lot of work to do before we have a world like that.

Huh, didn't know there'd already been a case on something like this. So the guy was convicted of rape for removing a condom and then proceeding with sex? Or was he convicted of something else?

I'm still looking. This was a few years ago - digging real hard.

IIRC - the woman consented on the condition he wear a condom, he agreed but took it off at some point and she was pissed when sex was over and she realised what had happened.

Personally I don't see the difference between the woman finding out during sex and demanding a stop and the woman finding out after with this particular issue. The guy knew the conditions for consent and voided them. Wether she finds out during or after sex to me is irrevelent - I don't see how he sould be rewarded legally for the woman not realising he had removed it.

First off, I don't plan to debate this, I just want to see what the reaction is to this concept of abortion. I'm not heartless, I'm just curious. So, here goes.

Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Billy and Sally are two young people. They have no clearly defined religious beliefs, and are attending the same college. Billy has a part time job to pay for expenses, and Sally's parents cover hers.

Billy and Sally meet at a party and really hit it off. They leave together and go to Billy's apartment. They spend a night getting to know each other in the biblical sense (while using a condom of course). They bid each other adieu the following morning both accepting it as a one night stand.

A month later, Sally is concerned because she is far over due for her period, and has been missing classes because of nausea. She goes to her doctor to discover that she is pregnant.

Calling Billy, she relays the information. He is shocked and doesn't know how to respond. He can't support a baby financially without quitting school and going to work full time, but that would ruin his hope of one day being a doctor. Turning to the only alternative he could see, he suggests an abortion. Sally is appalled, for she is morally opposed to abortion, and would never do such a thing. Because of the laws in his nation, Billy has no say in the matter.

Several months later, Sally gives birth to the baby. The baby suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome from Sally's college drinking binges, and requires significant medical attention. The baby will need extensive medical care through out its development, but is mentally fine.

Billy is forced by his state to pay child support for the following 18 years and is forced from college and into the workforce so that he can meet the high payments. He leads a life not at all comparable to the one he would have had he finished school or not been forced to pay child support.



So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?

The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $250,000 working out to about $20,850 a year. That is a significant dent to almost anyone's income, but especially if you are not college educated and can not attain a high salary position. This is not even considering that a mentally or physically retarded baby would cost astronomically more.

It seems unfair to me that men are on the really short end of the stick here. They have no part in the decision making process, but have atleast half the financial responsibility.

I'm not suggesting that fathers should have the power to force mothers into getting an abortion, but instead that if the mother opts not to get an abortion, the father should be able to, through legal action, sever himself from the financial burden of the unwanted child.

It takes two parties to make a baby, but only the mother gets to decide whether or not the baby goes to term or is aborted, and by extension, the fate of the father.

Thoughts, criticisms (constructive preferably)?


That's why they invented the ol' whoopsadaisy.

Jim Norton's nickname for the act of tripping a pregnant woman at the top of stairs. The result is she falls down the stairs and miscarries. http://www.oapedia.com/oa/The_Ol%27_Whoopsadaisy

Yep.

(I am aware condoms are currently available - but to be honest they are not that great - they split waaay too easily.)
I'm simply frustrated because there are many other male birth control options that men choose not to use, but then they complain when women don't choose to use female birth control options.

I've also heard men say they would never consider using hormonal birth control themselves because of the side effects. As if women don't experience side effects from hormonal birth control! If you don't want to go on the Pill because of the side effects then that's your call, but don't then turn around and yell at your partner for making the same choice. :P

First of all my personal beliefs are
- Yes abortion is wrong
- Yes a man should have to pay child support

However, if you do not think that abortiong is wrong, then as I see it you have no position to suggest that a man should be forced to pay child support seing as the women has the right to absolve herself from the responsabilty of the consequences of sex, thus the man should have the same rights.
Having an abortion is not absolving oneself of the responsablity of the consequences of sex no more than taking an antibiotic is absolving onself of the responsability of sex if one gets clamydia(sp?!). And dealing with the pregnancy is a completely separte issue to dealing with parenting.

At any rate, as I mentioned earlier, what responsable adults do is determine their parnter's stance on the subject before fucking them and then don't fuck them when they won't do what you would prefer them to do. The guy I'm currently seeing once stopped dating a girl because she wouldn't get an abortion if she was pregnant and he does not want to become a father any time soon.

I'm still looking. This was a few years ago - digging real hard.

IIRC - the woman consented on the condition he wear a condom, he agreed but took it off at some point and she was pissed when sex was over and she realised what had happened.

Personally I don't see the difference between the woman finding out during sex and demanding a stop and the woman finding out after with this particular issue. The guy knew the conditions for consent and voided them. Wether she finds out during or after sex to me is irrevelent - I don't see how he sould be rewarded legally for the woman not realising he had removed it.
(bold mine)

Hmm, that's a good point. It does seem kind of crappy to say that it's illegal to take off the condom if she catches you and objects, but it's legal if you manage to deceive her until it's too late.

Yep.

(I am aware condoms are currently available - but to be honest they are not that great - they split waaay too easily.)
I've never, ever had a condom break on me. I think it's all in whether a guy puts it on properly and wears the right size.

First of all my personal beliefs are
- Yes abortion is wrong
- Yes a man should have to pay child support

However, if you do not think that abortiong is wrong, then as I see it you have no position to suggest that a man should be forced to pay child support seing as the women has the right to absolve herself from the responsabilty of the consequences of sex, thus the man should have the same rights.
There is no right to absolve oneself of the consequences of having sex. There is a right to not lose the rights one had before one was pregnant, like having elective medical proceedures. The same right applies to men.

Your argument is based on characterising a consequence as a causitive principal. The right is the right to bodily autonomy, the consequence is not legal justification for the invention of a gender specific right that comes at the expense of the established rights of a third party who is the least culpable, the most vulnerable and who's interests the State is most obliged in such cases to protect.

At any rate, as I mentioned earlier, what responsable adults do is determine their parnter's stance on the subject before fucking them and then don't fuck them when they won't do what you would prefer them to do. The guy I'm currently seeing once stopped dating a girl because she wouldn't get an abortion if she was pregnant and he does not want to become a father any time soon.
That's the responsible thing to do, in my opinion. I've made it clear to my sex partners that I will abort any pregnancy I experience, and if they aren't comfortable with that then we shouldn't be sexually active together. I think it's best to get that sort of thing up front right from the start.

That's the responsible thing to do, in my opinion. I've made it clear to my sex partners that I will abort any pregnancy I experience, and if they aren't comfortable with that then we shouldn't be sexually active together. I think it's best to get that sort of thing up front right from the start.
I don't think I've ever directly stated that to a guy, I joking about taking a trip down the stairs in such a situation gets the point accross.

I believe that men should have the right to paper abortions that terminate their obligations of fatherhood.


I agree. Otherwise women are empowered more than men. It is her body it is her choice and her responsibility alone.

I agree. Otherwise women are empowered more than men. It is her body it is her choice and her responsibility alone.
Still doesn't resolve the issue that a woman's access to abortion is not always absolute.

I don't think I've ever directly stated that to a guy, I joking about taking a trip down the stairs in such a situation gets the point accross.
Well, I usually don't say this stuff in such clinical terms as I am doing on this thread. I just try to make it clear that I'm serious, so that they know what they are getting into (no pun intended).

I agree. Otherwise women are empowered more than men. It is her body it is her choice and her responsibility alone.
Her body is hers. His body is his. A man bears responsibility for how his body participates in reproduction, just as a woman bears responsibility for how hers participates, and they each retain the right to control how their own bodies participate. They both must accept the possible consequences of the choices they have made. For a man, this means accepting the possibility that his sperm will fertilize an egg, and that a biological child may result from this. It also means accepting that he does not have the right to control another person's body, and thus he does not have the right to dictate whether or not his partner continues a pregnancy that he has helped to begin.

Biology is unequal. A man's right to choose ends with the splooge. Sorry, but that's just how nature is. Believe me, if I could make it so that men's bodies participated equally in all stages of reproduction, I would!

At any rate, as I mentioned earlier, what responsable adults do is determine their parnter's stance on the subject before fucking them and then don't fuck them when they won't do what you would prefer them to do. The guy I'm currently seeing once stopped dating a girl because she wouldn't get an abortion if she was pregnant and he does not want to become a father any time soon.

it is the responsible thing to do but its no guarantee that you will get what you were promised in the event of pregnancy.

leaving out the instances where your partner says what s/he thinks you want to hear, you dont really know what you would do in the case of unplanned pregnancy until you find yourself pregnant.

some women think that they would abort, no problem but when they get to the clinic they find they just cant do it. some women think they would never ever get an abortion but when faced with the challenges of a particular situation, they decide they have to abort.

it is the responsible thing to do but its no guarantee that you will get what you were promised in the event of pregnancy.

leaving out the instances where your partner says what s/he thinks you want to hear, you dont really know what you would do in the case of unplanned pregnancy until you find yourself pregnant.

some women think that they would abort, no problem but when they get to the clinic they find they just cant do it. some women think they would never ever get an abortion but when faced with the challenges of a particular situation, they decide they have to abort.Life is uncertain, this is true. However, as I said before, this is one of the things you must accept if you choose to interact with other people.

If you are going to have sex with other people, you must accept that they are not your property. They may make personal choices that you don't like or agree with. That is a chance you take. If you cannot handle the possibility that they may make personal medical decisions you disagree with, then you should not have sex.

(bold mine)

Hmm, that's a good point. It does seem kind of crappy to say that it's illegal to take off the condom if she catches you and objects, but it's legal if you manage to deceive her until it's too late.

I'm like a million monkeys typing at a million typewriters. Every so often something sensible comes out :D

Nobody should have another person choose for them when they will become a father. And having sex with a woman in her umm baby hole place is not the choice to become a father in the age of contraception and abortions.

I hate pro lifers. Too bad I am a Republican.

Life is uncertain, this is true. However, as I said before, this is one of the things you must accept if you choose to interact with other people.

If you are going to have sex with other people, you must accept that they are not your property. They may make personal choices that you don't like or agree with. That is a chance you take. If you cannot handle the possibility that they may make personal medical decisions you disagree with, then you should not have sex.

yup

just as a woman has to deal with the possibility that if she gets pregnant, the man will run.

Nobody should have another person choose for them when they will become a father. And having sex with a woman in her umm baby hole place is not the choice to become a father in the age of contraception and abortions.

I hate pro lifers. Too bad I am a Republican.

you can be a republican for choice.

unfortunately, once conception occurs, your part of the choice has already been made and you may well end up as a father if your partner decides to continue the pregnancy.

yup

just as a woman has to deal with the possibility that if she gets pregnant, the man will run.
Well, yes, women have to deal with that possibility, just like they must deal with the possibility that the man will steal their sister's watch or something.

It is illegal (in my country) for a man to be a deadbeat dad. There is a legal obligation toward one's biological child that does not disappear if you simply run away. Men sometimes try to run away anyhow. Women have to deal with this problem in many cases. Doesn't change the fact that the man's actions are illegal.

you can be a republican for choice.

unfortunately, once conception occurs, your part of the choice has already been made and you may well end up as a father if your partner decides to continue the pregnancy.

I am a pro-choice (pro choice for women and men) and generally pro-abortion as I am a pretty environmentalisty dude and think we are overpopulated. You know, I was shocked to discover that more Republicans are pro-choice than pro-life.

You know, I was shocked to discover that more Republicans are pro-choice than pro-life.
Well, it's like how the majority of Catholics use birth control. The official party line may be one thing, but people are still people. The overwhelming majority of human sexual contact is not done for procreative purposes, and I think it's a waste of time to support any agenda that tries to insist it is.

Well, it's like how the majority of Catholics use birth control. The official party line may be one thing, but people are still people. The overwhelming majority of human sexual contact is not done for procreative purposes, and I think it's a waste of time to support any agenda that tries to insist it is.

Wow this is like maybe the first time we agreed on something in a long while.

I actually do support the "paper abortion" idea, but not because of any rights of the father. I support it because I think, if someone is so much of a deadbeat that he will not take responsibility for his own child, the child is better off with him completely out of that child's life.

Is it unfair that a man has no decision-making ability in whether or not he will become a father once he has had sex? Sure it is. Of course, it's also unfair that a woman has to bear the entire physical brunt of a pregnancy and the man will never have that burden. I'd say that's actually much more unfair. If a deadbeat won't step up to the plate and take responsibility for his child, fine, get him out of that child's life and never ever let him be a part of it. But don't expect me to respect him for it.

If the girl wants the baby, fine. But the man shouldn't be punished for her stupidity.

Men currently enjoy the right to choose, in reference to the abortion debate. The right to choose refers to the right to choose how one's own body participates in reproduction. Men have the right to choose when, how, and with whom they have sex. They have the right to choose to use contraception if they wish.

Because of the way human biology works, the male body's participation in reproduction ends with the sexual act. That is when the "right to choose" debate ends for men.

Men do not have the right to choose how somebody else's body participates in reproduction. That is called "rape."

If we believe in equality, then women should also enjoy the right to choose how their own bodies participate in reproduction. For women, this will include when, how, and with whom they have sex, whether or not they use contraception, and whether or not their reproductive organs will participate in gestating an embryo/fetus/etc. No woman has the right to choose how a man's body (or another woman's body) participates in reproduction. That would be rape.

The issue of obligation to a born infant is a totally different topic. The question of a parent's obligation to their born children has nothing to do with choosing how one's own body participates in reproduction. In my opinion, men and women should have equal legal obligations to their born children.
It's not just your opinion. It is the way the law in the US and western Europe is structured. I've been saying this over and over. The way we do things, the issue of parental rights/obligations is NOT between the man and the woman. It's between the adult and the biological child. Yet all the arguments so far have been, basically, "if the woman can get out of pregnancy, then the man should be able to, too." These arguments are not only completely irrelevant to the issue, they are also nonsensical.

FIRST: They are nonsensical to the degree they are trying to make a man electing to opt out of parental obligation equivalent to a woman opting out of pregnancy. But they are NOT equivalent. Why? Two reasons: (1) because the man is not participating in the pregnancy, and nothing he does participate in is functionally equivalent to pregnancy, so no rules or laws that affect him will be in any way comparable to rules/laws affecting pregnancy; and (2) pregnancy is not parenting; the woman may do as she likes with her pregnancy, but if she does not abort it and a baby results, then she is bound by parental obligations. Those obligations do not kick in for her before the birth, why should they become effective for the man (so he can opt out of them) before the birth? Basically, what they are arguing is similar to saying "Well, if she chooses not to eat breakfast, then I should be able to choose not to wash the dinner dishes." Yes, both issues are related to eating and yes, in the normal course, one will eventually follow the other, but that does not make them equivalent to each other, and her choice to skip breakfast has no impact whatsoever on the condition of the dinner dishes. If they want the right to opt out of washing up, they have to find some grounds within the context of washing up that will justify their claim of right. Likewise, if they want to opt out of parental obligation, then they need to argue within the context of parental obligation, not the wholly unrelated context of pregnancy responsibilities.

SECOND: These arguments that revolve around pregnancy are irrelevant because of the way our laws are structured. The legal concept of obligation always has to make clear who is obligated to whom. Otherwise, the obligation is not binding, because you can't just put someone under an obligation to just anyone who happens by, and you can't enforce performance of an obligation unless there is someone for whom to perform the obligation. Regarding parental obligations, the matter is clear as day -- the PARENT is under obligation to the CHILD. Each parent, separately and individually, is under his or her own obligation, independent of each other. The parents are NOT parentally obligated to each other. Only to the child.

And when do these parental obligations kick in? Not until AFTER the child is born. Why? Because before the birth, there is no child for the parents to be obligated to. That's why.

That's why pregnancy is not parenting and why pregnancy rights are not equivalent to parental rights. According to western legal thinking and the structure of the law, pregnancy and parenting are two completely different realities. So it is meaningless to point to what a woman does with her pregnancy and say because of that you should be able to do this or that with your parenting obligations. You might as well point to FCC regulations and make the same claim.

What they should be doing is pointing to the woman's parental rights/obligations and arguing that the man's rights should be equal to the woman's.

Of course they already are equal, but unfortunately for these pro-paper-abortion people, parents have more obligations than rights in western society. This is because western culture grants parental RIGHTS to both mother and father and, therefore, places parental OBLIGATIONS on both as well. To change this, they would have to advocate for a fundamental change in the concept of what a parent is in our cultures.

They might use the Musuo people of China as a model, if they like. Those people are, traditionally, a matriarchy. They have no such thing as marriage, no concept of "husband," and very little concept of "father," either. A woman's children are HERS and they are members of her family and are raised by her and her extended family. Fathers have little or nothing to do with their children. They don't even live with them. They have no obligations to them. They also have no rights over them. If they have ideas about how children should be raised, they will have to talk to their sisters about it, because they will only be involved with kids as uncles, not as fathers.

They might advocate that western society adopt a similar system but this would require not only a fundamental change in our notions of "family" but would also require an overhaul of all our family and child oriented social systems.

If the girl wants the baby, fine. But the man shouldn't be punished for her stupidity.
Nope, just for his own stupidity in sleeping with somebody before he was mature enough to realize that coming in a woman doesn't make her body your property. ;)

I actually do support the "paper abortion" idea, but not because of any rights of the father. I support it because I think, if someone is so much of a deadbeat that he will not take responsibility for his own child, the child is better off with him completely out of that child's life.

Is it unfair that a man has no decision-making ability in whether or not he will become a father once he has had sex? Sure it is. Of course, it's also unfair that a woman has to bear the entire physical brunt of a pregnancy and the man will never have that burden. I'd say that's actually much more unfair. If a deadbeat won't step up to the plate and take responsibility for his child, fine, get him out of that child's life and never ever let him be a part of it. But don't expect me to respect him for it.
I don't have a problem with it, in theory, either. Who wants to burden some innocent little child with a relationship with some selfish bastard who resents every dollar's worth of food the child eats?

The problem I have with it is a pragmatic one. All of western cultural custom and family law is structured around the assumption of both parents being automatically obligated to the child. If they are going to wipe out that obligation, then you must restructure the laws to make up for it, otherwise we will be left with a whole slew of laws and services that have no application or are not accessible. It would be a social disaster, especially for the poor.

In order to restructure the laws to be useful, they should not be looking at what women do with their lives, but at children and their needs for their lives.

I actually do support the "paper abortion" idea, but not because of any rights of the father. I support it because I think, if someone is so much of a deadbeat that he will not take responsibility for his own child, the child is better off with him completely out of that child's life.

Provided that women are granted full access to actual abortions, I don't have a problem with this. Of course, as long as women suffer restrictions to their abortion rights, I see no reason why men should be granted unrestricted rights to "paper abortions."

I don't think a man who would seek such a "paper abortion" would make a good father, but I do think he's probably capable of at least contributing to the material support of the child in question. It's great to say that kids should all have good and loving parents, but kids also should all have enough to eat and good medical care and access to education and a safe home to live in. The material considerations cannot be ignored, as callous as it might sound to some.

Billy bears legal responsibility for the, and that's as it should be. Yes, the woman has more say in the matter, but that's also as it should be; it's her body. While men often talk about "being a man" and what it means, if it means taking responsibility for their actions, they're not very good at it when it does suit them. I will say, however, that the young man should be able to continue his education, at least part time. The courts--at least in New York State--work these things out on an individual basis, so it's not just so simple as, "You've done this, now pay up!" Furthermore child-support payments are based on a percentage of a person's income, rather than a flat, draconican number.

First off, I don't plan to debate this, I just want to see what the reaction is to this concept of abortion. I'm not heartless, I'm just curious. So, here goes.

Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Billy and Sally are two young people. They have no clearly defined religious beliefs, and are attending the same college. Billy has a part time job to pay for expenses, and Sally's parents cover hers.

Billy and Sally meet at a party and really hit it off. They leave together and go to Billy's apartment. They spend a night getting to know each other in the biblical sense (while using a condom of course). They bid each other adieu the following morning both accepting it as a one night stand.

A month later, Sally is concerned because she is far over due for her period, and has been missing classes because of nausea. She goes to her doctor to discover that she is pregnant.

Calling Billy, she relays the information. He is shocked and doesn't know how to respond. He can't support a baby financially without quitting school and going to work full time, but that would ruin his hope of one day being a doctor. Turning to the only alternative he could see, he suggests an abortion. Sally is appalled, for she is morally opposed to abortion, and would never do such a thing. Because of the laws in his nation, Billy has no say in the matter.

Several months later, Sally gives birth to the baby. The baby suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome from Sally's college drinking binges, and requires significant medical attention. The baby will need extensive medical care through out its development, but is mentally fine.

Billy is forced by his state to pay child support for the following 18 years and is forced from college and into the workforce so that he can meet the high payments. He leads a life not at all comparable to the one he would have had he finished school or not been forced to pay child support.



So, the key issue is: If the man has no say on whether or not a baby is born, why is he responsible for supporting that child to age 18?

The average cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 is $250,000 working out to about $20,850 a year. That is a significant dent to almost anyone's income, but especially if you are not college educated and can not attain a high salary position. This is not even considering that a mentally or physically retarded baby would cost astronomically more.

It seems unfair to me that men are on the really short end of the stick here. They have no part in the decision making process, but have atleast half the financial responsibility.

I'm not suggesting that fathers should have the power to force mothers into getting an abortion, but instead that if the mother opts not to get an abortion, the father should be able to, through legal action, sever himself from the financial burden of the unwanted child.

It takes two parties to make a baby, but only the mother gets to decide whether or not the baby goes to term or is aborted, and by extension, the fate of the father.

Thoughts, criticisms (constructive preferably)?

If the girl wants the baby, fine. But the man shouldn't be punished for her stupidity.



i wouldn't say its a woman's stupidity for looking at a baby as being 'alive' and not being heartless enough to distroy it...

the fact of the matter is this, his choice was when he had sex with her... this wasn't forced nor was he a prostitute... therefore his choice was then..

but if you think about this, if a guy is able to run from the fact of having a child there would be alot of fatherless ppl out there, mind you that about 68% of the ppl out in the world (if it hasn't changed since then) would be considered fatherless...

i see that a guy shouldn't have to quit college in order to support a baby... but in life, there are alot of ways to get help... for instance, the father could actually get MORE GRANTS AND FINANCIAL AID, if he says he is supporting a child... thus throwing out the conclusion of the poor, defensless, father who didn't want a baby but has to have one that is thrown into working more...
so

overall, the point is, make more valid statements, live with your decisions, and wrap the jr. double if you have to... and women, take birthcontrol...

if you dont' want a child, do all possible means to not have a child, and dont do one just one means of protection and go with it...

Well the problem here is quite clear:

In cases like this you cannot protect the rights of one individual without stepping on the rights of the other.

The system is designed to provide a degree of fairness so that a parent may not simply walk out of the family unit and have no obligation. However it does come appart under many circumstances.

Frankly, in modern society, if a couple do not want a child then there is no excuse for having one by accident. It is common knowlege that condoms are not 100% effective and neither is the pill. Both methods together provide a far more effective solution.

Lets re-cap the methods of birth control:

Condoms (both remember the hideous femedom )
Spermicidal Jelly (women only)
Diaphragm (women only)
The pill/mini-pill (women only, mini less effective)
Hormonal Implants/Injections (women only)
Intra Uterine Device (only suitable for women who have had a child already)
Tube Tying (both)
Tube Cutting (both)
Abstainance (both)
Abortion (women only)

I think I have managed to order them in effectiveness, consider abortion as effective as abstainance but obviously less desirable because of the health risk to the woman. I'm not sure on the comparative effectiveness of Injections/Implants vs IUDs but I know they are more effective than the pill. Some methods can obviously be combined to be more effective eg. implants+ condoms

You'll notice that I have put availability for gender in brackets after many of them. This is in no way a criticism merely an observation, and while I list abortion as one method nobody in their right mind would suggest it as a primary method of birth control.

GIVEN the lower availability of methods for men

GIVEN that nobody, male or female, wants their tubes cut or tied unless they are planning on NEVER having children

ASSUMING that since protection was used neither party wanted a pregnancy

GIVEN that Billy used the only method of protection practically available to him. (besides an invasive procedure that Sally could equally have used)

It is believed by Mogtaria that he was treated unfairly in this case.

However this isn't a court case and in the current legal climate it is unlikely to ever be one and any such action if succesfull would open the floodgates for the rights of the mother to be trampled on.

As such Mogtaria recommends that Billy bite the bullet but also start proceedings to gain custody of the child on the grounds that Sally is an unfit mother. Any state benefits will then go to him

Further Mogtaria recommends a global genetics program to render all humans hermaphrodytic so that the union of any two individuals will result in a dual pregnancy and each parent can be repsonsible for their own offspring. It's the only way to settle this millenia old argument once and for all.

OOC - roll on the male pill/injection, I, for one, would use it in combination with condoms.

If women were financially responsible for the children that they alone decided to bring in to the world there would be a lot less unplanned pregnancy in the world. The best way to stop a social propblem is to stop giving money to the people that create them. With the freedom to choose to not have an abortion or get an adoption should come the RESPONSIBILITY of taking care of it on your own without child support or welfare money.

What is wrong with planned pregnancy anyway?

Billy bears legal responsibility for the, and that's as it should be. Yes, the woman has more say in the matter, but that's also as it should be; it's her body. While men often talk about "being a man" and what it means, if it means taking responsibility for their actions, they're not very good at it when it does suit them. I will say, however, that the young man should be able to continue his education, at least part time. The courts--at least in New York State--work these things out on an individual basis, so it's not just so simple as, "You've done this, now pay up!" Furthermore child-support payments are based on a percentage of a person's income, rather than a flat, draconican number.

I don't think that a man should be forced to pay child support when he wants nothing to do with the kid or it's mother. However, if it is going to happen then I agree that they should make allowances for those in still in education. I just find it unacceptable that people would want to make a guy drop out of university just to pay for some little brat that he never wanted. He'd be stuck in a crappy job that doesn't pay well for most of his life because some woman made a stupid decision.

Well the problem here is quite clear:

In cases like this you cannot protect the rights of one individual without stepping on the rights of the other.

Let's just hold on right there.

How is this possibly the case?

You have the right to your own body, and to decide how your own body participates in reproduction. You do not have the right to another person's body, nor do you have the right to decide how another person's body participates in reproduction.

The fact that another person makes choices you don't like about their own body's participation in reproduction does not step on your "rights," because you have no right to their body.

You don't have the right to have somebody else get an abortion because you want them to. Nor do you have the right to have them carry a baby to term because you want them to. You don't have the right to control another person's reproductive organs.

I don't understand the argument that the father has an obligation to the child. At the point he makes his choice to get a paper abortion, there is no child to be obligated to. Because it is clear in almost every argument ever presented for paper abortions that the man must make his choice before the cut off for normal abortions, there isn't much reason, in my opinion, to not allow them.
If the woman can't support a child alone, and the man gets a paper abortion, then she can terminate the pregnancy. The law should, in this case, require the man to pay an equal (or hell, even a greater, to account for the fact that she's going through the procedure) share of the medical expenses. Hell, make him pay for the whole abortion if you want. That's better than what we have now.
If she chooses not to abort when he got the paper abortion, then she has to work extra hours to make up for the income he doesn't have. That's fair, because it was her choice to have the baby.
Indeed, even with paper abortions, the man still has a lot less choice:
If the man wants to be a father and the woman wants to be a mother, no problem. The baby is carried to term and both get what they want.
If the woman wants to be a mother but the man does not want to be a father, there is a paper abortion. They both get what they want.
If neither wants the child, there is an abortion. They both get what they want.
However, if the man wants to be a father and the woman does not want to be a mother, that's still just tough shit for the man.
Even though this is still somewhat unequal, it's a lot closer to equal than what we have now. Yeah, the man can still have his child aborted when he doesn't want it to, but if he really cares that much, could he not have it put into a surrogate mother? I don't have much knowledge about that sort of thing, but it's still possible, is it not?

Essentially, the problem right now, to me, is this:
Men having sex have a much higher risk than women. Sexually active men have no 100% effective way to avoid having to raise a child. Even if the woman promises to abort, she could easily be lying.
Women, however, do have a 100% effective way to avoid being mothers and still be sexually active.
So, my question is this: Why do you think women should be allowed to be sexually active with absolutely zero risk of having to pay to raise a child, but men should not?

Oh, and I do realize as is, it is not always possible based on laws and such for a woman to get an abortion. However, with this law, I'm assuming that the only places that would pass such a law as this one would also support a woman's right to choose. Basically, this law only works if a woman has a fairly unrestricted abortion right. My proposition would be that the woman has six months to abort, and the man has five to get a paper abortion. A one month time period is plenty of time to schedule an abortion if the man chooses not to be a father.

Let's just hold on right there.

How is this possibly the case?

You have the right to your own body, and to decide how your own body participates in reproduction. You do not have the right to another person's body, nor do you have the right to decide how another person's body participates in reproduction.

The fact that another person makes choices you don't like about their own body's participation in reproduction does not step on your "rights," because you have no right to their body.

You don't have the right to have somebody else get an abortion because you want them to. Nor do you have the right to have them carry a baby to term because you want them to. You don't have the right to control another person's reproductive organs.

Yes, it is entirely up to the women to choose whether or not to have an abortion. However, this is a serious life-changing decision and she shouldn't make someone else pay because she made a bad choice. Maybe she wants to be a mother, but the guy involved is certainly not ready to be a father. Nor does he want to give child support to the mother. Why should she be able to make this choice for another person?

I don't have a problem with it, in theory, either. Who wants to burden some innocent little child with a relationship with some selfish bastard who resents every dollar's worth of food the child eats?

Precisely. Money can come from anywhere. The last thing that child needs is an unloving parent in his life - in any capacity.

The problem I have with it is a pragmatic one. All of western cultural custom and family law is structured around the assumption of both parents being automatically obligated to the child. If they are going to wipe out that obligation, then you must restructure the laws to make up for it, otherwise we will be left with a whole slew of laws and services that have no application or are not accessible. It would be a social disaster, especially for the poor.

In order to restructure the laws to be useful, they should not be looking at what women do with their lives, but at children and their needs for their lives.

Precisely. The argument here almost always boils down to, "If he doesn't pay for it, then the taxpayers have to. OMFG, why should I ever pay for a child that isn't my own!?!?!?!" I thnk that's a crap argument. Society as a whole has responsibility to children. Yes, the parents should take on the majority of that responsibility, but it really isn't the type of responsibility that can be forced. If they are unable or unwilling, then I have no problem with taking up the slack. Children need good homes, food, shelter, education, etc., no matter how shitty their parents are - and that should be our main concern in this issue.


Provided that women are granted full access to actual abortions, I don't have a problem with this. Of course, as long as women suffer restrictions to their abortion rights, I see no reason why men should be granted unrestricted rights to "paper abortions."

I never said unrestricted. As a general rule, I would restrict this option to either the time period in which she can receive an elective abortion or a similar time period after she tells him she is pregnant (say, 6 months). That's the same period of time she has to make such a decision.

I don't think a man who would seek such a "paper abortion" would make a good father, but I do think he's probably capable of at least contributing to the material support of the child in question. It's great to say that kids should all have good and loving parents, but kids also should all have enough to eat and good medical care and access to education and a safe home to live in. The material considerations cannot be ignored, as callous as it might sound to some.

No, they can't be ignored. But I think it does more harm to have them coming from those unloving parents, because it keeps those parents in their lives. Not to mention that the parent is already a deadbeat, what makes any of us think that, even with possible legal ramifications, he is actually going to pay the money? I've seen very, very few parents who were legally required to pay child support who actually did so.

Like I said above, money can come from anyone, and the welfare of children is a cause I have no problem seeing government money go to.

Essentially, the problem right now, to me, is this:
Men having sex have a much higher risk than women.

This is a rather silly statement. Women are the ones who can get pregnant. They are the ones who must make a decision in the event of unplanned pregnancy. They are the ones who must then undergo either the risks of abortion or continued pregnancy and childbirth.

It would seem that women are still taking on more risk during sex than men.

Like I said above, money can come from anyone, and the welfare of children is a cause I have no problem seeing government money go to.

Exactly. Instead of forcing one person to support an unwanted child, use government money instead. The amount each taxpayer has to pay is negligible compared to what the unwilling father would have to pay. He'd only end up resenting the kid anyway, it would be better of for all if he didn't have anything to do with the child.

The father accepted responsibilty for a pregnancy when he engaged in the conciving act with the mother. People have the right to make choices for themselves, we don't however have the right to determine the consequences of our choices.

Personally I think the mother should put the baby up for addoption, to spare herself and the father the burden of being responsible for a child they are in no way ready to support. But it ought to remain her choice, and if she decides to keep the baby, then he is obligated to help her support it.

It is irresponsible to dodge the consequences of one's actions. The man knew that pregnancy was a potential consequence of having intercourse with the woman.

In short, he made his bed, and like it or lump it, he has to sleep in it.

The man knew that pregnancy was a potential consequence of having intercourse with the woman.

Once again, the woman knew that pregnancy was a potential consequence of having intercourse with the man.

Should we not allow her to terminate that pregnancy and thus "live with the consequences"?

I guy should have half the say, seriously, he helped create the baby, its partly his DNA, the mother is only housiing it for 9 months. Its like me paying 100k to start a business, i rent out a shed to hold the business in, and the renter tells me that they now own my business, even though I was the one that put up all the money.

I don't understand the argument that the father has an obligation to the child. At the point he makes his choice to get a paper abortion, there is no child to be obligated to. <snip>
I snipped the rest of your post because this is the point at which the idea of "paper abortion" becomes invalid and nothing that follows really matters.

The difference between a real abortion and a paper abortion is this:

After a real abortion, there is no child to be obligated to.

After a paper abortion, the born child does exist. The father is just denying its existence.

Because a paper abortion would essentially be saying that something doesn't exist even though it demonstrably does exist, it is a fiction. If you get it accepted into law, then it would be what is known as a "legal fiction," like the concept of "corporate personhood." A legal fiction is something we know to be untrue but which we pretend is true under certain circumstances to allow certain things to be done or to happen. Corporate personhood treats corporations as if they are individual human beings, even though we know they are not. A paper abortion would treat an existing child as if he or she does not exist, even though we know he/she does.

As things stand, you will have a hard time convincing lawmakers that this will be a good thing to do. It will be pretty much the same as allowing children to be declared "non-people." I can imagine a whole host of serious and reasonable, ethical and pragmatic objections to that.

As I have said before, there may be very good arguments for allowing men to get out of parental obligations to an unwanted child, but this way of promoting the issue is just plain wrong-headed.

The father accepted responsibilty for a pregnancy when he engaged in the conciving act with the mother. People have the right to make choices for themselves, we don't however have the right to determine the consequences of our choices.

Personally I think the mother should put the baby up for addoption, to spare herself and the father the burden of being responsible for a child they are in no way ready to support. But it ought to remain her choice, and if she decides to keep the baby, then he is obligated to help her support it.

It is irresponsible to dodge the consequences of one's actions. The man knew that pregnancy was a potential consequence of having intercourse with the woman.

In short, he made his bed, and like it or lump it, he has to sleep in it.

I sort of agree with this, but I'd like to refine it a little.

This is a prime example of why sometimes, as much as I know I"ll be flamed for saying this, keeping to a high standard of morality would have avoided all of it. The fact is, it takes two to tango and the responsibility, shared.

The reason this question is a really good one isn't so much for the ethical implications, but because it illustrates a great big paradox created by the law. The law says that a man cannot prevent a woman from aborting a baby that they conceived together, but by the same token it doesn't protect him from her choice, either. There aren't any obvious or easy answers, as illustrated by this debate. That's why keeping it holstered would have been better for all in the first place.

Someone earlier in the thread made a good point... that people have a right to choose, but not necessarily the right to escape the consequences. I think that's absolutely true. They act as if just using a condom somehow entitles people to a greater degree of sympathy for their plight, as if a broken or leaking condom were some sort of social injustice in and of itself.

Condoms, like abortion, are more often than not expected to save people from the results of their choices, and have no more to do with rights and justice than a bowl of applesauce.

I guy should have half the say, seriously, he helped create the baby, its partly his DNA, the mother is only housiing it for 9 months. Its like me paying 100k to start a business, i rent out a shed to hold the business in, and the renter tells me that they now own my business, even though I was the one that put up all the money.
Please tell us that you are not paying 100k to have sex. Also please tell us that you are not renting out your sperm. And finally please tell us that you do not believe that having sex gives you right of ownership over any resulting child, as if it were a shed.

Sadly, I must bow out of this conversation. I must go pick up my houseguest now, and I will be occupied playing host for the rest of the weekend. Have fun all. I'll catch up next week if this party isn't over by then.

Ciao.

I don't understand the argument that the father has an obligation to the child.
I dont understand why you dont understand the argument (and the legal fact) that a father has an obligation to their child.
At the point he makes his choice to get a paper abortion, there is no child to be obligated to.
You are talking nonsense, as is anyone who uses the colourful but ridiculous phrase 'paper abortion'. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, that's a biological not a paper process. And since there is no obligation of the father as a parent at the stage you refer to, it is impossible for that father to act to void non-existent obligations.

Because it is clear in almost every argument ever presented for paper abortions that the man must make his choice before the cut off for normal abortions, there isn't much reason, in my opinion, to not allow them.
That is because you choose to ignore the legal reasoning involved and you choose to ignore the interests of the child concerned. I dont see any reason why a living child should be deprived because their father doesnt want to deal with the forseeable consequences of their actions.

If the woman can't support a child alone, and the man gets a paper abortion, then she can terminate the pregnancy. The law should, in this case, require the man to pay an equal (or hell, even a greater, to account for the fact that she's going through the procedure) share of the medical expenses. Hell, make him pay for the whole abortion if you want. That's better than what we have now.
If she chooses not to abort when he got the paper abortion, then she has to work extra hours to make up for the income he doesn't have. That's fair, because it was her choice to have the baby.
It isnt fair to the child to be deprived of a source of support just because the father and mother happen to not have their shit together. Nothing you or anyone else has said has demonstrated why the child should be suddenly deprived of its established rights.

Indeed, even with paper abortions, the man still has a lot less choice:
That is irrelevent. A person with 20 dollars has less choice about what restaurant they eat at than a person with 100 dollars...so what?

If the man wants to be a father and the woman wants to be a mother, no problem. The baby is carried to term and both get what they want.
If the woman wants to be a mother but the man does not want to be a father, there is a paper abortion. They both get what they want.
If neither wants the child, there is an abortion. They both get what they want.
The law doesnt centre around what particular individuals want and this is an issue of law.

However, if the man wants to be a father and the woman does not want to be a mother, that's still just tough shit for the man.
Correct, people have the right to not have others control their body. People meaning both males and females.

Even though this is still somewhat unequal,
It is not unequal in any sense that is relevent to the law. The law doesnt create any inequality that is occuring here, biology does, and the law isnt tasked with elminating all inequalities arising from biology. I see no justification for making an exception here.

it's a lot closer to equal than what we have now. Yeah, the man can still have his child aborted when he doesn't want it to, but if he really cares that much, could he not have it put into a surrogate mother? I don't have much knowledge about that sort of thing, but it's still possible, is it not?
The law is incrediably simple and I fail to see what is being misunderstood unless people are deliberating ignoring the facts to further their arguments.
Fact: the state has a duty to enforce the rights of children in respect of the obligations of parents. Nothing you've stated suggests this is inherently unjust.
Fact: People have a right to choose to undergo elective medical proceedures without undue state interference. Nothing you've stated suggests this is inherently unjust.
Fact: There is no general principal in any legal system I know that grants people some automatic right to avoid the consequences of their acts.
Fact: There is no general principal at law that requires the law to equalise peoples' positions where inherent traits are the source of the difference.
So there is an obligation for children to be supported, and no principal that justifies compromising that obligation just because someone doesnt like meeting it. The rights of women to choose to undergo elective medical proceedures is an entirely seperate issue, one that is the necessary implication of universal rights and one that doesnt infringe on the rights of anyone else.

Essentially, the problem right now, to me, is this:
Men having sex have a much higher risk than women.
Completely irrelevent. The law isnt tasked with equalising the risk of voluntary parties to an interaction. The law doesnt require males to engage in sex if they find it so darn risky.

Sexually active men have no 100% effective way to avoid having to raise a child.
Yes they do. All other details aside, no one can force someone to raise a child, the most they can be forced to do is contribute financially.

Even if the woman promises to abort, she could easily be lying.
Women, however, do have a 100% effective way to avoid being mothers and still be sexually active.
Lucky them. They dont have a 100% effective way of avoiding being pregnant, which males do....the law of course is not responsible for either limitation, nor have I seen any reason why the law ought to be tasked with 'fixing' the limitations.

So, my question is this: Why do you think women should be allowed to be sexually active with absolutely zero risk of having to pay to raise a child, but men should not?
Your question is non sequitor. It isnt that anyone should or shouldnt be allowed to be sexually active with or without particular degrees of risk. That is an absurd and even malicious perspective. Pregnancy is a real world risk, the law doesnt create that risk, nor can the law remove the risk even if it were desirable for the law to do so.
It isnt up to the state to allow or disallow people to engage in mutually consensual sex. It isnt up to the state to intervene in the private decisions individuals make about elective medical proceedures. It is up to the state to ensure it meets it's special obligations to protect the interests of minors.
It's as simple as that.

Oh, and I do realize as is, it is not always possible based on laws and such for a woman to get an abortion. However, with this law, I'm assuming that the only places that would pass such a law as this one would also support a woman's right to choose. Basically, this law only works if a woman has a fairly unrestricted abortion right. My proposition would be that the woman has six months to abort, and the man has five to get a paper abortion. A one month time period is plenty of time to schedule an abortion if the man chooses not to be a father.
Your proposition ignores the rights of the child and the obligation of the state to pursue the child's rights in this regard.

Personally I think the mother should put the baby up for addoption, to spare herself and the father the burden of being responsible for a child they are in no way ready to support.

So now both parents should be irresponsible and pawn off the raising of their child on someone else just because one of them is?


I guy should have half the say, seriously, he helped create the baby, its partly his DNA, the mother is only housiing it for 9 months. Its like me paying 100k to start a business, i rent out a shed to hold the business in, and the renter tells me that they now own my business, even though I was the one that put up all the money.

"Half the say" is a logical impossibility. If one person votes to have an abortion, and the other votes against it, someone has to take precedence. That person should, quite obviously, be the person whose body it will affect - the woman.

Meanwhile, your analogy is ridiculous. It's more like, "I'm eating an apple on my girlfriend's yard. I drop the apple on the ground, but I don't expect an apple tree to grow there. An apple tree starts growing. I think I should be able to determine whether she leaves it there, endangering her house but possibly improving the scenery, or remove it from her land."

I snipped the rest of your post because this is the point at which the idea of "paper abortion" becomes invalid and nothing that follows really matters.

The difference between a real abortion and a paper abortion is this:

After a real abortion, there is no child to be obligated to.

After a paper abortion, the born child does exist. The father is just denying its existence.

Because a paper abortion would essentially be saying that something doesn't exist even though it demonstrably does exist, it is a fiction. If you get it accepted into law, then it would be what is known as a "legal fiction," like the concept of "corporate personhood." A legal fiction is something we know to be untrue but which we pretend is true under certain circumstances to allow certain things to be done or to happen. Corporate personhood treats corporations as if they are individual human beings, even though we know they are not. A paper abortion would treat an existing child as if he or she does not exist, even though we know he/she does.

Corporate personhood is a somewhat flawed analogy.

The reason is that we're not denying something exists, far from it. Therefore the rest of your argument about "non person" doesn't work. Here's why.

There is no physical magical rope tied around the father and his offspring. There is no attachment at the hip. There's nothing physically binding them together. The father is not walking around, dragging his child, pretending it's not there.

If there was, your argument would be more proper, but there isn't.

What exists between the father and the child is a list of CREATED legal rights and responsibilities. The father has legal obligations to the offspring. He has, to some extent, legal rights he can exert over the offspring. Those obligations do not exist in a physical form. THere is no umbilical cord connecting them.

Those rights and responsibilities, themselves, are a legal creation. There is no physical bond between them.

And as LEGAL creations, the law can modify them, or even allow for them to be severed, as it wishes.

There is no denying the child EXISTS, that's stupid, the father doesn't go around saying "nope, no kid, doesn't exist, I see nothing". It is saying that the law, which has created those rights and obligations, terminates those rights and obligations.

The child certainly EXISTS, it's not a "non person", but the father and the child have no legal relationship with each other. The relationship was created by the law anyway, it can be severed by the law.

To say that it denies the child EXISTS is as nonsensical as me saying the law denies YOU exist. You and I have no legal relationship with each other, we have no obligations to each other. It doesn't mean, from my perspective, that you don't exist.

It just means we have no legal obligations to each other, and no legal authority over each other.

Please tell us that you are not paying 100k to have sex. Also please tell us that you are not renting out your sperm. And finally please tell us that you do not believe that having sex gives you right of ownership over any resulting child, as if it were a shed.

I provide the sperm, she provides the egg, its an partnership. If i decide not to be part of it, then she can have 100% control and decide to abort it or not, but if i want this baby, the legally speaking, shouldn't i have a right to have a say in the fate of the fetus?

Can't Billy talk Sally into adoption?

I provide the sperm, she provides the egg, its an partnership.

A partnership along the lines of, "She's building a house. I provide a few pieces of wood for the foundation. She provides everything else, including labor. I should get an equal say in what happens to the house."

If i decide not to be part of it, then she can have 100% control and decide to abort it or not, but if i want this baby, the legally speaking, shouldn't i have a right to have a say in the fate of the fetus?

No. The "fate of the fetus" is dependent upon what the woman chooses to do with her body. Giving you rights over it is slavery, plain and simple. You cannot make medical decisions for a woman just because you happened to have sex with her, any more than she suddenly gets to decide what medical options you take, just because she had sex with you.

Once again, the woman knew that pregnancy was a potential consequence of having intercourse with the man.

Should we not allow her to terminate that pregnancy and thus "live with the consequences"?
Once again both parties knew that the possiblity of the woman terminating a pregnancy and the impossibility of the man doing so was a potential consquence, one the law didnt create and cannot be reasonably tasked with addressing.

Once again the fact that a woman can choose to undergo elective medical proceedures as a result of a universally applicable right does not in any way shape or form demonstrate that the rights of living children ought to be suspended.

You keep conflating a person's right to elect to undergo medical proceedures with an imagined right for people to have a 'get out of life's consequences free' card. For the umpteenth time, the law's purpose isnt making people suffer for or removing the consequences of unwanted pregnancies and any resulting unwanted off-spring.

No. The "fate of the fetus" is dependent upon what the woman chooses to do with her body. Giving you rights over it is slavery, plain and simple. You cannot make medical decisions for a woman just because you happened to have sex with her, any more than she suddenly gets to decide what medical options you take, just because she had sex with you.

Just asking so that I understand your perspective... Would that also suggest that should she make a choice that, from yoru standpoint affects her body and not his, that he therefore should not be legally responsible for the child should she choose to carry it to term?

You keep conflating a person's right to elect to undergo medical proceedures with an imagined right for people to have a 'get out of life's consequences free' card. For the umpteenth time, the law's purpose isnt making people suffer for or removing the consequences of unwanted pregnancies and any resulting unwanted off-spring.

And for the "umteenth" time, since we differ on this issue, we're never going to meet eye to eye.

It is, in MY opinion, the effect of the right to bodily autonomy expressed through an abortion is the creation of a secondary legal right, the right to pre emptively, proactively terminate future legal responsibilities.

That's what it does.

Now you and I can argue all we want about whether that's true or not, but it's a matter of perspective. MY perspective says it does. Likewise, MY perspective says that when one person can legally do something, ALL persons can legally do something.

Maybe you disagree, that's your right, this is my perspective. And arguing what something does do, or doesn't do, with some degree of conviction that you are absolutely 100% right and I am absolutely 100% wrong in a situation that is at its best entirely theoretical and entirely subjective is a little foolish.

You keep talking about an "imagined" right. What is the difference, pray tell, between an "imagined" right and a "real" right? Can you show me the "right to elect to undergo medical procedures"? Can you point it to me? Can I feel it? Can I touch it? Can I throw it up in the air and catch it? What's it look like? What's it feel like?

The concept of a right is an intangible one, there is no physical thing, some rock or stone or gem out there called the "right to elect to undergo medical procedures". Rights are, as we believe them to be. A right is a generalized concept of some intrinsic "thing" unviewable, intangible. To say one right is "real" and the other right is "imaginary" when you can't SHOW ME A RIGHT, is...again, foolish. Rights are what we believe them to be. This is my belief. It is no more "imaginary" or "real" then the "right to elect to undergo medical procedures", no more or less substantive, no more or less physical.

And until you can tell me what makes a right real, as upposed to unreal or "imaginary", until you can show me what the "real" rights are, in some tangible way, then any discussion on the reality, or imaginary qualities of rights is....nonsensical.

Just asking so that I understand your perspective... Would that also suggest that should she make a choice that, from yoru standpoint affects her body and not his, that he therefore should not be legally responsible for the child should she choose to carry it to term?
I cant speak for Depublicants, however, I would query if you understand the fallacy of reaching that conclusion from those premises?

So far as I can tell given the premise 'a person has right A', you have concluded that they this might suggest that a second person ought to be denied right B in order to facillitate right C for a third person....that is utterly non-sequitor and completely unsound.

Just asking so that I understand your perspective... Would that also suggest that should she make a choice that, from yoru standpoint affects her body and not his, that he therefore should not be legally responsible for the child should she choose to carry it to term?
I don't understand why so many people have trouble with this.

A man does not have any right to control a woman's body. It is hers, not his. When it comes to deciding whether her body will participate in a pregnancy, he has zero rights and zero control. It is her body.

When it comes to a biological child that resulted from his sexual activities, a man has legal obligations TO THE CHILD.

The woman is not the child. The woman is not the pregnancy. The pregnancy is not the woman. The pregnancy is not the child. The child is neither the woman nor the pregnancy. These three are not identical, equivalent, or interchangable.

I provide the sperm, she provides the egg, its an partnership.

You provide perhaps half of the genetic material. Her body provides the cellular structures, machinery, all raw materials, all the labor, and all the "building space" for the construction of an embryo/fetus/zygote.

I'd love to be able to convince somebody to enter into that kind of "partnership" for me! They do all the work, while my contribution is to have an orgasm. Nice!


If i decide not to be part of it, then she can have 100% control and decide to abort it or not, but if i want this baby, the legally speaking, shouldn't i have a right to have a say in the fate of the fetus?
You have no say in what she does with her body. If you can't deal with the fact that she has control over her pregnancy and you don't, then you may choose to abstain or be gay.

I cant speak for Depublicants, however, I would query if you understand the fallacy of reaching that conclusion from those premises?

So far as I can tell given the premise 'a person has right A', you have concluded that they this might suggest that a second person ought to be denied right B in order to facillitate right C for a third person....that is utterly non-sequitor and completely unsound.

Actually, that question was specifically directed at Dempublicents, but I do appreciate your input :)

I don't understand why so many people have trouble with this.

A man does not have any right to control a woman's body. It is hers, not his. When it comes to deciding whether her body will participate in a pregnancy, he has zero rights and zero control. It is her body.

When it comes to a biological child that resulted from his sexual activities, a man has legal obligations TO THE CHILD.

The woman is not the child. The woman is not the pregnancy. The pregnancy is not the woman. The pregnancy is not the child. The child is neither the woman nor the pregnancy. These three are not identical, equivalent, or interchangable.

Actually, that question was specifically directed at Dempublicents, but I do appreciate your input :)

The reason I asked Dempublicents the question was to understand the point of view being advanced. I wasn't in so doing, trying to make an argument one way or the other.

Just wanted to throw that out, since I realize that my response to Zagat and Bottle might appear mean-spirited otherwise, and it certainly wasn't intended to be. I just didn't want people to think I was arguing that case. Like I said, was just trying to clarify, for myself, what was being argued.

When it comes to a biological child that resulted from his sexual activities, a man has legal obligations TO THE CHILD.

The question is, why should any man, any PERSON, end up with legal obligations that person didn't desire, didn't request, didn't consent to, and doesn't want?

Consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood. That's an argument that's been used NUMEROUS times in support of abortion rights for women. It cuts both ways. Consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood, for both men, AND WOMEN.

Because a man has sex this does not mean he desires, requests, wants, and/or consents to the legal obligations of fatherhood.

Because a woman has sex this does not mean she desires, requests, wants, and/or consents to the legal obligations of motherhood.

However a woman who gives birth creates the implication that at some point between the sex and the birth (under law, after the 18th week of pregnancy) she HAS consented to the legal obligations of motherhood.

Why? because she CHOSE to give birth, she CHOSE not to have an abortion, and she CHOSE to carry the child to term. That is her consent.

Not the sex, never the sex. Her consent to motherhood is the choice she made to actually carry the child. She, as the mother, has the opportunity to consent to the legal responsibilities of motherhood only after 18 weeks. Before that, she can opt out at any time.

What you are advocating is inequality, simple inequality. You are in favor of giving the mother the ability to opt out of motherhood up to 18 weeks after conception, yet giving no similar opportunity to the male.

The only way, the ONLY WAY your argument works is if you argue that sex is a tacit consent to fatherhood.

But sex is not, and should NEVER EVER be a tacit consent to motherhood. And since it is not, it can not be considered a consent to fatherhood.

Since it is an undesirable baby, I think that it ought to be sold into compassionate slavery.

I like you.

In all sincerity the legislation regarding children is ridiculous, and as vaginocentric (inversion of phallocentric I hope.....) as possible. I do appreciate that the woman msut be empowered to influence what happens to her body, however to elevate a jumped up tart one accidently rogers at a party to the position of dictating the man's life is outrageous.

Given that the father is obliged to pay for the child, could he not seek redress from a court of appeal, or, for that matter, have the state pay his shild support, and he simply repay the state after the 18 years have passed?

And for the "umteenth" time, since we differ on this issue, we're never going to meet eye to eye.

It is, in MY opinion, the effect of the right to bodily autonomy expressed through an abortion is the creation of a secondary legal right, the right to pre emptively, proactively terminate future legal responsibilities.
The law doesnt interpret it that way, nor can the law interpret it that way without major significant changes to the way the law operates generally. Those changes are not proved necessary or desirable just because you dislike one of their consequences.

That's what it does.
So what? That doesnt interefere with any independent, existing or demonstratably justifiable right, so what's the problem? Clearly this is a shock to you, but the law doesnt deprive one party of a universal right just because in effect they gain a greater benefit than someone else the right equally applies to, nor does the law remove the right of a third party just because one party whose rights are not being compromised looks at the person next to them and says 'your glass has got more in it than mine, wah, wah, wah'.

Now you and I can argue all we want about whether that's true or not, but it's a matter of perspective. MY perspective says it does.
No, you are arguing for legal change, so it is necessarily a matter of legal reasoning rather than a matter of individual perspective.

Likewise, MY perspective says that when one person can legally do something, ALL persons can legally do something.
Well that isnt an issue here. The law allows both parties to elect to undergo medical proceedures without state interference.

Maybe you disagree, that's your right, this is my perspective.
Your perspective hold no water in the context of legal reasoning, and since we are discussing legal rights and obligations legal reasoning has primacy over alternative perspectives.

And arguing what something does do, or doesn't do, with some degree of conviction that you are absolutely 100% right and I am absolutely 100% wrong in a situation that is at its best entirely theoretical and entirely subjective is a little foolish.
That isnt what is happening here though. I'm arguing the empiracal provable facts regarding legal facts. You are apparently arguing that since you dont like a particular outcome, the principals of law and justice that the whole system is based on, and the reasoning that holds it all together ought to be ignored and your 'perspective' substituted in its place.

Just asking so that I understand your perspective... Would that also suggest that should she make a choice that, from yoru standpoint affects her body and not his, that he therefore should not be legally responsible for the child should she choose to carry it to term?

No. Once a child is born, there is an entirely new person to deal with.

I also, however, think it is not in the best interest of a parent to force an unwilling parent to be responsible for it. So, while I don't respect deadbeat parents, I think children are better off if we let them out of that child's life.

No. Once a child is born, there is an entirely new person to deal with.

I also, however, think it is not in the best interest of a parent to force an unwilling parent to be responsible for it. So, while I don't respect deadbeat parents, I think children are better off if we let them out of that child's life.

Thank you.

When it comes to a biological child that resulted from his sexual activities, a man has legal obligations TO THE CHILD.

Is there a way for a man to provide support for the child without providing support for the woman who may have decieved him into parenthood for her own benefit?

Is there a way for a man to provide support for the child without providing support for the woman who may have decieved him into parenthood for her own benefit?
I believe he can set up a trust fund for that child.

The question is, why should any man, any PERSON, end up with legal obligations that person didn't desire, didn't request, didn't consent to, and doesn't want?

Consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood. That's an argument that's been used NUMEROUS times in support of abortion rights for women. It cuts both ways. Consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood, for both men, AND WOMEN.

Of course it does.

What people tend to ignore is the fact that having sex in the first place is a choice freely made (In a case like this). These people were adults and have, presumably been taught all about the birds and the bees at some point. As much fun as it is, sex IS the process by which we human beings reproduce ourselves, and somhow people treat it as a negative side effect the way too much sunbathing can cause melanoma.

And as for being saddled with legal responnsibilites that were not wanted, requested or consented to, well we have plenty of those we live with already. Taxes, jury duty, military service (in extreme cases)... Consent has very little to do with legal responsibility. I don't consent to being legally responsible for keeping the registration on my car current, but watch what happens to me if I don't...

edit: I realize that what I just said is not necessarily supported by law or legal precedent, but this is my opinion.

the law doesnt deprive one party of a universal right just because in effect they gain a greater benefit than someone else the right equally applies to

I have never advocated that the law SHOULD deprive one party of a right just because in effect they gain a greater benefit than someone else the right equally applies to. Not at all, not even once, in fact I've vigorously argued against that.

I have argued, and it is the fundamental thrust of my argument, that when one party DOES gain an effect gain a greater benefit, then the law should also, as a matter of equitable fairness, grant that benefit to all.

If the exercise of your rights gives you a potential benefit, then in the interests of justice, I should be able to gain that potential benefit as well. That is equality.

The fundamental point of my argument is that it SHOULD do JUST that. And in fact, since some states ALREADY do that, the argument that it would require some fundamental shift in the rationale of the law is, well, incorrect.

I believe he can set up a trust fund for that child.

Is that instead of child support?

Of course it does.

No, absolutely it does not.


And as for being saddled with legal responnsibilites that were not wanted, requested or consented to, well we have plenty of those we live with already. Taxes, jury duty, military service (in extreme cases)... Consent has very little to do with legal responsibility. I don't consent to being legally responsible for keeping the registration on my car current, but watch what happens to me if I don't...

I contend that you do consent to those rules. You consent to them every day. How do you consent to them? Because every day, every single day you make the CHOICE to keep your citizenship, and remain in the country. If you do not wish to consent to the laws of your nation you are free to remove yourself from that nation. By remaining IN that nation, you consent to the laws that nation has elected to govern you with.

But you can chose not to any day you wish. Just renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere. If you do not wish to be bound by the laws of your nation, then sever your ties to that nation. You have that right. You can completely, and utterly, remove yourself from any legal obligation that the nation has over you.

However in doing so you also relinquish any legal rights the nation grants you with.

Why should it be any different than parenthood? If I don't want to be governed by my nation I may sever all legal ties I have with that nation. If I don't want to be bound in parenthood, I should be able to sever all legal ties I have with that child, up until the point where my refusal to do so creates the implication of consent (IE, not doing it before it was born)

Is that instead of child support?

dunno. he can set up a trust fund to be taken out only for certain reasons (Child's medical, Child's Education, etc...) and then can audit and monitor the spending. but doing that will tend to cost more than paying child support.

No, absolutely it does not.




I contend that you do consent to those rules. You consent to them every day. How do you consent to them? Because every day, every single day you make the CHOICE to keep your citizenship, and remain in the country. If you do not wish to consent to the laws of your nation you are free to remove yourself from that nation. By remaining IN that nation, you consent to the laws that nation has elected to govern you with.

But you can chose not to any day you wish. Just renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.


That's true, but that same logic can also applied to a deadbeat father.

For this argument to have any relevance, I think we should ignore the option to become a political refugee.

I've actually figured this one out logically, whilst seemingly avoiding moral assessment all together.

To come to an answer one has to assess the situation. In doing so it becomes apparent that there are two points of responsibility/choice. First of all is whether the baby is indeed to be had. Now seeing as the baby is half Billy's and half Sally's they hold equal sway in this arguement. Basically they must come to a unanimous decision to proceed fairly.However, there is a second aspect to this situation, and that is in regards to who will give birth to the baby. That is to say, Sally has to carry the baby in her womb for 9 months, and then give birth to it. Whether or not she wants to do this is completely up to her, as it is her body.

The end result is that either decision requires a unanimous vote of both parties, and can be vetoed by Sally if she pleases, unless Billy can provide a surrogate womb. As such I feel the logical stance is that if both parents cannot agree on the decision to abort, then the decision by default falls on to the mothers willingness to carry and give birth. However, seeing as in this process the man had his vote removed, he shall no longer be responsible for the consequences (no child support).

That's true, but that same logic also applied to a deadbeat father.

Not exactly. If I renounce my citizenship, if I make a legally binding statement that I am NO LONGER AN AMERICAN, that is legal, that is binding. That is a legal severing of the rights and obligations I have as an american.

A deadbeat father does not legally sever the obligations he has as a parent, he's just not honoring them. The legal obligation still EXISTS, he's just not going through with it, and is doing so illegally.

The logic would only apply if the father (and, in fact, the mother) has the option to LEGALLY sever the obligations he has as a parent. A deadbeat father doesn't do that, he CAN'T do that.

A deadbeat father equivalent would be me moving out of the country, and avoiding returning to the country of my citizenship. My legal obligations exist, I'm just not honoring them.

However, legally, I can formally give up my citizenship. I can say I'm not an american, and that statement is legally binding.

dunno. he can set up a trust fund to be taken out only for certain reasons (Child's medical, Child's Education, etc...) and then can audit and monitor the spending. but doing that will tend to cost more than paying child support.

hmmm - the thing I really object to is the case where the girl delibrately gets pregnant - lies about the pill or other deception, with the intent of forcing commitment or benefiting from the guy (other than the benefit of having a child). Guys who dont use condoms, or have unprotected sex with women who are not on the pill or genuine accidental contraception failure I am not really on the guys side too much. And then gets child support of which she takes her 'cut' rather than spending 100% of it on the child.

The question is, why should any man, any PERSON, end up with legal obligations that person didn't desire, didn't request, didn't consent to, and doesn't want?
Why shouldnt they? Why should the law and through it, society at large be made to bare the burden of 'magicing' away consequences that were forseeable results of our voluntary acts just because we happen to decide once we've gone ahead with the voluntary act, that we dont want to deal with the consequences?

Consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood.
If a person is competent to legally give consent to an act and voluntarily does so, the law is not obliged to come rescue them from the forseeable consequences of their voluntary act. There is no general principal at law that a person can avoid parenthood simply through lack of consenting to parenthood.

That's an argument that's been used NUMEROUS times in support of abortion rights for women.
That doesnt make it right. There is no general principal at law that a person can avoid parenthood simply through not consenting to it. Abortion rights do not rest on, nor require such a right exists. Such a right (or the lack thereof) is legally irrelevent to the legal facts regarding women and abortion.

It cuts both ways. Consent to sex does not equate to consent to parenthood, for both men, AND WOMEN.
Which is irrelevent given that non-consent is not a get out of parenthood free card.

Because a man has sex this does not mean he desires, requests, wants, and/or consents to the legal obligations of fatherhood.
The obligations do not arise out of consent, so his consent or lack thereof is irrelevent.

Because a woman has sex this does not mean she desires, requests, wants, and/or consents to the legal obligations of motherhood.
Which is also irrelevent given that whether she consents or not, she incurs legal obligations to any and all of her living children.

However a woman who gives birth creates the implication that at some point between the sex and the birth (under law, after the 18th week of pregnancy) she HAS consented to the legal obligations of motherhood.
Wrong. Parenthood is not an obligation that only arises if it is consented to.

Why? because she CHOSE to give birth, she CHOSE not to have an abortion, and she CHOSE to carry the child to term. That is her consent.
Her consent isnt relevent. If she has a live child then she is legally required to meet her legal obligations to that child whether she consented or woke up from a long term coma and found that she was pregnant with a product of rape and about to give birth. If she has a live child then she has obligations regardless of her consent to those obligations.

Not the sex, never the sex. Her consent to motherhood is the choice she made to actually carry the child. She, as the mother, has the opportunity to consent to the legal responsibilities of motherhood only after 18 weeks. Before that, she can opt out at any time.
It is a mystery to me how you came by the erroneous belief that the legal obligations of parenthood only arise where they have been consented to.

What you are advocating is inequality, simple inequality.
Advocating that people have access to the same legal rights isnt advocating inequality even if those rights happen to afford some people opportunities that others have no use for.

You are in favor of giving the mother the ability to opt out of motherhood up to 18 weeks after conception, yet giving no similar opportunity to the male.
Nonsense. Your argument is non sequitor. It is of the form 'A therefore Z'.

The only way, the ONLY WAY your argument works is if you argue that sex is a tacit consent to fatherhood.
Wrong, the only way that consent is relevent is if consent is a pre-requisite to incurring the obligations of parenthood, but it isnt.

But sex is not, and should NEVER EVER be a tacit consent to motherhood. And since it is not, it can not be considered a consent to fatherhood.
Except as you are either unaware or ignoring, consent is not a pre-requisite to incurring the obligations of parenthood.

Not exactly. If I renounce my citizenship, if I make a legally binding statement that I am NO LONGER AN AMERICAN, that is legal, that is binding. That is a legal severing of the rights and obligations I have as an american.

A deadbeat father does not legally sever the obligations he has as a parent, he's just not honoring them. The legal obligation still EXISTS, he's just not going through with it, and is doing so illegally.

The logic would only apply if the father (and, in fact, the mother) has the option to LEGALLY sever the obligations he has as a parent. A deadbeat father doesn't do that, he CAN'T do that.

You make a very good point.

But let me present a hypothetical to see if I understand correctly. Suppose I do renounce my citizenship and move to another country. Let's say I do this not only to avoid the motor vehicle laws, but also to get out of paying child support.

Since I am no longer an American nor living in the USA, obviously I there is no obligation with respect to driving a car, but what about child support? If I am no longer a US citizen and am no longer living in the country, then I am no longer subject to US law. Ethically and morally, I have a responsibility to pay child support, but what about legally? There is no International system of enforcement of child support payment.

The tie-in is this, If, in fact, I am in violation of US law (enforcable or not) then it would seem that my responsibility as a father to my children is immutable, so it would be very diificult, at best, to justify not being responsible for a child, even if it was one that was not wanted.

Since I am no longer an American nor living in the USA, obviously I there is no obligation with respect to driving a car, but what about child support? If I am no longer a US citizen and am no longer living in the country, then I am no longer subject to US law. Ethically and morally, I have a responsibility to pay child support, but what about legally? There is no International system of enforcement of child support payment.

Technically family courts transcend nationality. A court can order child support to a non US citizen.

Enforcing that is, however, a problem.

Technically family courts transcend nationality. A court can order child support to a non US citizen.

Enforcing that is, however, a problem.

Right, citizenship isn't the issue, which is why I specified in my hypothetical example that I'd be living outside the country.

Family courts don't transcend national boundaries, though. Case in point: My father is not an American citizen, but of course he was obligated to pay child support to my mother when my parents split. Had he returned to his home country at that time, he would be unreachable not only because internationsl extradition over an issue liek that would be silly, but also because there's no agreemen either inplied or in treaty that other countries must recognize and assist in the enforcement of such a court order, especially when you consider that such an order would come from some local jurisdiction and doesn't even have anything to do with US law at the national level.

In short, fleeing the country is, for all intents and purposes, a get out of jail free card, at which point the difference between child support and car registration becomes moot.

(No, my dad didn't do that though ;) )

Except as you are either unaware or ignoring, consent is not a pre-requisite to incurring the obligations of parenthood.

And as you are either unaware or ignoring, as I have stated, in my opinion, the presence of the possibility of abortion creates the pre-requisite of consent to incurring the obligations of parenthood, at least for women.

We can keep going around and around all we want here, but you are ignoring my central tenant. Abortion creates for women the ver situation in which consent DOES become a pre-requisite to incurring the obligations of motherhood. No woman needs bring a child to term that she does not CONSENT TO BRING TO TERM.

Moreover, in many states, a mother can give her child over to the authorities and relinquish total rights to it, AFTER BIRTH. A woman in massachussets can bring her newborn child to the police station, say "here, I don't want it" and walk off, no questions asked. So to say that parenthood is NOT about consent when a mother has not one, but THREE, and in some cases FOUR option to NOT CONSENT (refusal of sex, abortion, adoption, and legal abandonment) is in fact contrary to the law.

No woman needs ever be a mother to a child that she does not CONSENT to being a mother to.

That's my entire point. Motherhood IS based on consent after conception. Fatherhood is not. Or, at very least, a mother to be has more opportunies to withdraw that consent then the father does. This is inequality. Inequality should be fixed.

And the fact that a few states already agree with me on this matter undercuts your whole "but we'd have to change fundamental concepts of law" argument pretty well in half.

I have never advocated that the law SHOULD deprive one party of a right just because in effect they gain a greater benefit than someone else the right equally applies to.
I didnt state that you did, as you can tell if you read the entire sentence instead of the incomplete fragment of a sentence you chose to extract.

Not at all, not even once, in fact I've vigorously argued against that.
You have not vigorously argued against what I stated. The entire sentence is right where you extracted the fragment from if you care to actually discuss what was said sensibly instead of playing silly buggers with cut and paste.

I have argued, and it is the fundamental thrust of my argument, that when one party DOES gain an effect gain a greater benefit, then the law should also, as a matter of equitable fairness, grant that benefit to all.
But this argument ignores the fact that to do so in this case requires that an existing right (the right of the child) be suspended in order to create a special gender specific right that exists soley to ensure that if anyone gets the raw end of the gender stick it is never males, and for which their is no legal justification. Absurd, petty and pathetic. Nothing you have said justifies the diminishment of the child's rights.
The fact is either you have to remove from women and women only bodily autonomy, or you have to remove rights from children in order to grant a right to males that is not justifiable according to a single existing legal principal, or you have to accept that males cannot terminate pregnancies and that neither parent has a right to refuse their legal obligations on the basis that they didnt specifically consent to them.

If the exercise of your rights gives you a potential benefit, then in the interests of justice, I should be able to gain that potential benefit as well.
Bullshit. If the exercise of our property rights gives us differing benefits that is perfectly consistent with justice. You are invoking a principal that not only doesnt exist as a legal principal, but in fact is contrary existing legal principals. It isnt the purpose of the law to make life 'fair'. The law isnt here to hold your hand through life making sure that you never get a raw deal.

That is equality.
Bullshit. The law doesnt ensure that just because males can become parents without giving birth, females have the same potential benefit, the law doesnt ensure that because I have the opportunity to inherit a million dollars from my parents but you have the oppotunity to inherit a billion that our positions be equalised.

The fundamental point of my argument is that it SHOULD do JUST that.
Your fundamental point is that the law system and the existing principals should be chucked out the window because the intersection of a universal right and biology might result in someone other than females getting the raw end of the gender stick. I get that, I dont see that you've presented any compelling argument in support of that point.

And in fact, since some states ALREADY do that, the argument that it would require some fundamental shift in the rationale of the law is, well, incorrect.
Not necessarily, it is entirely possible that states ALREADY doing that are doing so in contradiction of prior principals.

they made the choice, the decision when they had sex that night.



exactly. the father does have the choice, if he knows that he cant support a possible child then he should not have sex. if he want to have sex he needs to come to terms with the possible outcome of having sex.

That would be preaching personal responsibility and the acceptance of consequences. Gee jolly, that's an evil, evil thing.

Not necessarily, it is entirely possible that states ALREADY doing that are doing so in contradiction of prior principals.

I can ignore the entirety of your argument and just point at this one little gem. It's a wonderous statement. You know what this statement says? It says "you're wrong, and the law doesn't work that way, except in the instances the law does work that way, in which case it's wrong too?"

What's it gonna be? It is presumptuous in the extreme for you to talk about "how the law works" in the face of a legislature deciding in the contrary. You know, a legislature, the ones whose job it is to say how the law works?

By the way, you got a great little fallacy going here when you presume that my argument for equality extends only to when it's men who get shafted. Wondeful little fallacy indeed. Unfortunatly....it's not true. And your whole little argument of "you just want it to benefit men, what about the women!" is not only nonsensical, it's frankly insulting. Don't project your bias on to me.

sally cant just walk away from the child any more than billy can.

This is not true at all. The woman has the option of disappearing completely, having the child, and then adopting it out, thus absolving herself of all responsibility for the child and again removing the choice from a potentially responsible father who actually wants to care for his child. She could also choose to abort the baby, again whether he agrees with it or not, and absolve herself of responsibility that way. It's another one of those fucked up situations where possession is 9/10 of the law.

I won't go into detail about how disguting, myopic and one-sided I find the views of women (not you specifically, Ashmoria, I'm waxing general now) on this subject. "He could have kept it in his pants." "Tough shit for him." "It's HER body." You act like she wasn't spreading her legs for the guy and he somehow managed to have sex and concieve the child completely on his own impetus. Don't even get me started on the idea that was brought up earlier about the baby being a parasite destroying the woman's body from within. What kind of animals are you? If you can't be more compassionate and responsible with your sexual activities, how can you expect men to do the same? If that's your attitude then get used to cuddling your toys, because you certainly won't be getting anymore dick from me. We have to WORK TOGETHER on the solution. Men shouldn't be allowed to freely womanize and never suffer any greater consequences than mostly curable STDs, but women shouldn't be able to own a man simply because they have his child.

I don't know of any really good solution with no potential for abuse, but from what I have experienced we really don't have anywhere to go but up. For starters, we need to identify a goal. How about equal rights, equal choices. It seems to me that if a married couple have a baby they don't want, they can simply adopt it out and completely absolve themselves of all financial responsibility, as can any single mother opposed to abortion, but that option is conspicuously lacking for single men where the mother wants to retain some control over the child. I don't know the best way to obtain it for them, but I do know that it would make it more fair if they had the option. If a 1-night stand results in pregnancy and the woman chooses not to abort the baby (which I applaud) but the man makes it absolutely clear that is what he would do if he had gotten pregnant, there should be some way for him to prove that (e.g. file some paperwork with a court or something) and it should count in his favor at child custody/support hearings. It's not a solution, but I think it would be a step in the right direction.

But what about the child? Doesn't he/she get rights too?

And since the child is too young to stand up for it's rights, isn't it the law's job to protect it?

This is a different issue entirely. It all depends whether you consider a fetus a human being which would then be required to have human rights.

Someone earlier in the thread made a good point... that people have a right to choose, but not necessarily the right to escape the consequences. I think that's absolutely true. They act as if just using a condom somehow entitles people to a greater degree of sympathy for their plight, as if a broken or leaking condom were some sort of social injustice in and of itself.

Condoms, like abortion, are more often than not expected to save people from the results of their choices, and have no more to do with rights and justice than a bowl of applesauce.

Too true. The fact is, sex is a grown up thing. The result of sex is a grown up thing. You're not adult enough to accept the responsibility of your action (and I speak to both men AND women here), DON'T HAVE SEX. If you do, don't whine and complain if *gasp* the act of procreation actually WORKS!

That would be preaching personal responsibility and the acceptance of consequences. Gee jolly, that's an evil, evil thing.

Sad thing is, not all people would read that as sarcasm.

And as you are either unaware or ignoring, as I have stated, in my opinion, the presence of the possibility of abortion creates the pre-requisite of consent to incurring the obligations of parenthood, at least for women.
It doesnt create any such pre-requisite at all. Nothing you have argued indicates indicates that it should, and in fact your reasoning is contrary to the principals on which the obligation is premised.

We can keep going around and around all we want here, but you are ignoring my central tenant.
I'm not ignoring it.

Abortion creates for women the ver situation in which consent DOES become a pre-requisite to incurring the obligations of motherhood.
No it doesnt. It can be an opportunity to avoid the circumstances that give rise to the obligation but it doesnt give rise to a right to be free from the obligations as a result of not consenting to them. If an unconcious women is raped and wakes from her coma while giving birth, her lack of consent doesnt void her legal obligations to the child. Prior consent to parenthood is not a pre-requisite to the obligations of parenthood.

No woman needs bring a child to term that she does not CONSENT TO BRING TO TERM.
That is not true. It is entirely possible for a woman to be unable to procure an abortion. Whether the option was one that was available in her circumstance or not is irrelevent for the establishment of parental obligations so far as living children are concerned.

Moreover, in many states, a mother can give her child over to the authorities and relinquish total rights to it, AFTER BIRTH.
In no state where the law is fair and equitable can this occur against the objection of a parent who is able and willing to take day to day care of the child concerned. Any state where ieither parent can 'adopt out' a child against the wishes of the other parent, despite the ability of that other parent to care for the child, is a state whose laws I strongly object to.

A woman in massachussets can bring her newborn child to the police station, say "here, I don't want it" and walk off, no questions asked.
Right and so? This doesnt void her obligations, it meets them in the circumstances to that point. If the father turns up, proves he is the father and gains custody of the child, it is fair and equitable that the child has a right to be financially supported by the mother. If the law in Massachussets is contrary to this fair and equitable provision then the law in Massachussets isnt fair and equitable.

So to say that parenthood is NOT about consent when a mother has not one, but THREE, and in some cases FOUR option to NOT CONSENT (refusal of sex, abortion, adoption, and legal abandonment) is in fact contrary to the law.
It is not contrary to the principals on which the obligations are premised. In any equitable and fair legal system the law will not allow a living child to be cut off from either parent simply because one or the other wishes it. In no fair and equitable jurisdiction do the rights of the child disappear because one or the other parent doesnt feel like dealing with the case specific outcome of their voluntary actions even if their legal inability to force medical proceedures on others is a complicating factor.

No woman needs ever be a mother to a child that she does not CONSENT to being a mother to.
Even if we assume this is true it isnt relevent to whether or not consent is a pre-requisite of being subjected to the obligations of parenthood. The law as a general principal, doesnt work from outcome to principal, quite the opposite actually.

That's my entire point. Motherhood IS based on consent after conception.
Your whole point is erroneous. Motherhood is based on being the mother of living child.

Fatherhood is not.
Fatherhood is based on being the father of a living child...

Or, at very least, a mother to be has more opportunies to withdraw that consent then the father does.
No, she has more opportunities to avoid the obligation of parenthood as a result of inherent biological characteristics that the law doesnt cause and cannot be reasonably asked to address. Is it discrimination that any adult has the right to apply for a driver's license but some people are physically unable to avail themselves of the opportunity due to their inherent physical characteristics? Of course not. The law doesnt discriminate by allowing people to have driver's licenses even though not everyone can take up the opportunity...the law doesnt discriminate by allowing people to terminate their pregnancy even though not everyone can take up the oppotunity.

This is inequality. Inequality should be fixed.
No, inequality oughten by 'fixed' just because it exists or even just because it exists and can be fixed. We oughten ensure that everyone regardless of competency and effort is paid exactly an equal amount to all others, we shouldnt ensure that if some people are better athletes than others they ought to be 'hobbled' in open competition to equalise the playing field. We accept inequality because it is inevitable and not necessarily undesirable in every instance.

And the fact that a few states already agree with me on this matter undercuts your whole "but we'd have to change fundamental concepts of law" argument pretty well in half.
No it doesnt. The fact is it is possible (although utterly undesirable) to have the law operate contrary to its own basic premises and principals.

Why shouldnt they? Why should the law and through it, society at large be made to bare the burden of 'magicing' away consequences that were forseeable results of our voluntary acts just because we happen to decide once we've gone ahead with the voluntary act, that we dont want to deal with the consequences?


If a person is competent to legally give consent to an act and voluntarily does so, the law is not obliged to come rescue them from the forseeable consequences of their voluntary act. There is no general principal at law that a person can avoid parenthood simply through lack of consenting to parenthood.


That doesnt make it right. There is no general principal at law that a person can avoid parenthood simply through not consenting to it. Abortion rights do not rest on, nor require such a right exists. Such a right (or the lack thereof) is legally irrelevent to the legal facts regarding women and abortion.

Which is irrelevent given that non-consent is not a get out of parenthood free card.

The obligations do not arise out of consent, so his consent or lack thereof is irrelevent.

Which is also irrelevent given that whether she consents or not, she incurs legal obligations to any and all of her living children.

Wrong. Parenthood is not an obligation that only arises if it is consented to.

Her consent isnt relevent. If she has a live child then she is legally required to meet her legal obligations to that child whether she consented or woke up from a long term coma and found that she was pregnant with a product of rape and about to give birth. If she has a live child then she has obligations regardless of her consent to those obligations.

It is a mystery to me how you came by the erroneous belief that the legal obligations of parenthood only arise where they have been consented to.

Advocating that people have access to the same legal rights isnt advocating inequality even if those rights happen to afford some people opportunities that others have no use for.

Nonsense. Your argument is non sequitor. It is of the form 'A therefore Z'.

Wrong, the only way that consent is relevent is if consent is a pre-requisite to incurring the obligations of parenthood, but it isnt.


Except as you are either unaware or ignoring, consent is not a pre-requisite to incurring the obligations of parenthood.


Yes, parenthood can be terminated do to lack of consent....
For example, abortion. Is this entire topic not about abortion? Do you not know what abortion does to a fetus?
1. Conception
2. Fetus floating around
3. Abortion
4. No fetus
5. No child
6. No parenthood

"non-consent is not a get out of parenthood free card."
Non-consent leading to abortion or adoption is...

"It is a mystery to me how you came by the erroneous belief that the legal obligations of parenthood only arise where they have been consented to."

They do... When people do not "consent" they usually do something. In this case, abort or put up for adoption. Without a child, one cannot be a parent. Therefore lack of consent = lack of parenthood. You have overlooked the intermediary steps and jumped to a conclusion.

"Which is also irrelevent given that whether she consents or not, she incurs legal obligations to any and all of her living children."
If she does not consent, she can have an abortion. Again, no child = no legal obligations to non-existing children...
The fact that she has living children already is irrelevant to the fetus or abortion.. or the entire topic actually.

"Except as you are either unaware or ignoring, consent is not a pre-requisite to incurring the obligations of parenthood"
It is in today's day and age. One can again, abort a pregnancy, this generally comes around from lack of consent and terminates any obligation to parenthood.

I won't go into detail about how disguting, myopic and one-sided I find the views of women (not you specifically, Ashmoria, I'm waxing general now) on this subject. "He could have kept it in his pants." "Tough shit for him." "It's HER body." You act like she wasn't spreading her legs for the guy and he somehow managed to have sex and concieve the child completely on his own impetus. Don't even get me started on the idea that was brought up earlier about the baby being a parasite destroying the woman's body from within. What kind of animals are you? If you can't be more compassionate and responsible with your sexual activities, how can you expect men to do the same? If that's your attitude then get used to cuddling your toys, because you certainly won't be getting anymore dick from me. We have to WORK TOGETHER on the solution. Men shouldn't be allowed to freely womanize and never suffer any greater consequences than mostly curable STDs, but women shouldn't be able to own a man simply because they have his child.

You have a good point there, and as a woman myself, I agree completely. Then again, I'm one of those old-fashioned people who think getting pregnant is a blessing and the child should be treasured and protected, not flushed down a tube because it is inconvienent.

Your fundamental point is that the law system and the existing principals should be chucked out the window because the intersection of a universal right and biology might result in someone other than females getting the raw end of the gender stick. I get that, I dont see that you've presented any compelling argument in support of that point.
I really think that this is the issue. When women are getting a shitty deal, it's fine, we're supposed to get a shitty deal. However, when it's men... oh my goodness, no! Things must be changed.

In the instance of the subject matter of this topic, what "shitty deal" are women getting?

That is not true. It is entirely possible for a woman to be unable to procure an abortion.

I admit to practical considerations not discussed in the hypothetical that skew it. Obviously not every woman can get an abortion if she wants one.


Your whole point is erroneous. Motherhood is based on being the mother of living child.


Fatherhood is based on being the father of a living child...

My whole "point" is opinion, and as such is no more erroneous than yours. You can blather on about how my "opinion" is wrong, however you're going to be able to prove that once you are able to tell me how to differentiate a "real" right from an "imaginary" right, and what a real right looks like.

No, she has more opportunities to avoid the obligation of parenthood as a result of inherent biological characteristics that the law doesnt cause and cannot be reasonably asked to address.

Sure it can, in the method I've described.


The law doesnt discriminate by allowing people to have driver's licenses even though not everyone can take up the opportunity...the law doesnt discriminate by allowing people to terminate their pregnancy even though not everyone can take up the oppotunity.

False analogy, the law can never fix someone's eyesight. The law can never render someone fit to drive a car. The skills necessary to drive a car are not something the law has created. The legal responsibilities of a parent to the child ARE something the law has created. And the law can uncreate them just as easily.

No it doesnt. The fact is it is possible (although utterly undesirable) to have the law operate contrary to its own basic premises and principals.

Equality under the law IS one of our basic premises and principals. I find this an inequaluity

I can ignore the entirety of your argument
Of course you can.

and just point at this one little gem. It's a wonderous statement. You know what this statement says? It says "you're wrong, and the law doesn't work that way, except in the instances the law does work that way, in which case it's wrong too?"
No it doesnt say that at all.

What's it gonna be? It is presumptuous in the extreme for you to talk about "how the law works" in the face of a legislature deciding in the contrary.
Except legislation doesnt decide to the contrary. Legislation is set up so that it makes provision for exactly the premise I am saying applies. The law system recognises its own fallability and that is why there is a court heirachy, proceedures such as appeals and the capacity for an elected body to enact legislation which is then interpreted by a seperate body. These provisions enable law to be altered when it is found to be inconsistent, flawed or otherwise not 'up to scratch'. That there is 'bad law' as well as good is a recognised aspect of any modern and robust legal system.

You know, a legislature, the ones whose job it is to say how the law works?
No, because it isnt the legislature's purvue in most cases to do this (certainly not in most western law systems at any rate). This role is one that is primarily taken up by the judiciary.

By the way, you got a great little fallacy going here when you presume that my argument for equality extends only to when it's men who get shafted. Wondeful little fallacy indeed. Unfortunatly....it's not true. And your whole little argument of "you just want it to benefit men, what about the women!" is not only nonsensical, it's frankly insulting. Don't project your bias on to me.
It isnt a fallacy. You dont seem to care that the law doesnt address the inequality of men having the opportunity to be fathers without having to go through the physical process of pregnancy and child birth, nor of the law allowing people to qualify for drivers licences even though physically not everyone can take up the opportunity.

You take the potential consequence of a universal right, and then demand that some other right be tailor made for one gender, when it is apparent that the universal right provides one some people with a potential opportunity to benefit, that doesnt come at the expense of some other person, and which is a necessary implication of the universal right, simply because some people cannot due to their physical characteristics avail themselves of the potential opportunity for potential benefit. Dress it up how you will, it's petty sour grapes stemming from the law not making special provisions to ensure that females always come off worse where biological differences make absolute equality of outcome impossible.

Of course, we could always go the other direction with it, outlaw abortion as a means of birth control and force both responsible parties to take care of their own kids, set up a trust fund with state oversight and collect child support from both parties into the trust. Funds would be accessible in the form of reimbursement for child care expenses with a properly authorized reciept. Again, there's potential for use of forged reciepts, but really the biggest problem with this idea to me is that a government's traditional method of disposition of funds over which it has authority is to simply steal all the money and leave the people who are actually entitled to the money struggling to make ends meet.

When women are getting a shitty deal, it's fine

What shitty deal are you getting in this regard?

You have the absolute right to refuse to engage in sex.

Should you decide to consent to sex, and conception occurs you have the absolute right to terminate your pregnancy.

Should you decide not to terminate your pregnancy, you also have the right to give up your child for adoption.

Should you decide not to give up your child for adoption, you have the right to take medical time off from your job.

Where's the shitty deal here?

Anything else outside of the context of this discussion is...well...outside of the context of this discussion. I find it offensive and insulting to suggest i would be in favor of inequality of women in "other areas". In this area there is no inequality against women (at least in theory). In some other areas there might be. If you wish to discuss those areas, make a thread on it, that's not our topic here.

No, because it isnt the legislature's purvue in most cases to do this (certainly not in most western law systems at any rate). This role is one that is primarily taken up by the judiciary.

Typo on my part. It is the job of the legislature to CREATE law. THe role of the judiciary is to interpret the law given any leeway the law creteas.


It isnt a fallacy. You dont seem to care that the law doesnt address the inequality of men having the opportunity to be fathers without having to go through the physical process of pregnancy and child birth,

Now you've just gone off the freaking deep end. How in holy hell IS the law supposed to address that? In what POSSIBLE way can the law change that? I'd like to be a little stronger and a bit taller, but to say "it's unequal because someone is this way and the law should fix it" is assinine.

Real, very very VERY carefully here, ok? I am not talking about PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS I am talking about LEGAL rights, this is where the point is just not sticking through your damned head. If the law allows you to do something, it must allow me to do the same. It doesn't say "if one person is physically capable of something then all must be physically capable of it" that is idiocy.


You take the potential consequence of a universal right, and then demand that some other right be tailor made for one gender, when it is apparent

You know what kills me, you take the term "universal right" and then use the word apparent. I'm still waiting on your explination on what a universal right looks like, so we can distinguish it from my so called "imaginary" right.

How the hell do you know what a "real" right is as opposed to an "imaginary" one? What does a right look like? Where can I find it? How do I know what's a right? You go on to state with such conviction and firmness UNIVERSAL RIGHTS without actually going on as to which one they are.

Pick a position, either rights are universal, but being intangible as rights are, you really can't say for sure what's a "right" and what is not a "right", or rights are created by law, in which case the law certainly can create another one.

Which is it?

Before this conversation goes ANY further, I want from you one thing. Give me a list.

Give me, right here, a list of universal rights. Then when you have finished with that, tell me

a) how you found them

b) how you know they are universal

c) by what criteria did you use to determine that this knowledge is correct

d) how you were able to assertain my articulated "right" is not one of your universal rights

if you can't do that, then either conceded that whatever universal rights there are, you can't actually pinpoint exactly what they are, OR rights are not universally existant, but are created, and then removed, by law, in which case any talk is bullshit since the law could easily create, alter or remove any right there is.

No woman needs ever be a mother to a child that she does not CONSENT to being a mother to.

That's my entire point. Motherhood IS based on consent after conception. Fatherhood is not. Or, at very least, a mother to be has more opportunies to withdraw that consent then the father does. This is inequality. Inequality should be fixed.


I completely agree with you on everything you have said so far. It is wrong that women can choose not to become a parent, when men don't have the same choice. It is a lifelong responsibility that shouldn't be forced on anyone.

What shitty deal are you getting in this regard?
Yes, pregnancy and child birth aren't shitty deals. Having nutjobs stand outside abortion clinics screaming bloody murder at every poor girl who walks in there already nervous and scared isn't a shitty deal. Having politicians try to take away the right to choose isn't a shitty deal. You're right, women always have the upper hand.

You have the absolute right to refuse to engage in sex.
ANd you have the absolute right to refuse to engage in sex with someone who won't abort any hoypothetical pregnancy.

Should you decide to consent to sex, and conception occurs you have the absolute right to terminate your pregnancy.
Unless I don't live anywhere near a clinic, unless I can't afford it, unless my access to that right has been restricted by some silly law made by men who have never been faced with that decision et c.

Should you decide not to terminate your pregnancy, you also have the right to give up your child for adoption.
Not without the father's consent I don't.

Should you decide not to give up your child for adoption, you have the right to take medical time off from your job.
Fathers get leave from the job too. It's not medical leave, it's not like they actually had any physical involvement with the whole pregnancy. You can't be serious if you think that this is some outrageous benefit women have here.

Anything else outside of the context of this discussion is...well...outside of the context of this discussion. I find it offensive and insulting to suggest i would be in favor of inequality of women in "other areas". In this area there is no inequality against women (at least in theory). In some other areas there might be. If you wish to discuss those areas, make a thread on it, that's not our topic here.
While you're talking about your theoretical world where women are actually treated as equals and have the absolute right to terminate unwanted pregnancies, I'm talking about the real world where we aren't.

We can keep going around and around all we want here, but you are ignoring my central tenant. Abortion creates for women the ver situation in which consent DOES become a pre-requisite to incurring the obligations of motherhood. No woman needs bring a child to term that she does not CONSENT TO BRING TO TERM.

No woman needs ever be a mother to a child that she does not CONSENT to being a mother to.

There is one tiny flaw in that arguement. Believe it or not, some women do think abortion is the same as murder. Whether you follow that belief or not doesn't matter. To those women, abortion is not an option. So where does that leave them?

Yes, parenthood can be terminated do to lack of consent....
No it cant.

For example, abortion. Is this entire topic not about abortion? Do you not know what abortion does to a fetus?
1. Conception
2. Fetus floating around
3. Abortion
4. No fetus
5. No child
6. No parenthood
Do you not know that parenthood obligations are obligations that arise in respect of a living child? Do you not know that no living child results if a pregnancy is terminated? Do you not know that a mother's failure to have an abortion even if she wanted one doesnt mitigate her obligation should she become the mother of a living child? Do you not know that the obligations of parenthood arise by virtue of the needs of the child and not by virtue of peoples consent to meet those needs?

"non-consent is not a get out of parenthood free card."
Non-consent leading to abortion or adoption is...
No it is not. Abortion isnt a get out of parenthood free card, it is an action that circumvents the circumstances that give rise to the obligation. Adoption is not a get out of parenthood free card, it is a means of discharging one's parental obligations.

"It is a mystery to me how you came by the erroneous belief that the legal obligations of parenthood only arise where they have been consented to."

They do... When people do not "consent" they usually do something.
That isnt relevent because the obligations arise as a result of the rights of a particular party (the child). Parental obligatons do not arise as a result of consent, but as a result of the rights the law grants to living children.

In this case, abort or put up for adoption. Without a child, one cannot be a parent.
So close yet so far. I have bolded the relevent aspect of your comments. The obligations arise due to the rights of the child, not due to anyone consenting to undertake the obligations.

Therefore lack of consent = lack of parenthood.
No it doesnt. To be true children's rights to be provided for would have to be premised on someone consenting to care for them. They are not, they are based on the law (and society's) recognition of the special dependent condition of children.
You have overlooked the intermediary steps and jumped to a conclusion.
No I have not. The rights involved are the rights of any adult to bodily autonomy and the rights of a child to be provided for by their parents. The two are seperate issues and the law is not obligated to ensure that every party does as well or as poorly out of these provisions as any other.

"Which is also irrelevent given that whether she consents or not, she incurs legal obligations to any and all of her living children."
If she does not consent, she can have an abortion.
That isnt a matter of not consenting since as you yourself pointed out where there is no child no obligations can arise to be consented (or not consented) to.

Again, no child = no legal obligations to non-existing children...
Right, which applies across the board and without regard to consent.

The fact that she has living children already is irrelevant to the fetus or abortion.. or the entire topic actually.
No kidding Sherlock. The relevent fact to parenthood obligations is not consent but parenthood.

"Except as you are either unaware or ignoring, consent is not a pre-requisite to incurring the obligations of parenthood"
It is in today's day and age.
No it is not. If a women is in a coma and gets raped and wakes up just when she is going into labour and the result is a live child, even though she did not consent she incurs parental obligations to the child.

One can again, abort a pregnancy, this generally comes around from lack of consent
No it doesnt. It comes around because it is a lawful option that someone chooses in a particular case to exercise. And that lawful option arises as a necessary implication of rights that apply to both males and females.

and terminates any obligation to parenthood.
No, abortion doesnt terminate non-existent obligations, how the frig can something that doesnt exist be terminated?

Parenthood obligations arise as the result of the rights of a living child. Where there is not a living child (as recognisable at law) there are no rights to terminate, should a living child exist it has rights whether or not anyone consented to those rights because the rights stem from the living child's status as a living child not from someone's act of consent. Parents are obligated until they legally discharge that obligation. This might take the form of adopting the child out or of contributing to their care until they reach 18 or until they die if they dont make it to 18. But the obligations arise with or without the consent because the cause of the obligation is not consent, but the rights of the child.

While you're talking about your theoretical world where women are actually treated as equals and have the absolute right to terminate unwanted pregnancies, I'm talking about the real world where we aren't.

And what, pray tell dear, has left you with the opinion that I think this is "ok"?

Was it the post where I said that I would only be in favor of this system if it applied to women as well?

Or was it when I said inequalities in abortion rights would have to be addressed before this type of system became practical?

Or was it when I said I would never in any way suggest any limitation be placed on the right to an abortion?

But that's ok, because, you know, why let facts get in the way? Why let the fact that nothing, NOTHING I have said could in ANY way shape or form be considered to want to take a woman's rights away. Let's just ignore that.

After all, I'm male, therefore I MUST be sexist.

Yup, I am the sexist one here....not you who makes sweeping generalizations about someone because of his gender without a single SHRED of evidence to back up your claim, and when in fact everything points to the contrary.

Nope, you're a woman, you couldn't possibly be just a TEENSY bit sexist yourself could you? Can't be, I'm a man, I MUST be sexist.

Excuse me if I take offense to the allegation, and excuse me if I respond that your claim that I am the sexist one here simply because I'm male, when in fact EVERYTHING I have said can ONLY be seen as the opposite of that, as being quite outragiously sexist itself.

Now what were you saying about some of us holding double standards?

If you want to label me as one of those evil sexist men who only cares when HE is inconvenienced and not when the female population is inconvenienced go ahead. If you bothered to take any time to read what i've said, you'd realize that's false. By even making that generalization without one single shred of basis to it, you're the sexist one here, not me.

There is one tiny flaw in that arguement. Believe it or not, some women do think abortion is the same as murder. Whether you follow that belief or not doesn't matter. To those women, abortion is not an option. So where does that leave them?

Their right to an abortion, their LEGAL option, exists whether they chose to take part in it or not. If they believe it, that's their right, however it is CERTAINLY an option, from a legal sense, just not one they can take part in.

Which is all that matters here. Not personal morality, LEGAL right. The woman who is convinced abortion is murder can STILL HAVE ONE, she has the legal CHOICE. That's all that matters.

And as to "where does that leave them?" Pregnant, I imagine.

I think it is totally irresponsible to have a baby when you aren't in a stable relationship or you can't afford to raise a child alone. A woman has two chances to avoid becoming a poor single mother after finding herself pregnant. She can get an abortion or she can give birth and then put the baby up for adoption. However, if she decides to make the stupid choice of keeping the child then she should have to deal that that decision herself. She shouldn't be able to drag down the guy involved. It just seems wrong to me. :(

Their right to an abortion, their LEGAL option, exists whether they chose to take part in it or not. If they believe it, that's their right, however it is CERTAINLY an option, from a legal sense, just not one they can take part in.

Which is all that matters here. Not personal morality, LEGAL right. The woman who is convinced abortion is murder can STILL HAVE ONE, she has the legal CHOICE. That's all that matters.

And as to "where does that leave them?" Pregnant, I imagine.

So basically, you're saying that if abortion is against a woman's religious or moral beliefs....oh well, sucks to be her?

By the way, I recognize that it was still the woman's choice to have sex (just as it was the man's). But based on the premise that sexual activity does not make a woman (or a man) responsible for the end product, then there should be a consession made for those that don't/won't/can't have an abortion. In the United States, we at least CLAIM to follow freedom of religion, right? So if it is against a woman's religion to have an abortion, shouldn't we honor that?

So basically, you're saying that if abortion is against a woman's religious or moral beliefs....oh well, sucks to be her?

By the way, I recognize that it was still the woman's choice to have sex (just as it was the man's). But based on the premise that sexual activity does not make a woman (or a man) responsible for the end product, then there should be a consession made for those that don't/won't/can't have an abortion. In the United States, we at least CLAIM to follow freedom of religion, right? So if it is against a woman's religion to have an abortion, shouldn't we honor that?

Have you heard of this thing called adoption? No? :confused:

I admit to practical considerations not discussed in the hypothetical that skew it. Obviously not every woman can get an abortion if she wants one.
My whole "point" is opinion, and as such is no more erroneous than yours. You can blather on about how my "opinion" is wrong, however you're going to be able to prove that once you are able to tell me how to differentiate a "real" right from an "imaginary" right, and what a real right looks like.
Sure, an imaginary right is a wish list in your head, a real right is enforcable at law.

Sure it can, in the method I've described.
No, what you've described is tasking the law with an unreasonable not reasonable purpose.

False analogy, the law can never fix someone's eyesight.
Nor can the law fix the fact that women carry and give birth to babies and no medical proceedure a man can undergo independently after conception is capable of ending an unwanted pregnancy.

The law can never render someone fit to drive a car.
The law can never render a man able to end an unwanted pregnancy by undergoing a medical termination proceedure anymore than it can fix things so that women can demand their co-partner rather than they either have the termination or carry the child to term.

The skills necessary to drive a car are not something the law has created.
The physical capacity to terminate an unwanted pregnancy without violating someone else's body isnt something the law created either, rather it is something the law is required (by itself) to keep it's nose out of, just as the law is required to not dictate to you whether or not you can have a pectoral enlargement proceedure.

The legal responsibilities of a parent to the child ARE something the law has created.
And nothing you have said indicates that the creation of the rights of the child (from which the obligations necessarily stem) is undesirable. All you've done is harped that women might have an opportunity that due to biology cannot be extended to men without directly violating the rights of others.
A women being able to have an abortion violates no one's rights, her refusing to have an abortion violates no one's rights. A person refusing to meet their obligations to a living child does violate someone's rights.

And the law can uncreate them just as easily.
But ought not do so without sufficient justification that properly accounts for the legal premise of the obligations - the legal rights of the child. Nothing you have said indicates to me any compelling case for suspending the rights of the child in this regard.

Equality under the law IS one of our basic premises and principals.
Sure it is, but that necessitates inequality in outcome. You either have to have unequal laws or unequal outcomes. We go for equal laws, that's why it's called 'equality before the law' rather than 'equality by the law'...:rolleyes:

I find this an inequaluity
I find the responsiblity of having to aim and not hit the toilet seat unequal to males, girls get to sit when they use the toilet....that's unequal, the law could require girls to stand when they pee thus ensuring that if there is inequality it only ever works against them.

Note that what you are demanding is that a situation in which no one's specific right under law is being compromised be ended in favour of a situation in which at least one person looses their specific rights at law...apparently your preferred target for this loss of rights is the most vulnerable and innocent of all those involved....pick on the weakest person with the least autonomy and capacity to avoid the consequences - apparently that passes for justice and equality in your book.....:rolleyes:

Adoption is an option, yes. But it is a proven fact that at least 50% of women who go to term with the intent of putting their baby up for adoption, don't. Women were meant to be mothers, it's in their chemical makeup. When she sees that baby, it is twice as hard for her to give it up as, say, an abortion would be (you don't have a living, breathing baby in front of you when you get an adotion, you can convince yourself that it is just an unwanted 'thing.')

Besides that, adoption agencies are already overflowing. More kids are put up for adoption then there are parents to take them.

*sigh* I'm not saying that a man should throw away his life because he got a girl pregnant. My only point is to those people who say "Oh, a women can just get an abortion, so what's the big deal?" Abotion causes physical and psycological damage to a woman. Adoption, well, that can cause some psycological damage too. Fact of the matter is, women were meant to have children, AND THEN KEEP THEM. Anything else runs contrary to a woman's nature.

They are options, and valid ones at that. Just don't act like they are easy. Both abortion and adoption are some of the most difficult things a woman will ever do.