Should men also have the "right to choose"

[Jhhnn]

You made the bolded claim up. I have never made that claim.

You're correct. My mistake.

And you are repeating the fact that men have no rights unless the woman chooses to give it to them.

Wow.

So you have no problem with a woman withholding a man's child from him.

And you have no problem with a woman abandoning the child she CHOSE to have. But you do have a problem with a man abandoning a child the WOMAN CHOSE to have. I dont even know where to begin explaining how screwed up that is.

Back to the concern troll, I see. It's not screwed up- it's a function of human biology & society, has been since before the dawn of history. Your ravings about what's right & wrong are immaterial in that regard. It's just fact.

The boat on sex outside of marriage being wrong has sailed. And given the legality of abortion and prevalence of contraception (most of which the woman controls) no reason for sex to result in a child being born.

Obviously, lots of people believe otherwise, and it's their bodies, their lives, their money, not yours.

 

[nehalem256]

Back to the concern troll, I see. It's not screwed up- it's a function of human biology & society, has been since before the dawn of history. Your ravings about what's right & wrong are immaterial in that regard. It's just fact.
.

This thread is not about the way things ARE. I think everyone knows how thing are.

We are discussing how things SHOULD be. Given that all you can do is state how they are you are clearly showing that you think discrimination against men is fine.

And you are wrong. Throughout most of history a woman could not force a man to support her bastard child.

 

[Jhhnn]

This thread is not about the way things ARE. I think everyone knows how thing are.

We are discussing how things SHOULD be. Given that all you can do is state how they are you are clearly showing that you think discrimination against men is fine.

And you are wrong. Throughout most of history a woman could not force a man to support her bastard child.

Sometimes, the way things are cannot be altered by wanting to do so. The ability of pregnant women to run off & deny paternal custody is one of them. There's no way around it. There's no way to deny them the ability to abandon the baby to circumstances better than they can provide, either.

Historically, men were generally required to care for their offspring more often than not. There were weddings arranged by swords & pitchforks long before shotguns were invented. Even in stratified societies, like medieval & renaissance europe, noblemen generally took care of their commoner mistresses & ignoble offspring. Otherwise, they'd be disgraced. When they knocked up the household help, suitable marriages were often arranged with the transfer of some cash & ongoing favors by the lord of the manor. None of this is new, but persists to this day. Arnold supported his own illegitimate son, and even Strom Thurmond did so with his black daughter. Yes, there was abortion in 1925, too, nothing that well connected families couldn't arrange if their moral sensibilities allowed for it.

It's just the way that men are expected to support their children that's changed, not that they're expected to do so.

 

[cybrsage]

Lets see if I have the liberal view summarized properly:

Men gave up their rights when they had sex - they could have avoided having sex. Women did not give up their rights when they had sex - it is horrible to tell women they should have avoided having sex.

Did I get it right?

 

[nehalem256]

Sometimes, the way things are cannot be altered by wanting to do so. The ability of pregnant women to run off & deny paternal custody is one of them. There's no way around it. There's no way to deny them the ability to abandon the baby to circumstances better than they can provide, either.

Sure there is. The same way it is currently done to men.

 

[nehalem256]

Lets see if I have the liberal view summarized properly:

Men gave up their rights when they had sex - they could have avoided having sex. Women did not give up their rights when they had sex - it is horrible to tell women they should have avoided having sex.

Did I get it right?

Sounds right.

But also we can't tell women they cannot abandon their children. Its not like we do not do that to 1/2 the population

 

[nehalem256]

Historically, men were generally required to care for their offspring more often than not. There were weddings arranged by swords & pitchforks long before shotguns were invented. Even in stratified societies, like medieval & renaissance europe, noblemen generally took care of their commoner mistresses & ignoble offspring. Otherwise, they'd be disgraced. When they knocked up the household help, suitable marriages were often arranged with the transfer of some cash & ongoing favors by the lord of the manor. None of this is new, but persists to this day. Arnold supported his own illegitimate son, and even Strom Thurmond did so with his black daughter. Yes, there was abortion in 1925, too, nothing that well connected families couldn't arrange if their moral sensibilities allowed for it.

And men would still be free to do so by choice. Notice how your examples are of RICH people supporting bastard children.

But why should a 17 year old boy have his life ruined because his gf is too stupid to get an abortion?

 

[Abraxas]

Lets see if I have the liberal view summarized properly:

Men gave up their rights when they had sex - they could have avoided having sex. Women did not give up their rights when they had sex - it is horrible to tell women they should have avoided having sex.

Did I get it right?

I'm not going to tell you it is a good answer, but what is the alternative? It takes financial resources to raise a child, substantial financial resources. Do we just not feed the kid, not send him to school or give them medical care? Are we just going to throw every child born out of wedlock the mother can't afford into the system or perhaps you want a massive new government budget to provide decent standards of living to single parents?

I happen to agree, the situation we have now is crap. What I don't see is a viable alternative without absolutely massive government intervention in a way likely extremely prone to abuse.

Give me another, better solution to making the father take care of his kid, even if he doesn't want it that directly addresses the fact that children require large sums of resources to raise and I'll gladly consider it. Until then, I have to regard status quo as the best of a bad situation.

 

[lotus503]

And men would still be free to do so by choice. Notice how your examples are of RICH people supporting bastard children.

But why should a 17 year old boy have his life ruined because his gf is too stupid to get an abortion?

And why should the boy who had sex with the girl be relieved from responsability when she decides to keep it. It's her body she can and always should be allowed to determine what she does to it. Why should the child be punished, because his parents showed poor judgement? They are responsible for its well being.

The man has no legal say until the child is born. And that's how it should be.

 

[cybrsage]

I'm not going to tell you it is a good answer, but what is the alternative? It takes financial resources to raise a child, substantial financial resources. Do we just not feed the kid, not send him to school or give them medical care? Are we just going to throw every child born out of wedlock the mother can't afford into the system or perhaps you want a massive new government budget to provide decent standards of living to single parents?

I happen to agree, the situation we have now is crap. What I don't see is a viable alternative without absolutely massive government intervention in a way likely extremely prone to abuse.

Give me another, better solution to making the father take care of his kid, even if he doesn't want it that directly addresses the fact that children require large sums of resources to raise and I'll gladly consider it. Until then, I have to regard status quo as the best of a bad situation.

Well thought out reply. I will give thought to see if I can come up with a solution as I do not have one now.

 

[cybrsage]

And why should the boy who had sex with the girl be relieved from responsability when she decides to keep it. It's her body she can and always should be allowed to determine what she does to it. Why should the child be punished, because his parents showed poor judgement? They are responsible for its well being.

The man has no legal say until the child is born. And that's how it should be.

Why should the unborn child be executed due to the woman not wanting to be bothered with a child? The unborn child's body is not her body, you know.

 

[monovillage]

Well thought out reply. I will give thought to see if I can come up with a solution as I do not have one now.

How about if we make the parents of the girl that was stupid enough to get pregnant and stupid enough to want to keep it pay for the parasite? They raised the idiot girl, make them pay for doing such a poor job of it.

 

[Abraxas]

How about if we make the parents of the girl that was stupid enough to get pregnant and stupid enough to want to keep it pay for the parasite? They raised the idiot girl, make them pay for doing such a poor job of it.

Okay, what if they are dead? What if the mother in an adult by this point, do we still punish the parents? We don't punish them for raising a kid who robs or kills; should we be doing that? What if it was an accident or the mother was a victim of fraud such as a condom breaking or being put on defective birth control or the guy takes off the condom partway through. What if she is married when she conceives but the relationship falls apart before the kid is born?

I don't think you can blame every case of single motherhood where the father still lives on the stupidity of the mother.

 

[cybrsage]

Depends on her age. If she is a minor, that is a viable solution as parents are financially responsible for the actions of their minor children. If she is an adult, that is not a viable solution.

 

[nehalem256]

And why should the boy who had sex with the girl be relieved from responsability when she decides to keep it.

The girl has an EQUAL opportunity to be relieved of responsibility. She just CHOSE not to take it.

It's her body she can and always should be allowed to determine what she does to it.

Sounds like you answered your own question.

Why should the child be punished, because his parents showed poor judgement? They are responsible for its well being.

So you argument is that women will have children the know they cannot afford?

Whiles this is an excellent argument against a woman's choice... how is it an argument against a man's choice?

The man has no legal say until the child is born. And that's how it should be.

He has no legal say after the child is born unless the woman chooses to let him have on.

 

[nehalem256]

I'm not going to tell you it is a good answer, but what is the alternative? It takes financial resources to raise a child, substantial financial resources. Do we just not feed the kid, not send him to school or give them medical care? Are we just going to throw every child born out of wedlock the mother can't afford into the system or perhaps you want a massive new government budget to provide decent standards of living to single parents?

I happen to agree, the situation we have now is crap. What I don't see is a viable alternative without absolutely massive government intervention in a way likely extremely prone to abuse.

Give me another, better solution to making the father take care of his kid, even if he doesn't want it that directly addresses the fact that children require large sums of resources to raise and I'll gladly consider it. Until then, I have to regard status quo as the best of a bad situation.

Are you saying we don't already have a system with massive government intervention?

It seems that the simplest solution is to disallow having children out of wedlock. As well as no-fault divorce.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lets see if I have the liberal view summarized properly:

Men gave up their rights when they had sex - they could have avoided having sex. Women did not give up their rights when they had sex - it is horrible to tell women they should have avoided having sex.

Did I get it right?

If nothing else, you're exceptionally adept at being deliberately obtuse.

The very nature of gender dictates that women bear additional consequences of sex, bearing children. In that, they have choices & burdens men need never consider.

The notion that "abortion changes everything" expressed in this thread is spurious, given that abortion was used even in ancient times in cultures all over the world. Today's methods are just more certain & less risky.

What has changed is the ability to accurately determine paternity with DNA testing. Prior to that, men could sometimes escape their own responsibility simply by lying & denying. The good old days.

 

[Jhhnn]

And men would still be free to do so by choice. Notice how your examples are of RICH people supporting bastard children.

But why should a 17 year old boy have his life ruined because his gf is too stupid to get an abortion?

I also offered the older technology methods of achieving shotgun weddings, thus "legitimizing" children, establishing parental responsibility.

You seem to think that teen marriage or paying child support will ruin a man's life, when that's obviously not true. It's today's economy of greed at the top & lack of opportunity created by it that makes success more difficult, a situation you obviously support. It's only societal intervention in the form of various kinds of welfare that allows many young families & their children much chance of success at all, something you adamantly oppose because of your own greed & false moral rectitude.

You need a sig- something like "I got mine! Screw You!"

 

[Jhhnn]

He has no legal say after the child is born unless the woman chooses to let him have on.

That's generally false. If she takes off, moves away w/o him ever knowing she was pregnant, you're correct. If she stays & he suspects the child is his, even though she won't claim him, he can sue for DNA testing to establish paternity, accept the rights & responsibilities inherent in that- child support & reasonable visitation rights. After that, he can even sue for custody, possibly win, depending on a lot of factors, usually maternal fitness.

You're just concern trolling, anyway.

 

[nehalem256]

I also offered the older technology methods of achieving shotgun weddings, thus "legitimizing" children, establishing parental responsibility.

This method requires that women not be complete sluts

After all, Nice Jewish Girls don't get knocked up freshman year of college.
...
(Aside from the fact that I wasn't really sure who the father was…) "No. There's just no reason to involve him. Why mess him his finals schedule, you know?" I could feel my smile, shaky and lopsided, slide off my face.

Kinda hard to have a shotgun wedding when the woman doesn't know who the father is.

You seem to think that teen marriage or paying child support will ruin a man's life, when that's obviously not true.

Having $100s or $1000s/month take from you to support a woman's choice is not exactly what I would call a good thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

This method requires that women not be complete sluts

We wouldn't want to apply the same values to men, would we?

Kinda hard to have a shotgun wedding when the woman doesn't know who the father is.

Well, alternatively, she could bear the fetus to term, demand DNA testing of the likely suspects, extract child support from the biological father.

Having $100s or $1000s/month take from you to support a woman's choice is not exactly what I would call a good thing.

It is for the child. Your immoral crusade of paternal denial won't change that.

 

[nehalem256]

We wouldn't want to apply the same values to men, would we?

How many women a man has sex with is irrelevant to any woman establishing the paternity of the fetus she is carrying. Which was the point of discussion.

Well, alternatively, she could bear the fetus to term, demand DNA testing of the likely suspects, extract child support from the biological father.

Or just get an abortion.

It is for the child. Your immoral crusade of paternal denial won't change that.

Given your support for allowing women, who have abused their past 7 children, to continue having children... you clearly have no standing in making claims about caring about the well-being of the child.

 

[Jhhnn]

How many women a man has sex with is irrelevant to any woman establishing the paternity of the fetus she is carrying. Which was the point of discussion.

Then your use of the term "sluts" was pure sexism, correct? And your current efforts more of the same desire to obfuscate men's responsibility, excuse their behavior.

Or just get an abortion.

Which is what the woman in question did. You have a problem with that?

Given your support for allowing women, who have abused their past 7 children, to continue having children... you clearly have no standing in making claims about caring about the well-being of the child.

In the case you reference, modern hospital techniques have the same effect on the child as the mother leaving it at the convent, at least in Oklahoma.

There is a price for creating & living in a relatively free society, and such edge cases are the result. Drug addicts are sick people, afflicted, living hand to mouth. Pregnancy is generally not something they want. I suggested that efforts be made to reach out to them to provide effective contraception/ sterilization to them at no charge, which is what they can actually afford.

You say we should force it upon them. Perhaps we should force it upon their male partners as well, huh? The penalty for soliciting a prostitute should be... sterilization!

 

[cybrsage]

If nothing else, you're exceptionally adept at being deliberately obtuse.

The very nature of gender dictates that women bear additional consequences of sex, bearing children. In that, they have choices & burdens men need never consider.

Are you refuting what I said, that this thread is full of libs saying men should have kept it in their pants but since they had sex they gave up their rights, but women do not give up their rights when they decide to remove their pants and have sex?

It simply appears you are justifying this statement, not refuting it. Are you justifying it or refuting it?

 

[cybrsage]

Men already made their choice when they decided to have sex with a woman. No form of contraception is perfect, and we all know that. We also understand that once impregnated, women have sole discretion wrt bringing the fetus to term.

You're suggesting that men get a do-over if anything goes against them, facilitated by limiting women's choices.

Don't want children? Then don't engage in the kind of sex that creates them, have a vasectomy, or embrace celibacy.

Yes

So you believe women who do not want children should should not have sex become sterilized? You know this means you are saying that most abortions should not be allowed, right?