Should men also have the "right to choose"

[cybrsage]

It being pre-coital would be a requirement because it is the only way to remove consent. You can not decide whether or not to consent to something that you have already done.

A lot like other things, if you do it then it is assumed you have consented to the natural consequences of it.

Do you apply this view to women as well? Women must state, to the man and before they have sex, that she intends to abort any pregancy or else she cannot do so after the fact?

 

[Agent11]

Ever see the movie junior? When men can carry the baby then they should get the right to choose.

The point is that it is their body.

 

[cybrsage]

Right, we already know you support sexual discrimination. You are simply confirming it for us.

 

[nehalem256]

It being pre-coital would be a requirement because it is the only way to remove consent. You can not decide whether or not to consent to something that you have already done.

A lot like other things, if you do it then it is assumed you have consented to the natural consequences of it.

So government enforced child support is a "natural" consequence of sex

Sure, I don't really care what we call it, it has the same moral implications. And it is not always so simple as a couple of pills.

How does removing a ball of cells from your body have moral implications? Does having a rotten tooth remove have moral consequences?

No, it is not identical. It takes away her agency. You can not force someone else to do something with their body they they do not want. No matter if that is take a couple of pills or carry a baby to term. No matter how you dress up the argument, this is the primary concern.
This argument does not hold for financial responsibility.

If a woman has sex and gets pregnant the "natural consequence" is that she bears it to term. Removing the means to artificially avoid that consequence is not taking away her choice. Especially since she agreed to the consequence when she choose to engage in sex.

To quote you "A lot like other things, if you do it then it is assumed you have consented to the natural consequences of it."

That would seem to apply here as well.

I can morally demand that someone pay for something they caused, even if they don't want to.

And do you think that men can just magic money up? Or do they have to work WITH THEIR BODY to get it?

 

[nehalem256]

Ever see the movie junior? When men can carry the baby then they should get the right to choose.

The point is that it is their body.

And when that happens women will be free to choose to pay child support for the children they impregnate men with :twisted:

 

[SMOGZINN]

So government enforced child support is a "natural" consequence of sex

No, conception is the natural consequence of sex, government enforced child support is the societal answer to children needing adults to support them.

How does removing a ball of cells from your body have moral implications? Does having a rotten tooth remove have moral consequences?

No, no. Forcing someone to remove a ball of cells, or a rotten tooth, has moral implications.
I'm addressing why we can't force women to have abortions because men don't want children.

If a woman has sex and gets pregnant the "natural consequence" is that she bears it to term.

No, getting pregnant is the natural consequence, caring it to term or not is a choice.

Removing the means to artificially avoid that consequence is not taking away her choice. Especially since she agreed to the consequence when she choose to engage in sex.

How can taking away a choice not be taking away a choice? You worded it carefully to avoid saying that, but that is what you said means. It is a silly argument, if you take away the means for her to make a choice, you have taken away her choice.

To quote you "A lot like other things, if you do it then it is assumed you have consented to the natural consequences of it." That would seem to apply here as well.
And do you think that men can just magic money up? Or do they have to work WITH THEIR BODY to get it?

You can not force someone else to preform a medical procedure take several pills they don't want.

You can not abandon your responsibility to a child you brought into this world.

Nothing you have said gets around these two truths. You can throw a tantrum about the fact that women get more chances to make choices then men, but it does not matter. These two things hold. You are doing nothing more the crying about life being not fair. We already know that.

 

[actuarial]

No it is a result of sexist government laws. By nature a man is completely free to leave a woman after screwing her.

He's still free to do so.

What if the condom breaks?

What if the woman either intentionally, or shall we say semi-intentionally "forgets", to take the pill?

And of course at the end of the day the woman can take a couple of pills and *poof* the pregnancy is just a memory.

What is the man either intentionally, or shall we say semi-intentionally "forgets", to use spermicide?

If the man could take a couple of pills to remove a pregnancy I would support his right to do so. I would also think in that situation, if he chose not to, that the woman would still be responsible for the child if born.

You keep conflating responsibility to a child with responsibility to the mother. A man cannot opt out of responsibility to the child because the child cannot accept that waiver.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

and a man cannot think deeply about the moral implications for the rest of his life one way or the other to participate or not participate in the childs life?

how many women think about it when their v-v is getting turgid and wet? how many make an effort to understand their partners views before making the plunge?

Dear God are you a nauseating human being. I guess the good news, from your perspective, is that this is a strictly theoretical discussion because there's no way anyone but a hooker would ever have sex with you, and I'm told they are fastidious about condom usage.

 

[nehalem256]

What is the man either intentionally, or shall we say semi-intentionally "forgets", to use spermicide?

You might want to look at the Julian Assange "rape" case to learn what happens.

EDIT: Worse case scenario the woman swallows a couple of pills and has maybe an unpleasant night or 2.

 

[actuarial]

You might want to look at the Julian Assange "rape" case to learn what happens.

EDIT: Worse case scenario the woman swallows a couple of pills and has maybe an unpleasant night or 2.

The Assange rape case had nothing to do with spermicide. And I'll be the first to support equal laws in terms of men and women lbeing dishonest about the type of contraception used.

To your edit:
Ah yes, once again glossing over abortion like it is a minor inconvenience.

I know you like to rail against arguments made by 'liberals', but it's 'conservatives' who are going to disagree with you here.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You might want to look at the Julian Assange "rape" case to learn what happens.

EDIT: Worse case scenario the woman swallows a couple of pills and has maybe an unpleasant night or 2.

The morning after pill is by no means 100% effective (I speak from experience on this, unfortunately).

 

[actuarial]

I'll repeat the meat of my argument since you chose to ignore it:

You keep conflating responsibility to a child with responsibility to the mother. A man cannot opt out of responsibility to the child because the child cannot accept that waiver.

 

[nehalem256]

No, conception is the natural consequence of sex, government enforced child support is the societal answer to children needing adults to support them.

And carrying a child to term is the natural consequence of conception (baring a miscarriage). An abortion is an ARTIFICIAL means of avoiding the natural consequences.

Government enforced child support is the way of allowing women to be "independent" from men while still have access to their money to support their reproductive choices.

No, no. Forcing someone to remove a ball of cells, or a rotten tooth, has moral implications.
I'm addressing why we can't force women to have abortions because men don't want children.

EDIT: Cutting your nails does not have moral implications. Removing a fetus is no different. Just some cells you no longer want.

And if you are arguing otherwise you are making anti-choice arguments that in now way bolster your case for women having legal abortions

No, getting pregnant is the natural consequence, caring it to term or not is a choice.

An artificial choice to avoid the natural consequences of the action.

How can taking away a choice not be taking away a choice? You worded it carefully to avoid saying that, but that is what you said means. It is a silly argument, if you take away the means for her to make a choice, you have taken away her choice.

Yes I agree I explained badly here. What I mean is that the choice was made when she agree to let the guy cum inside her. Or as you put it

A lot like other things, if you do it then it is assumed you have consented to the natural consequences of it.

You can not abandon your responsibility to a child you brought into this world.

What do you mean?

Women are currently allowed to do so.

And you argued that men should as well so long as they had consent from the woman before sex took place.

 

[nehalem256]

You keep conflating responsibility to a child with responsibility to the mother. A man cannot opt out of responsibility to the child because the child cannot accept that waiver.

Parents sign waivers on behalf of their children all the time.

And as I pointed out before when men donate sperm they are not responsible for any children that result. So clearly their is no inherent responsibility to a child based on blood. Why should a man have any more responsibility if a child results from a one night stand?

The morning after pill is by no means 100% effective (I speak from experience on this, unfortunately).

Its called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RU486

 

[nehalem256]

The Assange rape case had nothing to do with spermicide. And I'll be the first to support equal laws in terms of men and women lbeing dishonest about the type of contraception used.

It was a condom instead.

To your edit:
Ah yes, once again glossing over abortion like it is a minor inconvenience.

This is what liberals having been saying for 40 years. Having an abortion is no different than getting a rotten tooth pulled. Not exactly the most pleasant experience, but not exactly some horrible life changing experience either.

In fact if you use the RU-486 abortion pill it is probably less unpleasant than having a tooth extracted.

I know you like to rail against arguments made by 'liberals', but it's 'conservatives' who are going to disagree with you here.

But you support legal abortion. So I will use arguments against the pro-choice position when conversing with you.

And 'conservatives' are consistent. They are for forced responsibility for everyone.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lets see if I understand your point:

You lied before when you said you equally apply your views to both men and women. You instead say that a woman can decide to not be a parent at will due to her being a woman but a man cannot because he is a man. You also claim that holding this obviously sexually discriminatory view does not mean you are sexually discriminating against men.

Did I get it right? If not, what parts are wrong?

There is no lie in holding the sexes to equal responsibility wrt to contraception.

I don't discriminate against men- biology endows men & women with different roles & responsibilities.

 

[HeXen]

If Men had such an option, i bet many of us wouldn't be here to discuss this right now.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nehalem is clearly arguing out of both sides of his mouth. If he wants her to abort, she should. If he wants her to carry the baby to term, she should.

It's his definition of equality...

 

[SMOGZINN]

And carrying a child to term is the natural consequence of conception (baring a miscarriage). An abortion is an ARTIFICIAL means of avoiding the natural consequences.

Yes. This does not change anything.

Government enforced child support is the way of allowing women to be "independent" from men while still have access to their money to support their reproductive choices.

Child support has nothing to do with women's independence, or even women at all. Women pay child support to men who have custody of children as well. Child support is about supporting children.

EDIT: Cutting your nails does not have moral implications. Removing a fetus is no different. Just some cells you no longer want.

No, FORCING someone to cut their nails or remove a mass of cells has moral implications. There is no moral implication of removing the cells themselves, only taking away someone else's choice to do so or not.

An artificial choice to avoid the natural consequences of the action.

I'm not sure that the natural or artificial designation makes any difference here. It is still a choice available to her, one our courts say can not be taken away.
If you get the courts to agree that no woman can make that choice (which I would believe is ethically wrong) then we have a different set of circumstances. But under no conditions can you tell her that there is a choice, but someone else gets to make it.

Yes I agree I explained badly here. What I mean is that the choice was made when she agree to let the guy cum inside her. Or as you put it

A choice was made. But she has other choices that she can make after the fact, due to the fact that it is her body.

What do you mean?

Women are currently allowed to do so.

And you argued that men should as well so long as they had consent from the woman before sex took place.

The current ruling is that society benefits from allowing parents to transfer the responsibility to another person. Having thought about this argument a bit, I think that as long as that transfer of responsibility is consensual it is indeed ethical, mainly because I think it is in the best interest of society.

As for the ability to nonconsensually abandon the responsibility, it is clearly wrong. It is done to attempt to prevent infanticide, which society deems a greater wrong. In a perfect world when neither parent is willing to care for a child directly both would be required to pay child support until someone else is found that is willing to take on that responsibility or the child hits the age of majority. Unfortunately, in a real world, under those conditions, a good number of people would kill the child instead.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is what liberals having been saying for 40 years. Having an abortion is no different than getting a rotten tooth pulled. Not exactly the most pleasant experience, but not exactly some horrible life changing experience either.

Standard false attribution. No surprises in that. If Nehalem didn't have his strawmen to argue against, he wouldn't have an argument.

The few women I've known who contemplated or had abortions did a great deal of soul searching in reaching a decision.

 

[nehalem256]

There is no lie in holding the sexes to equal responsibility wrt to contraception.

I don't discriminate against men- biology endows men & women with different roles & responsibilities.

Biology endows men with no responsibilities. From a biological perspective randomly screwing as many women as possible is perfectly valid reproductive strategy.

Nehalem is clearly arguing out of both sides of his mouth. If he wants her to abort, she should. If he wants her to carry the baby to term, she should.

It's his definition of equality...

Please feel free to point where I said a man should be able to force a woman to carry his child... *cricket*

 

[nehalem256]

Child support has nothing to do with women's independence, or even women at all. Women pay child support to men who have custody of children as well.[/b Child support is about supporting children.

A woman cannot be forced to pay child support for child she did not choose to have. The problem is not with a child support but in taking away someone's choice not to be a parent

No, FORCING someone to cut their nails or remove a mass of cells has moral implications. There is no moral implication of removing the cells themselves, only taking away someone else's choice to do so or not.

Please explain where in the OP you see any suggestion of women being forced to have an abortion?

I'm not sure that the natural or artificial designation makes any difference here. It is still a choice available to her, one our courts say can not be taken away.
If you get the courts to agree that no woman can make that choice (which I would believe is ethically wrong) then we have a different set of circumstances. But under no conditions can you tell her that there is a choice, but someone else gets to make it.

Again, everyone here knows what the court has said. You do not need to keep repeating it. You were the one arguing for people bearing the natural consequences of their actions. The natural consequence of conception in a woman is to carry a child to term (baring miscarriage).

The current ruling is that society benefits from allowing parents to transfer the responsibility to another person. Having thought about this argument a bit, I think that as long as that transfer of responsibility is consensual it is indeed ethical, mainly because I think it is in the best interest of society.

So much for the child support being about the child huh if the parents can just choose to consensually eliminate it. You are agreeing that there are at the very least situations where the man does not owe child support to the child the woman chooses to bear. Now we are only arguing what those situations.

So the question is does a one-night-stand/friends-with-benefits etc relationship imply that the man will help raise any child resulting. I would say that the understanding that such an arrangement is not about having children and
instead about pure carnal pleasure. And therefore their is no more expectation of support than from a sperm donor.

As for the ability to nonconsensually abandon the responsibility, it is clearly wrong. It is done to attempt to prevent infanticide, which society deems a greater wrong. In a perfect world when neither parent is willing to care for a child directly both would be required to pay child support until someone else is found that is willing to take on that responsibility or the child hits the age of majority. Unfortunately, in a real world, under those conditions, a good number of people would kill the child instead.

So expecting women not to murder their children is too much. But expecting men to provide child support for 18 years is fine?

I guess if men want to get out of supporting their children they should just start committing infanticide until they get their way.

 

[nehalem256]

Standard false attribution. No surprises in that. If Nehalem didn't have his strawmen to argue against, he wouldn't have an argument.

The few women I've known who contemplated or had abortions did a great deal of soul searching in reaching a decision.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml

The main argument of the anti-choice movement boils down to this: a human zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is a human being with a right to life, and abortion is therefore murder and should be illegal. This assumption is deeply flawed.

Please. My statement can be proven from looking at any pro-choice website.

A fetus is not a person, but just a ball of cells.

 

[Jhhnn]

Biology endows men with no responsibilities. From a biological perspective randomly screwing as many women as possible is perfectly valid reproductive strategy.

Only in the context that the ROTW will care for his offspring.

Please feel free to point where I said a man should be able to force a woman to carry his child... *cricket*

Right here, post #399-

If the fetus is part his then the woman has no right to destroy HIS fetus without his consent. When the woman let the man squirt inside her she implicitly agreed to support said fetus until it was born. This is identical to the argument you make for the man implicitly agreeing to support the child. IDENTICAL. If a woman wants to abort she should simply get a pre-coital agreement to abort the child.

 

[actuarial]

IThis is what liberals having been saying for 40 years. Having an abortion is no different than getting a rotten tooth pulled. Not exactly the most pleasant experience, but not exactly some horrible life changing experience either.

In fact if you use the RU-486 abortion pill it is probably less unpleasant than having a tooth extracted.

Well I guess clearly I'm not a liberal then.

But you support legal abortion. So I will use arguments against the pro-choice position when conversing with you.

And 'conservatives' are consistent. They are for forced responsibility for everyone.

That's nice, but if you're using arguments that aren't consistent with my own position on abortion, then it's kind of pointless. I do not believe abortion is nothing. I believe it is morally wrong.