|
On September 18 2011 20:27 Lord_J wrote:
I think it's a spurious argument.
Roe v. Wade was based on the Supreme Court's conception of a right to personal privacy -- the question of whether the act of sexual intercourse amounted to "consent" to raise or support a child was not discussed in the opinion. Furthermore, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is not a blanket prohibition against the law treating men and women differently; rather, laws which make gender-based classifications are subject to "intermediate scrutiny." Where--as here--men and women are differently-situated because of their widely differing biological roles in reproduction, a legal distinction based on gender is unlikely to be an abridgement of equal protection under the law.
Moreover, it's not clear to me that the law even does discriminate between genders in the alleged regard. A woman is no more permitted to leave a child she has in the father's care and then walk away, refusing to provide any financial support that might be required for the child's well-being than a man is to do likewise. It seems to me that the law treats men and women quite equally in that regard. Of course, women are less likely to find themselves in that position where they can simply opt to have an abortion if they do not want the child. It's true that men don't have that option -- however, it's not because the law has taken it away from them; rather, biology has. And, all things considered, I think we should be grateful for that. I don't know many men that would prefer that they were the ones who could become impregnated. To the extent that it has its downsides as well, I'd say men are still getting the better of the deal.
I just did a quick search through this thread and this is the only on where the term "privacy" comes up. Seems like a lot of people are missing something about why abortion is legal in the first place.
Anyway, this post more or less gets it right.
|
Problem is men in their 20s and 30s are now still developmentally stuck in their teens, people like you need to grow up and man up
There was no "child support" in any of the most productive civilizations in history. You will probably say these men were also "developmentally stuck in their teens".
Also, I have offered rationales, the problem is you are sexist and want to put men in a higher place than women with this crazy talk.
Accusations of "sexism" in response to rational arguments should be worn as a badge of intellectual honesty.
|
On September 19 2011 01:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +If the woman was responsible she wouldn't have gotten pregnant outside marriage in the first place. There is nothing stopping her from getting an abortion if she doesn't want the child, either. This putting all responsibility on the woman theme is disgusting.
I agree with that.
On September 19 2011 01:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +You can keep saying it's stupid but you aren't offering any rationale as to why it is so. Why can the vagina terminate the child during pregnancy but not the dick? It goes both ways, woman don' t JUST try and get pregnant to stick a man to child support, there are many cases where a man wants the child but the woman decides to terminate. There is no reason the entire decision to have a baby or not should be held with the woman. Please enlighten me why it should be this way. Because the baby is inside her body? Also, I have offered rationales, the problem is you are sexist and want to put men in a higher place than women with this crazy talk.
... but now you're just attacking the wrong person. When the hell did crms do that?
On September 19 2011 01:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Also for your second point about pregnancy.. i dont even know if you've read the thread. During pregnancy would be the time the man would be able to opt-out, a male abortion if you will. I did the read the read, the entire idea is dumb. "Oh well it'd be during the pregnancy" irrelevant. Problem is men in their 20s and 30s are now still developmentally stuck in their teens, people like you need to grow up and man up.
... and no, your ad hominem isn't helping you look any smarter/better.
|
On September 19 2011 01:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 20:27 Lord_J wrote:
I think it's a spurious argument.
Roe v. Wade was based on the Supreme Court's conception of a right to personal privacy -- the question of whether the act of sexual intercourse amounted to "consent" to raise or support a child was not discussed in the opinion. Furthermore, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is not a blanket prohibition against the law treating men and women differently; rather, laws which make gender-based classifications are subject to "intermediate scrutiny." Where--as here--men and women are differently-situated because of their widely differing biological roles in reproduction, a legal distinction based on gender is unlikely to be an abridgement of equal protection under the law.
Moreover, it's not clear to me that the law even does discriminate between genders in the alleged regard. A woman is no more permitted to leave a child she has in the father's care and then walk away, refusing to provide any financial support that might be required for the child's well-being than a man is to do likewise. It seems to me that the law treats men and women quite equally in that regard. Of course, women are less likely to find themselves in that position where they can simply opt to have an abortion if they do not want the child. It's true that men don't have that option -- however, it's not because the law has taken it away from them; rather, biology has. And, all things considered, I think we should be grateful for that. I don't know many men that would prefer that they were the ones who could become impregnated. To the extent that it has its downsides as well, I'd say men are still getting the better of the deal. I just did a quick search through this thread and this is the only on where the term "privacy" comes up. Seems like a lot of people are missing something about why abortion is legal in the first place. Anyway, this post more or less gets it right.
The post claims that "men are getting the better of the deal." I'd liken this argument to saying that in the dark ages, women got the better end of the deal because they didn't have to fight and die in battles.
The rationale behind the idea of financially aborting is one of agency, rights matching with responsibilities, etc. The notion that men, because of their gender, must "man up" and support any child born of their genetic material is just as sexist as the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because they should just be responsible for themselves. The laws, policies and genetics surrounding children and birth in general need to work in unison, and I would argue, in the interests of relative equality in rights and responsibilities. It's demonstrably true that women, due to their (in my opinion undeniable) right to abortion and also (something most people forget) the right of possession (that is, they have unilateral decision making post-birth with some effort) are able to opt out at the pre-birth stage and immediately post-birth. This is part of genetics, and part of the fact that we don't live in police states, and it isn't going away, nor should it. One gender is always going to have rights functionally similar to that of financially aborting in a free, democratic society. The best and only solution is to extend similar rights to both genders.
|
i believe that women should be responsible of raising the kid with their own funds if the man does not want to have the a child
|
There was no "child support" in any of the most productive civilizations in history. You will probably say these men were also "developmentally stuck in their teens".
The most productive civilization in history is this one, we have child support. The most productive civilizations in history are all in existence right now, they have child support.
So... what are you talking about? This is sad.
... but now you're just attacking the wrong person. When the hell did crms do that?
Anyone in this thread advocating the position that men have no responsibility towards a baby if they didn't want to have one is attempting to place obligations solely on women by taking them away from men.
... and no, your ad hominem isn't helping you look any smarter/better.
And the repeated ad hominems against women in this thread mean the men making them are sexists, and calling them sexist is not ad hominem.
It would be an ad hominem to call you disgusting. Which I won't, but I will say your ideas are. Extremely.
The rationale behind the idea of financially aborting is one of agency, rights matching with responsibilities, etc.
Ahahahaha no. It is a rationale of rationalizing the abandonment of responsibilities in favor of spurious "rights."
The notion that men, because of their gender, must "man up" and support any child born of their genetic material is just as sexist as the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because they should just be responsible for themselves.
Ahahaha no. The idea that men must support children they sire is based on simple personal responsibility. You make it, you're responsible for it.
The laws, policies and genetics surrounding children and birth in general need to work in unison, and I would argue, in the interests of relative equality in rights and responsibilities. It's demonstrably true that women, due to their (in my opinion undeniable) right to abortion and also (something most people forget) the right of possession (that is, they have unilateral decision making post-birth with some effort)
Ummm no they don't have right of possession. They have the presumption of a very strong privilege that can be and is taken away from them if they do not uphold their responsibilities in a reasonable fashion.
Are you just pulling this out of your ass or what?
are able to opt out at the pre-birth stage and immediately post-birth. This is part of genetics, and part of the fact that we don't live in police states, and it isn't going away, nor should it. One gender is always going to have rights functionally similar to that of financially aborting in a free, democratic society. The best and only solution is to extend similar rights to both genders.
How juvenile. Perfect display of the "fuck you I'm all for me" mentality so prevalent among today's young people. Not responsible for anything, no obligations whatsoever, no consequences that are fair so there should be no consequences. There's nothing about equality of genders here.
Women can abort a baby, relieving both parents of the time and financial obligations to the child, so men should be able to able to relieve themselves of the obligation and place it all on the woman. That is what is being presented as equality here. One way no one has responsibility, the other way one side has 100%. That's "equal" and "fair" to people like Spider. Makes you wonder if he knows what those words mean.
|
On September 19 2011 01:49 Sina92 wrote:
i believe that women should be responsible of raising the kid with their own funds if the man does not want to have the a child
How would you enforce such a policy then? A signed contract months before the child is even born?
What if the father changes his mind, can you nullify the contract? What if he changes his mind AGAIN after the child is born, can you then nullify the nullified contract?
Personally I cringe at the thought of getting a girl pregnant, and then being forced into paying child support for a child I'm not financially stable to provide for yet, or in an effort to save child support, forced into a relationship with a woman I don't want to be in a relationship with anymore. I wish there was an option like this, where I could get an "abortion" and sign a contract so I don't have to pay child support.
But I don't think it's a valid option.
|
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +... but now you're just attacking the wrong person. When the hell did crms do that? Anyone in this thread advocating the position that men have no responsibility towards a baby if they didn't want to have one is attempting to place obligations solely on women by taking them away from men.
Oh? Let me point out that quite a few people have said that men should only be let off the hook if they took precautions against having the baby beforehand and yet it still happened. If women make a mistake they can get an abortion. But if men make a mistake they're saddled with it for life? Hmm... sounds fair.
We're not trying to "place obligations solely on women by taking them away from men", we're pointing out that women have a way to dodge the obligations, so why shouldn't men?
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:And the repeated ad hominems against women in this thread mean the men making them are sexists, and calling them sexist is not ad hominem. It would be an ad hominem to call you disgusting. Which I won't, but I will say your ideas are. Extremely.
*shrug* I'll just quote SharkSpider at you because I think he's said it already:
On September 19 2011 01:48 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 01:37 xDaunt wrote:On September 18 2011 20:27 Lord_J wrote:
I think it's a spurious argument.
Roe v. Wade was based on the Supreme Court's conception of a right to personal privacy -- the question of whether the act of sexual intercourse amounted to "consent" to raise or support a child was not discussed in the opinion. Furthermore, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is not a blanket prohibition against the law treating men and women differently; rather, laws which make gender-based classifications are subject to "intermediate scrutiny." Where--as here--men and women are differently-situated because of their widely differing biological roles in reproduction, a legal distinction based on gender is unlikely to be an abridgement of equal protection under the law.
Moreover, it's not clear to me that the law even does discriminate between genders in the alleged regard. A woman is no more permitted to leave a child she has in the father's care and then walk away, refusing to provide any financial support that might be required for the child's well-being than a man is to do likewise. It seems to me that the law treats men and women quite equally in that regard. Of course, women are less likely to find themselves in that position where they can simply opt to have an abortion if they do not want the child. It's true that men don't have that option -- however, it's not because the law has taken it away from them; rather, biology has. And, all things considered, I think we should be grateful for that. I don't know many men that would prefer that they were the ones who could become impregnated. To the extent that it has its downsides as well, I'd say men are still getting the better of the deal. I just did a quick search through this thread and this is the only on where the term "privacy" comes up. Seems like a lot of people are missing something about why abortion is legal in the first place. Anyway, this post more or less gets it right. The post claims that "men are getting the better of the deal." I'd liken this argument to saying that in the dark ages, women got the better end of the deal because they didn't have to fight and die in battles. The rationale behind the idea of financially aborting is one of agency, rights matching with responsibilities, etc. The notion that men, because of their gender, must "man up" and support any child born of their genetic material is just as sexist as the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because they should just be responsible for themselves. The laws, policies and genetics surrounding children and birth in general need to work in unison, and I would argue, in the interests of relative equality in rights and responsibilities. It's demonstrably true that women, due to their (in my opinion undeniable) right to abortion and also (something most people forget) the right of possession (that is, they have unilateral decision making post-birth with some effort) are able to opt out at the pre-birth stage and immediately post-birth. This is part of genetics, and part of the fact that we don't live in police states, and it isn't going away, nor should it. One gender is always going to have rights functionally similar to that of financially aborting in a free, democratic society. The best and only solution is to extend similar rights to both genders.
edit: I see you edited your post to address the sharkspider post I quoted too.
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote + The notion that men, because of their gender, must "man up" and support any child born of their genetic material is just as sexist as the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because they should just be responsible for themselves. Ahahaha no. The idea that men must support children they sire is based on simple personal responsibility. You make it, you're responsible for it.
Why don't you clarify your stand - you seem to show a lot of disdain for your strawman "irresponsible young people". So what exactly is your position? That men shouldn't be allowed to ditch their financial obligations AND women shouldn't be allowed to abort either?
|
It's not unfair... There are ways to prevent the birth of a child. And if someone you have one by accident (however that happens) both parties should feel they owe their fair share (e.g. 50% each) of child support.
|
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote + The notion that men, because of their gender, must "man up" and support any child born of their genetic material is just as sexist as the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because they should just be responsible for themselves. Ahahaha no. The idea that men must support children they sire is based on simple personal responsibility. You make it, you're responsible for it.
I would agree with your position, except that "making it" is a very ambiguous term. People can be forced to make children without their knowledge or against their will. You need to get off your high horse and remember that financial abortions would only ever affect the situation where a woman gets pregnent and wishes to carry the baby to term and raise it against the wishes of the biological father, and have him pay the bill for it. If the mother consented to adoption then it would not be affected. Applying your logic to other situations leads to things like banning adoption.
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +The laws, policies and genetics surrounding children and birth in general need to work in unison, and I would argue, in the interests of relative equality in rights and responsibilities. It's demonstrably true that women, due to their (in my opinion undeniable) right to abortion and also (something most people forget) the right of possession (that is, they have unilateral decision making post-birth with some effort) Ummm no they don't have right of possession. They have the presumption of a very strong privilege that can be and is taken away from them if they do not uphold their responsibilities in a reasonable fashion.
Right of possession means you hold something. If your friend loans you his car, you have possession.
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +are able to opt out at the pre-birth stage and immediately post-birth. This is part of genetics, and part of the fact that we don't live in police states, and it isn't going away, nor should it. One gender is always going to have rights functionally similar to that of financially aborting in a free, democratic society. The best and only solution is to extend similar rights to both genders. How juvenile. Perfect display of the "fuck you I'm all for me" mentality so prevalent among today's young people. Not responsible for anything, no obligations whatsoever, no consequences that are fair so there should be no consequences. There's nothing about equality of genders here.
You're calling me juvenile, but I'm not the one losing my cool and throwing out ad hominems like candy. I'm civil enough to respond without insulting you, maybe you could do the same?
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Women can abort a baby, relieving both parents of the time and financial obligations to the child, so men should be able to able to relieve themselves of the obligation and place it all on the woman. That is what is being presented as equality here. One way no one has responsibility, the other way one side has 100%. That's "equal" and "fair" to people like Spider. Makes you wonder if he knows what those words mean.
You're misrepresenting the premises and conclusions of my argument. I'll make it simple so we don't get that kind of conclusion. My premise is that due to factors I've discussed in depth, women are able to opt out of parenthood at two key times: immediately post conception, and immediately following birth. These are rights I would not see taken away, because doing so denies basic freedoms. I would argue that these same rights should be extended to both genders, then, in a way that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If you accept gender equality, that leads to the conclusion that the current laws are ineffective.
Currently, you have four situations:
1. Mother and father want baby. Result: Baby, yay.
2. Father wants baby, mother does not. Result: Father either signs adoption papers and relieves mother of obligations, or she can abort or abandon the child at birth, neither of which the father has any ability to stop.
3. Mother wants baby, father does not. Result: Baby's born, father pays child support.
4. Neither parent want a baby: Result: Abortion or adoption.
With financial abortions, 2 and 3 would be changed to have the same result in that either an abortion occurs, or one parent has custody and responsibilities.
The only questionable part of this argument is 2, where I claim that if a baby is born, the mother can abandon it without the consent of the father. Technically this isn't supposed to happen. The baby is born, the mother names the father, he has a few weeks to come and take on his parental rights. If he isn't named, he gets an ad in the classifieds that he has to find. If he isn't named and if the mother gave bith without carrying personal identification, she's allowed to leave and it's a done deal. These protections are in place because of human rights legislation and policy. Obviously it's morally questionable and most women wouldn't go to such lengths, but sometimes reality needs to be factored in to these kinds of things. Even if this doesn't occur, the implicit threat that a mother might relocate with a man's child is more than enough to make signing pre-birth adoption papers (relieving the mother of child support) an attractive option. Whether or not you see them as such, these things are all basic rights, and refer to the right of "possession" that I discussed in less depth, earlier.
|
On September 19 2011 02:30 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote: The notion that men, because of their gender, must "man up" and support any child born of their genetic material is just as sexist as the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because they should just be responsible for themselves. Ahahaha no. The idea that men must support children they sire is based on simple personal responsibility. You make it, you're responsible for it. I would agree with your position, except that "making it" is a very ambiguous term. People can be forced to make children without their knowledge or against their will. You need to get off your high horse and remember that financial abortions would only ever affect the situation where a woman gets pregnent and wishes to carry the baby to term and raise it against the wishes of the biological father, and have him pay the bill for it. If the mother consented to adoption then it would not be affected. Applying your logic to other situations leads to things like banning adoption.
I'm not sure whether that's what he wants or not though, so I'm asking for clarification.
On September 19 2011 02:30 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Women can abort a baby, relieving both parents of the time and financial obligations to the child, so men should be able to able to relieve themselves of the obligation and place it all on the woman. That is what is being presented as equality here. One way no one has responsibility, the other way one side has 100%. That's "equal" and "fair" to people like Spider. Makes you wonder if he knows what those words mean. You're misrepresenting the premises and conclusions of my argument. I'll make it simple so we don't get that kind of conclusion. My premise is that due to factors I've discussed in depth, women are able to opt out of parenthood at two key times: immediately post conception, and immediately following birth. These are rights I would not see taken away, because doing so denies basic freedoms. I would argue that these same rights should be extended to both genders, then, in a way that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If you accept gender equality, that leads to the conclusion that the current laws are ineffective. Currently, you have four situations: 1. Mother and father want baby. Result: Baby, yay. 2. Father wants baby, mother does not. Result: Father either signs adoption papers and relieves mother of obligations, or she can abort or abandon the child at birth, neither of which the father has any ability to stop. 3. Mother wants baby, father does not. Result: Baby's born, father pays child support. 4. Neither parent want a baby: Result: Abortion or adoption. With financial abortions, 2 and 3 would be changed to have the same result in that either an abortion occurs, or one parent has custody and responsibilities. The only questionable part of this argument is 2, where I claim that if a baby is born, the mother can abandon it without the consent of the father. Technically this isn't supposed to happen. The baby is born, the mother names the father, he has a few weeks to come and take on his parental rights. If he isn't named, he gets an ad in the classifieds that he has to find. If he isn't named and if the mother gave bith without carrying personal identification, she's allowed to leave and it's a done deal. These protections are in place because of human rights legislation and policy. Obviously it's morally questionable and most women wouldn't go to such lengths, but sometimes reality needs to be factored in to these kinds of things. Even if this doesn't occur, the implicit threat that a mother might relocate with a man's child is more than enough to make signing pre-birth adoption papers (relieving the mother of child support) an attractive option. Whether or not you see them as such, these things are all basic rights, and refer to the right of "possession" that I discussed in less depth, earlier.
Nicely summed up.
|
How about this:
What if before I have sex with a woman she and I both sign a contract that states IF a pregnancy occurs I, the father, will have no legal obligations to the woman or the child.
Should I still be on the hook for child support if she gets pregnant and if she decides to have the child if we've signed this contract?
|
On September 18 2011 20:01 ChinaLifeXXL wrote:
Seems fair. Just be careful with ya spermies, bro. Double bag it if you're paranoid, imo.
Don't be so sure here. Many studies indicate that the latex on latex friction would lead to an increase in breakage possibilities!
|
On September 19 2011 02:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
How about this:
What if before I have sex with a woman she and I both sign a contract that states IF a pregnancy occurs I, the father, will have no legal obligations to the woman or the child.
Should I still be on the hook for child support if she gets pregnant and if she decides to have the child if we've signed this contract?
The law does not recognize such contracts in either the US or Canada. Just like you can't contract someone to have an abortion or adopt their child to you (pre-birth adoption is voidable by the birth mother)
|
On September 19 2011 02:55 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
How about this:
What if before I have sex with a woman she and I both sign a contract that states IF a pregnancy occurs I, the father, will have no legal obligations to the woman or the child.
Should I still be on the hook for child support if she gets pregnant and if she decides to have the child if we've signed this contract? The law does not recognize such contracts in either the US or Canada. Just like you can't contract someone to have an abortion or adopt their child to you (pre-birth adoption is voidable by the birth mother)
Obviously the relevant question is should the law recognize such a contract.
|
My thoughts is: Never have unprotected sex with a girl you don't trust enough to be certain she actually takes the pill / will get an abortion if something happens
+ Show Spoiler +
|
It's your own fault if you knock her up.
|
On September 19 2011 02:58 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:55 SharkSpider wrote:On September 19 2011 02:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
How about this:
What if before I have sex with a woman she and I both sign a contract that states IF a pregnancy occurs I, the father, will have no legal obligations to the woman or the child.
Should I still be on the hook for child support if she gets pregnant and if she decides to have the child if we've signed this contract? The law does not recognize such contracts in either the US or Canada. Just like you can't contract someone to have an abortion or adopt their child to you (pre-birth adoption is voidable by the birth mother) Obviously the relevant question is should the law recognize such a contract.
Any need for such a dramatic change to contract laws would be erased if financial abortions existed, so I don't think the question is all that relevant.
|
On September 19 2011 03:17 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:58 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On September 19 2011 02:55 SharkSpider wrote:On September 19 2011 02:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
How about this:
What if before I have sex with a woman she and I both sign a contract that states IF a pregnancy occurs I, the father, will have no legal obligations to the woman or the child.
Should I still be on the hook for child support if she gets pregnant and if she decides to have the child if we've signed this contract? The law does not recognize such contracts in either the US or Canada. Just like you can't contract someone to have an abortion or adopt their child to you (pre-birth adoption is voidable by the birth mother) Obviously the relevant question is should the law recognize such a contract. Any need for such a dramatic change to contract laws would be erased if financial abortions existed, so I don't think the question is all that relevant.
Obviously the relevant question is should financial abortions exist even if that entails a change to contract law.
|
I am inclined to basically ignore SharkSpider's wall of text. I really do not see what there is to talk about so much. My argumentation would simply be, the child itself has a need for child support, and both parents are responsible.
The child had nothing to do with whatever contracts and decisions are done before its birth. Adoption works regarding child support, because there is someone taking over the responsibility of the parents. About woman's right to decide what to do with her own body and abortion, for me I see no need to argue, because it is only done the first few months of pregnancy, where the embryo does not yet really have a brain (or whatever makes one human) and is not yet a person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
