Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as baby daddy not having a say, I could agree to men being required to support their children only if they choose to exercise their rights (joint custody, visitation, etc.) after the child is born. Unless men have a say in abortion, I cannot agree with requiring them to support their children involuntarily.
Nature created men and women in such a way that their contributions to bringing a child into being are different. A man's contribution is very brief. It's over once he's blown his load. Up until that time, he can withdraw from participation, but once his role is over, he has no choice as to whether a baby will be born and whether he'll have to support it. A woman's role, by contrast, is a lot longer. It's not only conception, but pregnancy -- and seeing as it's a long process, she naturally will have more opportunities to withdraw from participation and stop the birth from happening. However, as is the case with the man, once her role in bringing the child into the world is over, she no longer has any choice in the matter, and she will have an obligation to support the child whether she wants custody or visitation or not. The fact that women get a little more flexibility time-wise with not creating a child is certainly outweighed by the many disadvantages of pregnancy I outlined earlier. Using law to balance out a biological (perceived) "inequality" with a legal inequality going the other way is crazy. It is especially crazy because a "financial abortion" of which you are talking would be done in cases in which there was no real abortion, and would be permitted solely for the purpose of punishing children (about whom you pretend to care -- except I don't think you care about children once they are born) on account of some other women who do abort. Do you see the inanity there? Let John walk other woman, somewhere, someone whom John had never actually met, aborted her fetus, that he did not father.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
I understand that pregnancy and childbirth are difficult even in the best of cases and I understand there are many dangers and risks associated with it.
You don't understand diddly squat. It's not only that pregnancy and childbirth are difficult and dangerous -- it's that the man takes no part in them whatsoever. His own body is never taxed or endangered; he is not required to pay for prenatal care; and he is not required to support the mother if she becomes an invalid as a result of the pregnancy and childbirth. This makes it especially inequitable to give the man power over pregnancy and childbirth, when he bears no financial responsibility for them and when most of his decisions have consequences for the woman but not for himself. Essentially, you are treating women as cattle. You might say how you understand the cattle's pain; but we are still cattle to you. It's not even that you don't understand -- you just don't care. And all that talk about women making "informed choices" is complete BS. I mean, pregnancy and childbirth are a lot more dangerous and harmful than an abortion. Are you in favor of informing women whose initial impulse is to keep the pregnancy of that fact? Are you in favor of informing them of all the complications they may suffer, and how those complications may be avoided with an abortion? You know, so they could make a really informed choice?
After thinking about this more, I don't think abortion should be allowed at all....with exceptions in the case of rape (as long as it is done in a timely manner) and in the case of medical necessity, possibly including the fetus having severe abnormalitiies.
Reason being, the woman did choose to engage in an act knowing that a pregnancy could result.
Yes, we've been very ungrateful and unappreciative of your "moderate" stance, so now you are punishing us by radicalizing. Waaaah! (It's a good thing you've explained previously what your principles are really worth.) Hear that ladies? Be thankful for token kindnesses, or else suffer the belt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
The man did as well and since he has no ability to simply relieve himself from the obligation to support his child, the woman should not be permitted to do the same. That IS sexism...like it or not.
A woman cannot relief herself from the obligation to support her child either. It's just that it takes her longer to do her part in creating the child. That has many disadvantages (which men do not suffer) and one little advantage in giving her more of an opportunity to stop it from happening.
Most mothers who decide to give their children up for adoption are not choosing to give them to the state to raise. They usually get to meet and select the adoptive parents, etc. before the child is delivered. I have friends and even extended family who have adopted children. It's not that bad and those kids are theirs in every way.
And what if they cannot get someone to adopt before the child is born?
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
You have an answer for everything else.
As do you bud. It's why this debate is so interesting with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
The point is if abortion of a viable fetus is to be permitted to prevent NON-MEDICAL suffering, how far are you willing to go along those lines?
I don't know. I'm stuck in the mudd with that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
OK but aren't you GLAD that she didn't? That was my question.
Well yea. But if it affected my mother adversely to have me, then I'd not be so glad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Your views are EXTREMELY liberal
Not so much. They may seem so to you because of your own views, but comparatively speaking, no. Remember, we don't even use the entire linear political spectrum ideology, so for my views to be EXTREMELY liberal, then I would have to be a commie, believing that we all should run wild and do whatever we want with no consequences - which, contraire to your belief, is not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
....and very biased based on your freedoms that you feel should only apply to YOU.
No, I believe in freedom for all (not specifically speaking about abortion now). I don't necessarily believe in becoming a prostitute, having an abortion, or doing drugs for myself, but to his/her own. You restrict one behavior or activity because you think it's 'immoral' or wrong' (which are two words that should never be used in lawmaking) and next thing you know it'll be the activities that you consider freedoms that are being restricted and outlawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
You don't seem to care about the freedom of men (or actual equality) or about the freedom of children.
Wrong.
Completely wrong, on so many levels.
That may be YOUR interpretation of what you think I think, but it's not true in the least.
I simply believe that it is the woman's choice on whether or not she wants to get an abortion - because it's her body. You use the two words freedom and equality but that is an oxymoron in the true sense of the word. So long as we are free we will never be equal because that freedom gives us the right to decide whether we are to be equal (as in, I can choose to discriminate against you all I want and vice versa). Men will never be equal to a woman when it comes to the decision of an abortion on the simple fact that it is her body. I'm not neccessarily saying that it's right or fair, but simply, it is the way it is. Biology decided that for us, not some government mandated program.
As long as a woman has to carry a fetus in her body it will ultimately be her decision on whether that fetus lives to see the light of day or not. In the ideal world, it wouldn't be so. Hell, in the ideal world, we'd all be sitting by the camp fire holding hands and singing we are the world. But unfortunately, we live in the real world and have to do with real facts and situations that are unfair and slanted. You can bemoan that fact all you want but it is the simple truth.
Yes, we've been very ungrateful and unappreciative of your "moderate" stance, so now you are punishing us by radicalizing. Waaaah! (It's a good thing you've explained previously what your principles are really worth.) Hear that ladies? Be thankful for token kindnesses, or else suffer the belt.
Because I switched my views (for the purposes of this argument) from one about the children to one about the inequality between men and women from the financial perspective. (As I also said, I have no problem making men legally responsible for 50% of costs relating to pregnancy and childbirth or alternatively handling it based on a percentage of his income the way child support is done now.)
I still don't think this view is extremely radical. Bills have been introduced in some state legislatures over the past few years to ban abortion altogether except in the case of medical necessity...not even including rape and incest as exceptions.
The reality of my opinion on this issue is that I am unsure except in the case of a viable fetus or one who can feel pain. I am merely presenting a different side (inequality of men vs. women and potential financial consequences thereof) to question your arguments.
This is not meant to be offensive, but do you think your views are at least somewhat biased because you are a woman and because you experienced a very difficult childbirth?
Also, I see from your profile that you are an attorney. You have been trained (and are likely very well experienced) to argue points from one persepctive very strongly. I bet you could also come up with strong arguments from a different perspective on this issue (regardless of your personal beliefs).
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-23-2009 at 09:53 AM..
Because I switched my views (for the purposes of this argument) from one about the children to one about the inequality between men and women from the financial perspective. (As I also said, I have no problem making men legally responsible for 50% of costs relating to pregnancy and childbirth or alternatively handling it based on a percentage of his income the way child support is done now.)
Great -- reverse 150 years of social progress and turn women into property again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
I still don't think this view is extremely radical. Bills have been introduced in some state legislatures over the past few years to ban abortion altogether except in the case of medical necessity...not even including rape and incest as exceptions.
Just because bills have been introduced does not mean your view isn't radical -- and even if it wasn't radical, it's still wrong. There was a time when a lot of people supported slavery, genocide or segregation. Stating that you are a member of a sizable minority does not acquit your views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
The reality of my opinion on this issue is that I am unsure except in the case of a viable fetus or one who can feel pain. I am merely presenting a different side (inequality of men vs. women and potential financial consequences thereof) to question your arguments.
And you ignore the fact that it is an inequality clearly imposed by biology itself. Biology works against women in many ways -- abortion is one area where it doesn't. Using legal means to compensate for biological inequality is also profoundly wrong -- and as far as creating precedent goes, you really don't want to go down that road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
This is not meant to be offensive, but do you think your views are at least somewhat biased because you are a woman and because you experienced a very difficult childbirth?
This is not meant to be offensive, but you do think your views are at least somewhat biased because you are a man and because you've never experienced pregnancy or childbirth (difficult or otherwise)? *Chuckle*
This question of yours -- which I assume to be rhetorical -- once again exposes your protestations that you arent's a sexist. Once again, you challenge women's ability to think rationally on the basis of gender and biology alone. The fact that you asked that question indicates it never occurs to you that men might be biased. It does not occur to you to apply the same argument to men -- that men should be deprived of decision-making power over their bodies because they can't be "impartial" on a deeply personal issue. Quite simply, you are treating men as the default sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
Also, I see from your profile that you are an attorney. You have been trained (and are likely very well experienced) to argue points from one persepctive very strongly. I bet you could also come up with strong arguments from a different perspective on this issue (regardless of your personal beliefs).
Well thanks, a little flattery is always welcome. Although I can usually argue either side of an issue strongly, there are two exceptions that I can think of. First, there are some positions that my conscience simply will not permit me to adapt, and so I decline representation in those cases. There is no amount of money that a pro-life group could pay me to argue their case for them; if my firm took on a case for them, I'd ask to be reassigned, and if a reassignment was refused, I'd quit. Second, apart from the conscience issue, sometimes there is just no genuine case. There are some positions that are simply untenable. Making arguments to defend a position like that would require such a gross misinterpretation of relevant facts, so much ill logic and so much intellectual dishonesty (or delusion, what have you), that I'd be embarrased to make them (this is what we in the industry call the "blush test") -- and thus I wouldn't make such arguments. The pro-life argument meets the criteria for both categories.
Great -- reverse 150 years of social progress and turn women into property again.
Just because bills have been introduced does not mean your view isn't radical -- and even if it wasn't radical, it's still wrong. There was a time when a lot of people supported slavery, genocide or segregation. Stating that you are a member of a sizable minority does not acquit your views.
And you ignore the fact that it is an inequality clearly imposed by biology itself. Biology works against women in many ways -- abortion is one area where it doesn't. Using legal means to compensate for biological inequality is also profoundly wrong -- and as far as creating precedent goes, you really don't want to go down that road.
This is not meant to be offensive, but you do think your views are at least somewhat biased because you are a man and because you've never experienced pregnancy or childbirth (difficult or otherwise)? *Chuckle*
This question of yours -- which I assume to be rhetorical -- once again exposes your protestations that you arent's a sexist. Once again, you challenge women's ability to think rationally on the basis of gender and biology alone. The fact that you asked that question indicates it never occurs to you that men might be biased. It does not occur to you to apply the same argument to men -- that men should be deprived of decision-making power over their bodies because they can't be "impartial" on a deeply personal issue. Quite simply, you are treating men as the default sex.
Well thanks, a little flattery is always welcome. Although I can usually argue either side of an issue strongly, there are two exceptions that I can think of. First, there are some positions that my conscience simply will not permit me to adapt, and so I decline representation in those cases. There is no amount of money that a pro-life group could pay me to argue their case for them; if my firm took on a case for them, I'd ask to be reassigned, and if a reassignment was refused, I'd quit. Second, apart from the conscience issue, sometimes there is just no genuine case. There are some positions that are simply untenable. Making arguments to defend a position like that would require such a gross misinterpretation of relevant facts, so much ill logic and so much intellectual dishonesty (or delusion, what have you), that I'd be embarrased to make them (this is what we in the industry call the "blush test") -- and thus I wouldn't make such arguments. The pro-life argument meets the criteria for both categories.
I'd like to stop this argument....I'm not saying "you've won." What I am saying is that I respect your opinion (yes I respect women's opinions just as much as men's) and you are very much entitled to it. You are viewing this entirely as a medical issue while I (and many others) see it as a far more emotional one...I think that is the main difference.
I admit my views could be biased as a man. That said, there are many women who are pro-life and who are far more extreme than me, including women who HAVE experienced pregnancy and childbirth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
