U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-26-2009, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Outside of Chicago
4,598 posts, read 3,748,511 times
Reputation: 6548

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
Well, I don't know what to tell you. The thread is not asking if married men are obligated.` It's mostly about single people in a host of situtations.
How do you only get married from relationship? You can be single and in a relationship...it is called dating. As for the single people, birth control will not solve their problems. Promiscuous people need help. Society should look for a way to treat these people.

Quote:
I'm not really sure where you're going. I think you're trying to state that male BC side effects are worse for men than women, which is an absurd argument.
What is absurd is putting words in my mouth that I never said. I never said the symptoms were physically worse. I said that male birth control could havve more effect on the male psyche than female birth control had on the female psyche.

I am talking about the possibility of impotence. I am talking about the possibility of long term infertility. I am talking about the possibility of the loss of sex drive. All of these possible side effects could keep men from using a male birth control. I do not think men are going to take a drug that has the possibility of side effects that I listed.

Quote:
Well, you're preferances and values are not a rubric for everybody else. I never understand positions that include statements that A is more important than B, so everyone should focuss on A. We are fully capable of addressing more than one issue at a time.
I am just giving you my opinion. I do not expect everybody to follow my beliefs. I just do not understand how a person can find more importance in creating birth control for the opposite sex than finding a cure for cancer or AIDS. As for mulit-tasking, it is possible but not efficient.


P.S. Thanks for telling me the quote thing. I was half asleep when I was writing last night.

Last edited by dude1984; 09-26-2009 at 11:32 AM.. Reason: felt like it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-26-2009, 02:04 PM
 
19,081 posts, read 21,194,953 times
Reputation: 13392
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1984 View Post
How do you only get married from relationship? You can be single and in a relationship...it is called dating. As for the single people, birth control will not solve their problems. Promiscuous people need help. Society should look for a way to treat these people.
Fair enough. I tend to consider people to be single until married. Again, whether promiscuous or not, as has been pointed out to me by others, is besides the point.

Quote:
What is absurd is putting words in my mouth that I never said. I never said the symptoms were physically worse. I said that male birth control could havve more effect on the male psyche than female birth control had on the female psyche.
Any psychological outcome due to hormonal BC is physiological. And I do not understand why you would say one outcome is worse or better.

Quote:
I am talking about the possibility of impotence. I am talking about the possibility of long term infertility. I am talking about the possibility of the loss of sex drive. All of these possible side effects could keep men from using a male birth control. I do not think men are going to take a drug that has the possibility of side effects that I listed.
I guess some men will come around. The side effects are no worse than female BC. If some women are willing to deal with side effects, there is no doubt some men will. And as has been shown in the link I provided, men are already using it. Just because you and I are not willing to deal doesn't mean that can be generalized to others.

Quote:
I am just giving you my opinion. I do not expect everybody to follow my beliefs. I just do not understand how a person can find more importance in creating birth control for the opposite sex than finding a cure for cancer or AIDS. As for mulit-tasking, it is possible but not efficient.
Have you not chosen an alternate career path? Or are you a cancer research scientist? I'm gonna guess, no. I don't know why you would have expectations of others that you do not abide by yourself. As far as efficiency goes, I'm not sure how that plays out in a capitalistic market. The private sector will largely invest in projects that will lead to profit with a few side gigs for positive PR. If we wanted to be efficient with tackling big disease it would have to be rooted in the people; by extension the government. Most folk are not interested in that route, hence it's not a priority.

Quote:
P.S. Thanks for telling me the quote thing. I was half asleep when I was writing last night.
It's difficult explaining it in a post. I'm glad you figured it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2009, 02:17 PM
 
604 posts, read 1,050,556 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire View Post
Yes...In certain circumstances, I consider abortion to be immoral. And I do think that since it is legal, that a father's right to abort his responsibility to his offspring should be legal. However, I also believe that that is immoral in certain circumstances.
What circumstances are immoral?

Im sure I will be deemed a demon for this, but it truly doesnt concern me how a father's abortion of his responsibility will benefit society, the mother nor the children... My outlook upholds that it is his body and resources to do with what he pleases. I am not arguing on the grounds of morality..I am arguing on the grounds of equality.
To so proudly disregard any concern for your child provides a clear reason to completely ignore your argument in general.
Again, it is NOT his body. I appreciate your confirmation that morality is not a factor in your argument. That says a lot.

If the father has regrets about not being responsible towards his children...tough, thats on his conscious for the rest of his life. But I dont feel that we should be the moral arbiters WAIT WAIT WAIT....you just said you were not arguing on the grounds of morality.......who force a father to do with his body, something that is against his desire/character, or belief. No matter how much in disagreement we may be with that decision. Its his decision...imo

When pressed for a few positives that may result...? Well I do think that it would encourage women to use more discretion in choosing mates if it were a legal option for males to exercise their right to abandon their responsibility to unwanted offspring. thus encouraging men to use no discretion at all in choosing mates or using birth control......now that's equality. That way future mothers could be more proactive in preventing their offspring and themselves from becoming such hapless victims of these recklessly irresponsible prospective fathers. and future fathers have no responsibility at all for preventing their offspring.....Consequently children would be more likely to be conceived and raised by fathers who truly want to adhere to their parental responsibilities, both financially, morally, again with the morality.....thought that was not a factor?????and physically; obviously this could benefit the child. I think fathers would obviously benefit by being allowed to exercise their equal right to control their bodies the right to control their bodies includes the right to take responsibility for fathering a child.....and resources post conception, by being afforded well, equality.

Nevertheless..I honestly dont care about those potential benefits at this juncture. (I know, I know...Im going to hell..lol)

The first measure is one of equality (the supposed lifeblood of our country)...then we can argue the morality of the initiative. (that is: unless our "morals" dont truly /genuinely observe and practice the notion of equality) And similar to the abortion debate, if it is concluded that parts of the enactment are too immoral to accept then we can add adjustments, jurisdictions, stipulations, deadlines for abdication of parental rights etc. Basically, we could legislate on the fly..lol..heck, its working for abortion, might as well give it a similar go in the opposite direction..imo

Just to be clear, I consider excessive sex, fighting, and cursing at others to be immoral as well. However I maintain that people have the right to do so, and live with their conscious.





How is it not his body, when he is the one using his body to work/earn money to pay for a child that is unwanted?...And also using his body to physically pay for a child that is unwanted. (The physical act of using his body to send, transfer, and bestow funds)

Per your last statement...no, a father who is exercising his right to abort his financial responsibility is affecting his child's finances, not the mother's. If the mother doesnt want his financial negligence to affect her finances she can always just get an abortion if she'd like....BTW, what's wrong with it affecting her finances? Currently the system sure affects his finances, and the option of abortion affects the life of a child as well...But you are certainly right...despite this nation's creed, there definitely is currently no equal right...but we're working to change that...gotta have hope..lol
It most certainly does affect the mother's finances....if dad bails....who do you think pays for daycare? lunch money?insurance?clothes?medicine?diapers?shoes?
You are right as well. There is no equal right. Men do not have babies...or abortions....or miscarriages....or periods......and there is no equal right to compare. You admitted that you have no concern for the child, the mother, society, or morals. So perhaps you might understand why no one will be working to 'change that' and there is no hope for your argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2009, 04:52 PM
 
3,424 posts, read 5,087,903 times
Reputation: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbledeez View Post
It most certainly does affect the mother's finances....if dad bails....who do you think pays for daycare? lunch money?insurance?clothes?medicine?diapers?shoes?
You are right as well. There is no equal right. Men do not have babies...or abortions....or miscarriages....or periods......and there is no equal right to compare. You admitted that you have no concern for the child, the mother, society, or morals. So perhaps you might understand why no one will be working to 'change that' and there is no hope for your argument.
There is plenty of hope for my argument...but dont get ahead of yourself there. I am by no means wasting time on Capital Hill lobbying for fathers rights...I just dont care that much about it, but I do enjoy tossing the idea around leisurely, and hopefully some other unfortunate father can pickup the ball and run with it.. And nope I dont have an ounce of concern for the child...Because, too often people try to shield themselves behind morality and the child's welfare when a father's rights to his body and resources come into question. Yet as a mother's right to her body goes, morality and the child's concern selectively takes a backseat to the rights of her person and resources...which is fine by me...call me what you want, but I am advocating that we assess father's rights through the same lens that we assess a mother's rights to her person. Not run to some arbitrary morality fascade ONLY when the effects of a father exercising his rights come into question. If thats the case, then mothers who choose to exercise their right to abortion, must equally be judged through the same lens as fathers who choose to abort their responsibility to their offspring. I know fair is fair, but equality is the objective.

And you are right, I indeed wont get into any debate about innate biological differences between man and woman or how those differences should somehow entitle a woman to more sayso over her body, than it entitles a man to his body. Periods, childbirth, etc are inconsequential in my arguement, as a man could just as easily claim that he hates being the gender who must biologically inseminate a woman during sex, or that he dislikes being a man for some other abstract reason....all of that is preference based and relative to who one is speaking to... some women love childbirth, just as some men hate sex. Some women hate the bioloical consequences of childbirth, just as some men love the bioloical benefits they receive from sex.

But if there is no equal right to compare parental rights, based on the sheer fact that biological differences exist (such as women being the ones who have periods, childbirth, etc.) then there is no equal right for women to demand the same work as men, or get paid the same wages as men, as men too are biologically different than women. I dont know when the last time that notion was taken seriously, but I know I certainly dont support it today, so I wont begin playing biological favorites now simply because one parent is biologically different than the other.

Because if we rely on biological factors to entitle one sex or the other to more input over the fate of their offspring, then BIOLOGICALLY men have no right NOR responsibility at all to care for their offspring. In nature, the male species most often spreads his seeds and migrates to a different female with little, if any, obligation at all to his offspring. But I dont hear anyone advocating that course of action for fathers, simply because his biology is male. Male parental responsibility is a social construct, and thus can be deconstructed and reconstructed, if we so choose.

Last edited by solytaire; 10-08-2009 at 05:33 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2009, 05:16 PM
 
3,424 posts, read 5,087,903 times
Reputation: 1814

What circumstances are immoral?

I personally believe that if a man has verbally consented to his child's birth, and committed to its upbringing, then it is immoral of that man to abandon his commitment and consent to helping to raise a child...but dont forget that YOU ASKED me what is immoral...so yes, I spoke on immorality, as a result of you asking about it. But no that is not the basis for my argument...however we can address morality, in all its subjectivity if you continue to ask me about it.


To so proudly disregard any concern for your child provides a clear reason to completely ignore your argument in general.
Again, it is NOT his body. I appreciate your confirmation that morality is not a factor in your argument. That says a lot.

Im glad I could convey to you clearly how minascule of a role that morality and its subjective/selective implementation will play in my argument...I actually cant stress that enough...feel free to ignore my argument or whatever you're going to do..I even invite you to use the 'ignore' button if you are that offput by my outlook. Hopefully, that should avert any further unecessary argumentation and illogicalities/misunderstandings on both our behalves.


WAIT WAIT WAIT....you just said you were not arguing on the grounds of morality.......

Um right, whats your point?...let me repost this part for you

"But I dont feel that we should be the moral arbiters
"...

Im not arguing on the grounds of morality therefore I wont be a moral arbiter for a mother or father's decisions concerning their responsibility to their offspring...Im not following you on this one.

thus encouraging men to use no discretion at all in choosing mates or using birth control......now that's equality.

Equality indeed..exactly my point. But to your comment, indeed men wouldnt use discretion, thats the point...in order to equalize the playing field, men should be allowed an outlet for their lack of discretion and irresponsibility as well. Just as women are provided an outlet for their mistakes/lack of discretion etc. I dont know what all its encouraging, but since women have post conception/post irresponsibility recourse then I think it would be most equal to afford men similar recourse...now THATS equality.




and future fathers have no responsibility at all for preventing their offspring.....

Of course they do, they can continue to use condoms, and when a male birth control pills comes out, they should be afforded that option as well...meanwhile, ex post facto, men should be legally allowed some post conception recourse, via abortion of their obligations, just as women are legally afforded post conception recourse. I dont understand whats so unfair/unequal about that.



again with the morality.....thought that was not a factor?????

lol its not...you cant just pick a word that you see me use often, which I said wouldnt be the basis of my argument, and prop it up as though Im saying something contradictory to my argument..and act as though my saying it somehow works to completely disprove my stance... lol If thats the case, could you please explain how I am being contradictory by using the word "moral" or "morally" in these contexts? The mear pointing out my mention of a word that I said isnt the base of my argument, is not going to sway my argument in the least.


the right to control their bodies includes the right to take responsibility for fathering a child

Oh certainly!...Im CERTAINLY not saying that fathers shouldnt have the right to take responsibility for fathering a child, anymore so than I could say that a mother doesnt have the right to take responsibility for mothering a child. Im simply saying, fathers should have the right to NOT take responsibility for fathering a child. Its just an option, I certainly wouldnt demand that NO fathers ever be allowed to take responsibility for their offspring...lol..I mean, if he wants to do so, then thats his choice...



Last edited by solytaire; 10-08-2009 at 05:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2009, 05:55 PM
 
604 posts, read 1,050,556 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire View Post
There is plenty of hope for my argument...but dont get ahead of yourself there. I am by no means wasting time on Capital Hill lobbying for fathers rights...I just dont care that much about it, but I do enjoy tossing the idea around leisurely, and hopefully some other unfortunate father can pickup the ball and run with it..
As do I.....tossing the idea around provoked some new insight for me. I think it's unfair that women can abort a child without the consent of the father. I would support further investigation and intense consideration of this issue. If the father wants the baby and the woman wants to abort, what rights does he have? Any? None? How much say? Not sure, but interesting.....
And nope I dont have an ounce of concern for the child...Because, too often people try to shield themselves behind morality when a father's rights to his body and resources come into question. Yet as a mother's right to her body goes, morality and the child's concern selectively takes a backseat to the rights of her person and resources...which is fine by me...and I am advocating that we assess father's rights through the same lens that we assess a mother's rights to her person. Not run to some arbitrary morality fascade ONLY when the effects of a father exercising his rights come into question. If thats the case, then mothers who choose to exercise their right to abortion, must equally be judged through the same lens as fathers who choose to abort their responsibility to their offspring. I know fair is fair, but equality is the objective.
But aborting at 8 weeks is very different than abandoning for life.
And you are right, I indeed wont get into any debate about innate biological differences between man and woman or how those differences should somehow entitle a woman to more sayso over her body, than it entitles a man to his body. Periods, childbirth, etc are inconsequential in my arguement, as a man could just as easily claim that he hates being the gender who must biologically inseminate a woman during sex, or that he dislikes being a man for some other abstract reason....all of that is preference based and relative to who one is speaking to...

Definitely not inconsequential....in NO way are periods, childbirth, pap smears, abortions, c-sections even remotely related to a man dropping off sperm. That is usually referred to as a highly pleasurable event. And any other abstract reason is not even close.......all is not preference based, certainly not for the woman.

some women love childbirth, just as some men hate sex. Some women hate the bioloical consequences of childbirth, just as some men love the bioloical benefits they receive from sex.

But if there is no equal right to compare parental rights based on sheer biological differences (such as women being the ones who have periods, childbirth, etc.) then there is no equal right for women to demand the same work as men, or get paid the same wages as men, as men too are biologically different than women. I dont know when the last time that notion was taken seriously, but I know I certainly dont support it today, so I wont begin playing biological favorites now simply because one parent is biologically different than the other.
No comparison here to be taken seriously. Childbirth and menstration have little to do with work performance....sure the woman might miss more work days, taking care of the child and all, but she can do her job just as good, if not better, than the man....that is a huge stretch to think otherwise....
Because if we rely on biological factors to entitle one sex or the other to more input over the fate of their offspring, then BIOLOGICALLY men have no right NOR responsibility at all to care for their offspring. In nature, the male species most often spreads his seeds and migrates to a different female with little, if any, obligation at all to his offspring. But I dont hear anyone advocating that course of action for fathers, simply because his biology is male. Male parental responsibility is a social construct, and thus can be deconstructed, if we so choose.
So what factors do we rely on with unplanned pregnancy?? Not moral ones, not biological ones......and yes, biologically, men DO have responsibility, because he is the biological father of that child.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2009, 06:07 PM
 
604 posts, read 1,050,556 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire View Post

in order to equalize the playing field, men should be allowed an outlet for their lack of discretion and irresponsibility as well. Just as women are provided an outlet for their mistakes/lack of discretion etc. I dont know what all its encouraging, but since women have post conception/post irresponsibility recourse then I think it would be most equal to afford men similar recourse...now THATS equality.
Men ARE allowed an outlet. An abortion provides an outlet to BOTH the mother and the father. So this 'outlet' for 'lack of discretion' is an outlet for both of them. That's fair. They both get out.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2009, 08:52 PM
 
3,424 posts, read 5,087,903 times
Reputation: 1814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbledeez View Post
So what factors do we rely on with unplanned pregnancy?? Not moral ones, not biological ones......and yes, biologically, men DO have responsibility, because he is the biological father of that child.
Thats just it Dbledeez...I think this IS relying on moral factors...fathers are biologically to blame for helping to produce offspring, just as mothers are....but they are not naturally responsible for those children, except for any subjective moral opinion...of course both mother and father would ideally take responsibility for their offspring...but that is my moral opinion, which I cannot and will not impose upon neither mother nor father. But if we DO choose to use biological factors to gauge the input that a parent has over the fate of their offspring, then we must too ask ourselves how we can allow a mother to abort her biological responsibility if she chooses...I mean its a delicate topic that merits as much objectivity from me, as I can afford..

Last edited by solytaire; 10-08-2009 at 09:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2009, 09:20 PM
 
3,424 posts, read 5,087,903 times
Reputation: 1814
As do I.....tossing the idea around provoked some new insight for me. I think it's unfair that women can abort a child without the consent of the father. I would support further investigation and intense consideration of this issue. If the father wants the baby and the woman wants to abort, what rights does he have? Any? None? How much say? Not sure, but interesting.....

Good question, but you know, I cant tell you what rights he would have...I think if the father wants the baby, and a woman wants to abort the life, then by all means she should be able to abort the child if she so chooses...it is her body. Likewise, if he doesnt want a child, but the mother does, he should be able to abort his responsibility to that child if he so chooses, for the same reasons.

But I would think that the legislation could be based on a similar provisions that are made for abortion rights; as that is the precedent for personal rights vs. human rights to this point, and as such has established a solid framework for further legislation.. I think congress could make the initial bill legislation, make amendments, afford each state their own jurisdiction for parental rights legislation so that legislation could aptly reflect and respect whichever culture and morals that each region/state holds dear, and so forth..


But aborting at 8 weeks is very different than abandoning for life.

See, I dont view things that way...I dont believe that forcing a fetus to abandon its life is much different than abandoning the life of that same fetus once it is born...again, I find this to be a fundamental difference in the way I view human life.


Definitely not inconsequential....in NO way are periods, childbirth, pap smears, abortions, c-sections even remotely related to a man dropping off sperm. That is usually referred to as a highly pleasurable event. And any other abstract reason is not even close.......all is not preference based, certainly not for the woman.

Again, Im not going to diminish the role of one sex in the creation of a life, by relegating him to a sperm off loader, and then simultaneously say that his presence (financial or physical) is almost the end all be all to a child's welfare, if he is financially irresponsible....those two thoughts are inconsistent...either men/fathers are important or they're not..which ever we choose, the logic stemming from that notion needs to be consistent. I mean, I have heard many women refer to childbirth as pleasurable; a time at which they felt almost celestial or godess like...while still others refer to it as a painstaking curse that they never want to repeat..some dont even want to try it once. There are various experiences and preferences to be found and all have their perogative to those preferences. I mean do we just arbitrarily uphold the opinion of those who loved childbearing over those who hate it? If so then the basis for abortion rights would be significantly altered. But since we have arbitrarily observed the opinion of those women who did not want to give birth, and made provisions for abortion rights, then I think we could also arbitrarily observe the opinion of those men who dislike and therefore reject being forced into parental responsibility.

We cant just subjectively say that one gender's biological composition entitles him/her to a larger share of input in certain choices simply because you or I deem one sex's plight to be more difficult/worthy of consideration than the other. Thats the impetus for
sexist and bigoted ideology. (not calling you a sexist or a bigot, just saying that thats how many people justify being sexist/bigoted.) But the next thing we know, someone will try to state that 'just because women incubate an egg for a few months, that doesnt entitle her to x,y,z...' imo that sort of diminishment of one sexes biological contribution/composition does a disservice to the objective of equality that this country supposedly practices.


Last edited by solytaire; 10-08-2009 at 09:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2009, 07:10 AM
 
8,306 posts, read 8,580,329 times
Reputation: 25929
Wow, there are some really involved discussions here. I guess my point is much more simple. If a father (or a mother) wants to avoid responsibility for supporting or caring for a child than abstain from sex. Yes, that is really possible. Talk to former POWs sometime. You'll find that what most of them craved during captivity was not sex, but simpler things like food and medicine. I actually abstained from sex until I was 23 years old. I guess that is an impossible thought for some people.

Honestly, I can't muster up much sympathy for either a father or a mother that is biologically responsible for children and than won't economically and psychologically support the child they helped conceive. The world is not just about ME, ME, ME. Its about taking some responsibility for your actions.

Some people on this thread really need to grow up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top