Should men also have the "right to choose"

[cybrsage]

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

Then you agree both sexes should have the same right to decide to not be a parent?

 

[cybrsage]

Very few of you have commented on this. Would you support this set of rules? If no, why not?

1. Woman and man both want baby - no abortion, both support baby.
2. Woman does not want baby, man does - abortion, no support.
3. Woman wants baby, man does not - no abortion, no support.
4. Woman and man both do not want baby - abortion, no support.

No one is forced to have an abortion and no one is forced to be a parent against their will. The woman still have more rights than the man, but it is as close to equality as is possible without banning abortions or forcing abortions.

 

[Jhhnn]

Then you agree both sexes should have the same right to decide to not be a parent?

Not what I said.

Run off with your usual strawman.

 

[nehalem256]

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

Well

Right here, post #399-

I see someone is unable to understand theoretical arguments. Namely not the word IF at the very beginning.

IFthe fetus is 50% the man's property and the woman allowed him to put it there with her permission then she would have no argument to destroy the man's property without his permission.

The relevant question being really "Is consent to sex, consent to being a parent?"

The argument presented in the OP is no.

Liberals have been arguing yes for men, but no for women.

 

[nehalem256]

Very few of you have commented on this. Would you support this set of rules? If no, why not?

1. Woman and man both want baby - no abortion, both support baby.
2. Woman does not want baby, man does - abortion, no support.
3. Woman wants baby, man does not - no abortion, no support.
4. Woman and man both do not want baby - abortion, no support.

No one is forced to have an abortion and no one is forced to be a parent against their will. The woman still have more rights than the man, but it is as close to equality as is possible without banning abortions or forcing abortions.

This is exactly the set of rules specified in the OP. Based on the poll it appears the majority would support them.

 

[nehalem256]

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.

The only reason for believing abortion is morally wrong, is if you believe it to be the murder of a person. A fetus is either a person, or a clump of cells.

So your position would seem to be that women should be allowed to murder people they CHOOSE to let inside their body... sorry for assuming you had a sane position.

 

[Jhhnn]

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

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.

You don't even read your own links. What they preface the whole discussion with is the fact that the emotional component of pregnancy varies by extremes among women. So a woman who takes this pov, which you used as a strawman, will likely want an abortion-

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.

There are others at the other end of the spectrum with various degrees of ambivalence in between.

Liberals, in general, have never claimed what you say they have. Liberals say it's up to the individual woman because each one of them & their circumstances are unique. Basically, let's keep our noses out of other people's business, particularly wrt reproduction.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well



I see someone is unable to understand theoretical arguments. Namely not the word IF at the very beginning.

IFthe fetus is 50% the man's property and the woman allowed him to put it there with her permission then she would have no argument to destroy the man's property without his permission.

The relevant question being really "Is consent to sex, consent to being a parent?"

The argument presented in the OP is no.

Liberals have been arguing yes for men, but no for women.

Heh. It's all theoretical argument, and you're now denying what you offered earlier, trying to put the issue in terms of "property". You deny that pregnancy and delivery are any sort of burden at all, but only when it's convenient for a man to do so.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is exactly the set of rules specified in the OP. Based on the poll it appears the majority would support them.

That's so wrong as to be laughable.

A slight majority of a very small sample of men would appear to support them.

 

[nehalem256]

You don't even read your own links. What they preface the whole discussion with is the fact that the emotional component of pregnancy varies by extremes among women. So a woman who takes this pov, which you used as a strawman, will likely want an abortion-

Either it is a person or it is not. If you take the position that it is a person and believe in legal abortion you are condoning murder.

Liberals, in general, have never claimed what you say they have. Liberals say it's up to the individual woman because each one of them & their circumstances are unique. Basically, let's keep our noses out of other people's business, particularly wrt reproduction.

Which of course explains why liberals will shower them with money. Its because they are "keeping their nose out".

It comes down to worshiping women' choices and believing that men should be slaves to them.

 

[nehalem256]

Heh. It's all theoretical argument, and you're now denying what you offered earlier, trying to put the issue in terms of "property". You deny that pregnancy and delivery are any sort of burden at all, but only when it's convenient for a man to do so.

The argument was that since the fetus was the "property" of the man and the woman allowed it voluntarily to be inside her that she has no right to destroy the man's property without his consent.

This follow naturally from the belief that the child is his after birth and he must be responsible. There is no logical way that the child can be not his for 9 months and then magically become his after passing out of the vagina.

 

[Jhhnn]

Either it is a person or it is not. If you take the position that it is a person and believe in legal abortion you are condoning murder.

Not at all. It's not for me to make that determination for other people. You seem to think that only men have the right to do so, and then upon their own selfish desires at the time.

Which of course explains why liberals will shower them with money. Its because they are "keeping their nose out".

It comes down to worshiping women' choices and believing that men should be slaves to them.

Low income parents of either sex act as a conduit to deliver services to their children, who are the true intended recipients of govt support. That's separate from reproductive rights.

 

[nehalem256]

Not at all. It's not for me to make that determination for other people. You seem to think that only men have the right to do so, and then upon their own selfish desires at the time.

According to Liberals and the Supreme Court abortion is not murder.

Individuals are free to disagree, so long as they do not impose their beliefs on other.

As per the OP women would no longer be able to impose their personal beliefs as to abortion being murder onto men.

Low income parents of either sex act as a conduit to deliver services to their children, who are the true intended recipients of govt support. That's separate from reproductive rights.

No its not. Reproductive choices are integral in creating children that need government support. People have no right to force the consequences of their reproductive choices on others.

You may have the right to freeedom of speech or of the press. But you have no right to demand that others listen to you or buy you a printer.

 

[SMOGZINN]

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

Of course she can. There is nothing in the law preventing that. It would just be a very rare circumstance in which it would happen, but I have at least one friend who it has happened to. She was under the age of consent, and her overly religious parents would not consent to their daughter having an abortion. The has since been rules an unfit parent and the bio-father has been awarded custody, and she pays child support for a child she never wanted.

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

Your entire argument boils down to 'Either men should be able to force women to have abortions, or they should not have to pay child support.' For your argument to hold any merit forcing women to have abortions because you don't want the child MUST be a possible answer. Otherwise you are arguing on a false premise.

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).

I think this time I have not been very clear. I am not trying to make a naturalistic argument, all I meant by 'natural consequence' is that it is a consequence that should be easy to foresee.

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.

Someone still owes child support, we are just being a little lose on the definition of 'father' to allow for non-biological parents. This requires consent by all parties. I don't see this as an ability to remove your responsibility, but rather a novel way to fulfill them.

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.

The difference is that a woman goes into a fertilization clinic with the expectation that she is going to get pregnant and not have support from the biological father. During a one night stand both go in with the assumption that there will not be a pregnancy, so why is it more her responsibility then his if there is one?

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

It appears that it would work. Our society has determined that infanticide is to be avoided at almost any cost. If it became common for men to kill their children instead of paying child support, even with the extremely harsh penalties for doing so, then yes society would reconsider it.
Are you willing to spend the rest of your life in jail, or possibly be executed, to get out of paying child support?

 

[nehalem256]

Of course she can. There is nothing in the law preventing that. It would just be a very rare circumstance in which it would happen, but I have at least one friend who it has happened to. She was under the age of consent, and her overly religious parents would not consent to their daughter having an abortion. The has since been rules an unfit parent and the bio-father has been awarded custody, and she pays child support for a child she never wanted.

So you found one rather bizarre case. In fact in more liberal states girls under the age of consent do not need parental consent to get an abortion.

I could just as easily use the fact that my half-brothers' mom abandoned them at my dad's, continued to collect child support for several month, and then when my dad finally got legal custody, she was ordered to pay $0 in child support by the judge, as evidence that women ARE allowed to abandon their children without paying child support. I have a a judges order to prove it.

Your entire argument boils down to 'Either men should be able to force women to have abortions, or they should not have to pay child support.' For your argument to hold any merit forcing women to have abortions because you don't want the child MUST be a possible answer. Otherwise you are arguing on a false premise.

Have you read the OP? No where is a woman required to have an abortion. She is free to choose to NOT have an abortion and then raise the child by herself.

Unless you argument is that women need men. In which case congrats on taking a dump on 50 years of feminism.

I think this time I have not been very clear. I am not trying to make a naturalistic argument, all I meant by 'natural consequence' is that it is a consequence that should be easy to foresee.

Which is meaningless. Because until Roe v. Wade if a woman got pregnant she had to carry it to term. Since this was a "easy to foresee consequence' they should have had nothing to complain about according to you

The difference is that a woman goes into a fertilization clinic with the expectation that she is going to get pregnant and not have support from the biological father. During a one night stand both go in with the assumption that there will not be a pregnancy, so why is it more her responsibility then his if there is one?

Because taking some RU-486 and having a heavier than normal period is ridiculously less responsibility than 18 years of child support. Which is the most that the woman HAS to have. She is free to choose to take more responsibility if she chooses. Just as the man would be under the plan in the OP.

Simple answer, biology. She has slightly more responsibility. But a much more power.

It appears that it would work. Our society has determined that infanticide is to be avoided at almost any cost. If it became common for men to kill their children instead of paying child support, even with the extremely harsh penalties for doing so, then yes society would reconsider it.
Are you willing to spend the rest of your life in jail, or possibly be executed, to get out of paying child support?

Of course that would be a bad trade off. But for some reason according to you women were willing to make that trade off....

or not

Show me one recent example of a woman being executed for infanticide(meaning a case that safe-haven laws would cover)? Maybe if that was a common punishment we would not need laws to allow women to abandon their infants.

But I guess we have to forgive women for being confused. If you tell them that killing a creature for 9 months is perfectly acceptable you can see how that might be confused that as soon as it pops out of them killing it is now wrong.

 

[actuarial]

The only reason for believing abortion is morally wrong, is if you believe it to be the murder of a person. A fetus is either a person, or a clump of cells.

I believe abortion is wrong regardless of if you believe a fetus is a clump of cells or a person. I've indicated this to you before. I believe the potential for human life is greater than the sacrifice of brining a fetus to term.

So your position would seem to be that women should be allowed to murder people they CHOOSE to let inside their body... sorry for assuming you had a sane position.

That is not my position. I do not believe failing to provide your organs to ensure the survival of another is murder.

 

[nehalem256]

I believe abortion is wrong regardless of if you believe a fetus is a clump of cells or a person. I've indicated this to you before. I believe the potential for human life is greater than the sacrifice of brining a fetus to term.

Then masturbation is wrong. Having a period is wrong. Which is just silliness.

What it really comes down to is that deep down you feel the fetus as a baby. And you naturally oppose killing babies. You just lack the balls to tell women not to commit murder if it inconveniences them.

That is not my position. I do not believe failing to provide your organs to ensure the survival of another is murder.

This analogy is BS. An abortion is not done by failing to provide your organs to the fetus. It involves effort to kill a creature you invited into your body and promised to support.

A better analogy would be promising to give someone a kidney and then after they are put under expecting the kidney you promised to give them walking into the OR and shooting them in the head.

That would be murder. And that is basically what abortion is.

 

[Jhhnn]

According to Liberals and the Supreme Court abortion is not murder.

Individuals are free to disagree, so long as they do not impose their beliefs on other.

As per the OP women would no longer be able to impose their personal beliefs as to abortion being murder onto men.

According to Liberals, every woman has the right to make her own moral judgments wrt abortion. The SCOTUS has affirmed this, with limitations.

There is no imposition on men other than taking responsibility for their own actions, having sex with women. You simply want to relieve men of that, and to have it both ways. If the man wants the baby the woman should bear it to term for him, regardless of her own desires.

No its not. Reproductive choices are integral in creating children that need government support. People have no right to force the consequences of their reproductive choices on others.

In a representative democracy, it's not those people forcing their choice on anybody, but rather the will of the people as expressed through our elected representatives. We, as a nation, choose to do so, even if consent is not unanimous. Poor people have no power in our society, and it's dishonest to claim that they do. They're not forcing you to do anything- the govt is, in demanding taxes and spending them in accordance with the wishes of our representatives.

If you don't like what the govt is doing, start a movement, vote your desires, but don't demonize anybody else in the process.

You may have the right to freeedom of speech or of the press. But you have no right to demand that others listen to you or buy you a printer.

Desperate absurdity.

 

[actuarial]

Then masturbation is wrong. Having a period is wrong. Which is just silliness.

The potential there is significantly different, and all you're doing is stretching it to absurd degrees.

What it really comes down to is that deep down you feel the fetus as a baby. And you naturally oppose killing babies. You just lack the balls to tell women not to commit murder if it inconveniences them.

Emotionally, I connected with my own children prior to viability. The moment I found out my wife was pregnant I felt it. That doesn't change the fact that the fetus cannot survive if not hosted by the mother.

This analogy is BS. An abortion is not done by failing to provide your organs to the fetus. It involves effort to kill a creature you invited into your body and promised to support.

A better analogy would be promising to give someone a kidney and then after they are put under expecting the kidney you promised to give them walking into the OR and shooting them in the head.

That would be murder. And that is basically what abortion is

That analogy is garbage, as there are numerous other options for kidney donation. You cannot transfer the fetus to another mother. And, by definition, that person will still be alive if the kidney is not donated (even if for a shorter period of time). The fetus will not survive if you cut the umbilical cord.

I find it interesting that you consider abortion to be murder though. Especially given your idea of having the government force abortions for poor people.

 

[nehalem256]

The potential there is significantly different, and all you're doing is stretching it to absurd degrees.

So there is no problem with killing a little potential life. But if it is slightly more potential than it is wrong.

Of course the potential cannot be that great since even for a fetus since you are fine with allowing 15 year old girls deciding to end it.

Emotionally, I connected with my own children prior to viability. The moment I found out my wife was pregnant I felt it. That doesn't change the fact that the fetus cannot survive if not hosted by the mother.

And it also does not change that the mother implicitly consented to host it. Just as has been argued men implicitly consented to supporting it.

That analogy is garbage, as there are numerous other options for kidney donation. You cannot transfer the fetus to another mother. And, by definition, that person will still be alive if the kidney is not donated (even if for a shorter period of time). The fetus will not survive if you cut the umbilical cord.

It would depend on how badly the person needs the kidney.

And the point is abortion is an active choice to harm the fetus. Not donating a kidney is a passive choice.

I find it interesting that you consider abortion to be murder though. Especially given your idea of having the government force abortions for poor people.

I never said abortion was murder. I said that the only way abortion could be wrong is if you consider it murder.

Calling a fetus a "potential life" is generally a pro-choice argument.

 

[nehalem256]

According to Liberals, every woman has the right to make her own moral judgments wrt abortion. The SCOTUS has affirmed this, with limitations.

Which means if you are a liberal you are implicitly saying that abortion is not murder and the fetus is not a person.

Or you are condoning letting women commit murder.

There is no imposition on men other than taking responsibility for their own actions, having sex with women. You simply want to relieve men of that, and to have it both ways. If the man wants the baby the woman should bear it to term for him, regardless of her own desires.

Conservatives want this to. They simply also want women to also take responsibility for having sex with men.

And the bolded has nothing to do with this thread. READ THE OP. NO WHERE IS A WOMAN FORCED TO CARRY A MAN'S CHILD

In a representative democracy, it's not those people forcing their choice on anybody, but rather the will of the people as expressed through our elected representatives. We, as a nation, choose to do so, even if consent is not unanimous. Poor people have no power in our society, and it's dishonest to claim that they do. They're not forcing you to do anything- the govt is, in demanding taxes and spending them in accordance with the wishes of our representatives.

If you don't like what the govt is doing, start a movement, vote your desires, but don't demonize anybody else in the process.

I have no problem with demonizing people who are forcing their choices on others.

EDIT: Basically what you want is for women to be able have sex where the worst consequence they can suffer is a slightly heavier period, while men can get stuck with 18 years of child support. And you call this "equality"

 

[blankslate]

If this happened to a friend of yours what you tell well too bad you should have been more careful who you had sex with?

Another idiot post. If the man takes of the condom during sex and continues without the woman's permission it becomes rape. That post was pretty much the forum equivalent of defecating all over someone's doorstep.

 

[actuarial]

So there is no problem with killing a little potential life. But if it is slightly more potential than it is wrong.

Of course the potential cannot be that great since even for a fetus since you are fine with allowing 15 year old girls deciding to end it.

You can disagree with my feeling all you want, but I have never suggested to legislate based on it. I am able to separate emotion from science.

And it also does not change that the mother implicitly consented to host it. Just as has been argued men implicitly consented to supporting it.

There has and always will be a distinction between medical procedures and financial commitment. Could you imagine a court decision where the government compels you to give up an organ?

It would depend on how badly the person needs the kidney.

And the point is abortion is an active choice to harm the fetus. Not donating a kidney is a passive choice.

It's a choice either way. And while technically the procedure directly harms the fetus, the result is the same as if you indirectly harmed the fetus (by cutting the umbilical cord). Would you be happier if the fetus was removed in tact to instead die on the operating table? How can you stop a woman from cutting the umbilical cord attached to her body?

I never said abortion was murder. I said that the only way abortion could be wrong is if you consider it murder.

That is not what you said. You brought forth a scenario which is murder, and said it is essentially what abortion is. If you didn't intend to imply abortion is murder you shouldn't have made the comparison.

Calling a fetus a "potential life" is generally a pro-choice argument.

That's fine. As I said before, that is my feeling on the matter and I am able to separate that from what the government should be able to force on others.

 

[nehalem256]

Another idiot post. If the man takes of the condom during sex and continues without the woman's permission it becomes rape. That post was pretty much the forum equivalent of defecating all over someone's doorstep.

OMG. You just walked into my trap :biggrin:

So if a man lies about condom usage its rape. It would seem if a woman lies about using birth control pills that is also rape.

Of course you previously said that even if a woman lies about using the pill the man should still be forced to raise the child.

So according to you men should be responsible for their rape babies

Congratulations! You just pulled a Todd Akin.

 

[blankslate]

It would seem if a woman lies about using birth control pills that is also rape.

No it's lying. Because you can't really rape the willing. And the man can usually physically overpower the woman.

The analogy doesn't fit because the man has no immediate indication that the woman is lying about the pill (yeah it's a shitty thing to do but that very likely doesn't involve physical coercion). The woman is more likely to notice a man taking off a condom then trying to resume intercourse and if he uses physical force to continue then yeah it's rape.

God what a witless post you have made.