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.
If a girl gets pregnant she has the option to keep the baby or not. The man however does not seem to have any say.... I mean he can't tell her she should keep the baby if she doesn't want it , because it is her body and on the flip side, if he doesn't want to have the baby and she does...her decision trumps...the man is then called a poor father if he is not involved or doesn't support financially... I think that it's not fair to the men.(I am a woman btw)
I don't think saying he fathered the baby and hence is responsible holds any water because as everyone knows ..it takes two to tango....
So it seems to me that men get the shorter end of the stick on this one.
What are your opinions on this?
Some things in life are just not fair. You can't change the situation without removing basic human rights from one party.
If you are going to have sex, be prepared for the possibility of having a child.
Some things in life are just not fair. You can't change the situation without removing basic human rights from one party.
If you are going to have sex, be prepared for the possibility of having a child.
Then the woman should be prepared to take full advantage of all of her options, not just having a child and not giving the man any option.
It takes two to tango. As far as the original act is concerned, the woman and the man get equal choice.
Where the unequal choice begins is when the man gets no choice on whether to pay for a child or not, whether he wants it or not. The female gets that option, and the man deserves the same possibility.
If a woman decides (it is HER decision) to have the baby the father is obligated to take care of and financially support the mother and child until the child is of adult age. If a man does not want to pay he can refrain from playing. This is the price of participation
disclaimer - I'm on break in my car so please excuse any spelling/grammar errors while I rush through this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solytaire
And this is the fundamental debate at hand..There is a child pre birth...therefore there a kid does exist. There is indeed nothing left to say..we have reached a fundamental and theoretical divide.
There is much to say, we just won't agree. You want to loosely draw a line in the sand to support a position and that is what inhibits discussion, nothing more. To start, there are a number of BC pills women take that constitute abortion. For example, an egg can be fertilized, but a med will prevent attatchment to the uterine wall, but conception takes place just the same. That fertilized egg is not a child. Next in line is the morning after pill if a condom fails. Again, conception may take place, but development is thwarted. And many pro-lifers consider it abortion. Both of these options are reproductive control a woman has over her body. It is her right. Further down the road is early term abortion; say 4-6 weeks and on and on. Where do you draw that line? At conception? If so, then that is a desire to control the woman's body. That is fundamental debate at hand. A zygote is not a child and 4-6 week old embryo is not a child.
Quote:
No but a mother can, and they do neglect their child (which has been termed a fetus thus diminishing the value of its existence imo)..again..because I do consider the unborn a child, this will be a fundamental divide between us.
You may want to redefine what the term child is, but that doesn't help discussion either. A child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty. If a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a child, then a child is zygote, embryo, etc. Obviously, that doesn't make sense. We do not refer to our children as zygotes, etc.
Quote:
I respect your penchant for researching the topic.. But the raw numbers in my link clearly stated that 5% of single fathers receive public assistance. I posted the link because you asked for a source that supported my statement that few single fathers received public assistance. I provided a source that stated such.
And it's good that you did. I just attempted to flesh out what the data means; what it's comprised of, etc, for a clearer and more accurate picture.
Quote:
You are communicating superbly thus far.
Thanks, and likewise.
Quote:
But I am telling you that the cohorts are one in the same...and therefore certainly wouldnt be comparable. Something cannot be compared with itself. You seem to make a distinction between non minority and minority welfare moms. I dont...therefore I cannot see a comparison to be made either, as I do not segment the group to begin with.
I don't think the cohorts are not one in the same. For one, the sample sizes are not close to equivalent. Two, you want to be able to cherry pick a variable, such as gender, and disregard other variables. Why is it appropriate for you to single out gender, and yet reject other variables? I realize you're doing so for the sake of your argument, but it doesn't stand imo.
Quote:
Im not sure if you thought that I implied that I dont have the time to invest in this dialogue. Please dont think that is the case and it is not what I meant to imply. I didnt mean my statement to imply that I was becoming indifferent to and impatient with our dialogue. My statement meant just what my paragraph stated: I dont analyze and find reasons for the statistics I am presented. I only address them in their existence.
No, I didn't think that. I was thinking that I was spending too much time on the net!
Quote:
Im not sure I can accept this unreferenced statistic...
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I believe it's noted in the census link I provided. I did another quick google, tho this is from the 90's so it's not ideal. But it states the only 11% are (were) under the age of 30. I can find something better, later. Powered by Google Docs
I will finish my response at another time. I have to get back to work.
This division lacks merit because you support abortion, which you have referred to as irresponsible, neglectful, diminished value and lacking morals. Yet you support this. So to use this act you refer to so negatively as a justification for another negatively perceived act is just absurd. It's the whole 'two wrongs don't make a right'. If abortion is so bad, then why do you agree it's okay? And if it's bad but okay, how is another bad but okay action going to help anything?
I agree that it is okay because A) I am not the moral arbiter of anyone...simply because I think it is immoral doesnt mean it should be illegal...the same rationale applies to allowing men to reject their responsibility to their unwanted child. B) A woman's body is her body...again, simply because I think it is irresponsible, morally inappropriate doesnt mean I should dictate what she does with her body...once more, the same rationale applies to the father of an unwanted child who should be allowed control over his body and financial resources.
IMO two wrongs dont make a right, but neither does one. As we accept one "wrong"..then whats good for the goose is good for the gander imo.
There is much to say, we just won't agree. You want to loosely draw a line in the sand to support a position and that is what inhibits discussion, nothing more.
we almost certainly will not agree imo...we are approaching one issue with two fundamentally opposed perspectives, that seemingly are unable to be changed through statistical analysis, and for which there is no amount of statistical support that can conclusively prove either wrong...
That said, I want to loosely draw a line to inhibit nothing...I was actually trying to save the both of us a little time, since, due to our respective outlooks, I honestly dont see how we can possibly expect to come to an agreement on this issue yet. However, if we are going to start launching presumptions about the other, then it has also become woefully obvious that you would like to arbitrarily use any and every variable known, to analyze source statistics that support claims made, in order to dilute the focus on the topic and their merit...despite the fact that those same statistics have been documented as legitimate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
To start, there are a number of BC pills women take that constitute abortion. For example, an egg can be fertilized, but a med will prevent attatchment to the uterine wall, but conception takes place just the same. That fertilized egg is not a child. Next in line is the morning after pill if a condom fails. Again, conception may take place, but development is thwarted. And many pro-lifers consider it abortion. Both of these options are reproductive control a woman has over her body. It is her right. Further down the road is early term abortion; say 4-6 weeks and on and on. Where do you draw that line? At conception? If so, then that is a desire to control the woman's body. That is fundamental debate at hand. A zygote is not a child and 4-6 week old embryo is not a child.
Yes, Im well aware of the pills that exist to disrupt the process of conception...However firstly, the morning after pill has already been distinguished by medical professionals as a contraceptive option, not an abortion option...so whichever pro-lifers you may have spoken to who regard it as an abortion pill, are simply arguing on the merit of their own misguided philosophy, NOT scientific/medical fact.
And yes, the line is drawn at conception. That is the point at which whatever decision a woman may make is entirely hers to make. I am in full support of that right. I have stated repeatedly that I could careless about controlling a woman's body. It is HER body...people seem to think that since one advocates that a man be allowed to exercise equal control over his body, that he/she is then somehow in favor of disallowing a womans right to abortion. For me, its quite the contrary actually. I can only favor a man's right to control his body and resources, because I also favor a woman's right to control hers. In essence..there is no line to be drawn about conception in the first place as the topic of a womans right to abortion is not one that I am debating. I wholeheartedly believe that the choice to abort an unwanted life is a woman's right. I just also happen to believe that the choice to withdraw support of an unwanted life is also a mans right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
You may want to redefine what the term child is, but that doesn't help discussion either. A child is a human between the stages of birth and puberty. If a zygote, embryo, or fetus is a child, then a child is zygote, embryo, etc. Obviously, that doesn't make sense. We do not refer to our children as zygotes, etc.
Likewise, yourself might choose to redefine what the term life is, but that doesnt advance the discussion much either. Im not going to debate back and forth between the scientific nomeclature of what a child is or is not. Because I honestly cant really accept your analogy between a zygote and a child, as obviously anything that exists progressively along a chronological continuum will change states...
It is similar to making the analogy that since a 90 year old comatose person (the 'child' in your analogy) is no longer a 12 year old (fetus) and since now, as a 90 year old, he is currently categorized as a 'child', then he never had life as a 12 year old (fetus). Because in order for him to have ever had life as a 12 year old (fetus), the 90 year old (child) would have to remain in the state in which he had been as a 12 year old (fetus).
The existence of life in a bodily state as a child, doesnt negate the presence of life in any prior state.
But again, my fundamental belief is that life begins at conception..'child' or otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
And it's good that you did. I just attempted to flesh out what the data means; what it's comprised of, etc, for a clearer and more accurate picture.
To my knowledge, the numbers didnt lie...The term clearer is subjective, and imo it is impossible to be more accurate than the raw stat itself...however, your clarification may have indeed provided subjective redress for some here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
I don't think the cohorts are not one in the same. For one, the sample sizes are not close to equivalent. Two, you want to be able to cherry pick a variable, such as gender, and disregard other variables. Why is it appropriate for you to single out gender, and yet reject other variables? I realize you're doing so for the sake of your argument, but it doesn't stand imo.
Firstly I regard the group in discussion as one demographic, so this will likely be another fundamental difference between our contentions. Two, I cant see how sample sizes even matter, when we are speaking in terms of percentages..UNLESS one does parse each category along lines of race, minority status, hair color, eye color, height, income status, fingernail length...etc. Im simply unwilling to go there. You may label me what you want.
Too, I would like to note, that apparently I am not the only poster in this thread on gender equality ("Are men obligated"), who does not wish to divert the topic by manipulating statistics regarding gender along lines of race, age, marital status, minority status etc.
Three, I want to cherry pick nothing, I "cherry picked" the thread topic at hand which is an inquiry about gender obligations. If anything, the OP/Thread starter may have cherry picked his topic..I certainly havent....however you may want to inject every single earthly variable into a discussion about GENDER EQUALITY and PARENTAL GENDER DISPARITIES in order to dilute the statistics that have been presented...again, you will have to do so alone, as I simply wont entertain that diversion. However it is your right to do so.
Fourthly, it is appropriate for me to single out gender because that is the topic at hand.."Are men obligated?" ...now when someone starts a thread entitled "Which kinds of men are obligated..." then I will entertain every variable in the world that could possibly be chosen to infuse into that thread/topic. But to infuse those variables into a thread that to this point, and based on everyone elses posts other than your own, has been solely about gender disparities regarding parental rights, is an exercise in both tedium and pedantry. To clarify: Yes, I am dismissing those excess variables such as race, minority status, school loan status, credit scores that are being impressed upon this topic. (obviously Im being hyperbolic about the variables here ..lol..but my point remains the same).
I simply fail to comprehend how accounting for each and every variable, will change the actual statistics on record. It may help to make some feel better if they're group has been informally distinguished from the next based on some arbitrary variable (which truthfully, unless we DO arbitrarily stop deciphering statistical groupings at the level of race/minority, then for every distinguishing variable, there is also a variable that will likely pair each distinguished group with its statistical opposite...*Example: a poor minority mom who may have initially been statistically distinguished from a wealthy, single, non minority mom, could later be grouped with the same, if they had both been married before becoming single parents, had multiple children with different fathers and so forth..*)... Those kinds of statistical variables, and hypothetical algorithms could be potentially infinite. Which is why Im not going down that path. I will accept statistics as they have been conducted and presented.
IMO had it been important to make these distinctions, based on multiple variables, in the professional opinion of census conductors, I believe they would have done so. But in the end, these variables do nothing, if not contradict one another. I understand that you are compelled to use those variables to analyze the statistics available; perhaps in an effort to dilute and/or clarify the focus on the topic at hand of gender roles within the context of parental obligations. But that too will have to go without merit, as the list of variables that could be used to manipulate this topic is far too vast for them to do any measureable good imho.
Which is why I decided that for me personally, the benefit that stands to be gained from that undertaking, is not worth the cost. If that means I must be arbitrarily labeled as loosely drawing a line in the sand to support my position - then so be it. But more importantly..the line that I have allegedly drawn in the sand doesnt dilute, nor deviate from the topic of discussion...and is innocuous, not inhibiting to the actual topic of discussion.
Last edited by solytaire; 09-21-2009 at 01:28 PM..
Then the woman should be prepared to take full advantage of all of her options, not just having a child and not giving the man any option.
It takes two to tango. As far as the original act is concerned, the woman and the man get equal choice.
Where the unequal choice begins is when the man gets no choice on whether to pay for a child or not, whether he wants it or not. The female gets that option, and the man deserves the same possibility.
So what you are saying is that she must get the man to sign something to say he wants the child before she can get child support?
Some girls don't have the period on a regular bases. Some of them won't even realized they are pregnant until it is too late (well in my opinion having a abortion more then 1 month after conception is immoral), in these situations I think they guy should just man up, and look after his kid. After all what kind of person are you if you walk away from your own child.
That said, I want to loosely draw a line to inhibit nothing...I was actually trying to save the both of us a little time, since, due to our respective outlooks, I honestly dont see how we can possibly expect to come to an agreement on this issue yet. However, if we are going to start launching presumptions about the other, then it has also become woefully obvious that you would like to arbitrarily use any and every variable known, to analyze source statistics that support claims made, in order to dilute the focus on the topic and their merit...despite the fact that those same statistics have been documented as legitimate.
That's not true. I just want to get to the heart of the matter, which includes the details.
Quote:
Yes, Im well aware of the pills that exist to disrupt the process of conception...However firstly, the morning after pill has already been distinguished by medical professionals as a contraceptive option, not an abortion option...so whichever pro-lifers you may have spoken to who regard it as an abortion pill, are simply arguing on the merit of their own misguided philosophy, NOT scientific/medical fact.
Hmmm, this is a little contradictory. The morning after pill does work in several ways, but one of them, again, is preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus. If life begins at conception, according to you, and if abortion is defined as...
"Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost."
Then the morning after pill is indeed a form of abortion. I don't see how that is not a medical fact. That is why some pro-lifers take issue with it. If anything, it's a consistent position.
Quote:
And yes, the line is drawn at conception.
See above.
Quote:
That is the point at which whatever decision a woman may make is entirely hers to make. I am in full support of that right. I have stated repeatedly that I could careless about controlling a woman's body. It is HER body...people seem to think that since one advocates that a man be allowed to exercise equal control over his body, that he/she is then somehow in favor of disallowing a womans right to abortion.
I don't know how you can compare child support and the body. I've seen it done before, but it doesn't make sense. (If that's what you're saying. I could be misunderstanding).
Quote:
For me, its quite the contrary actually. I can only favor a man's right to control his body and resources, because I also favor a woman's right to control hers. In essence..there is no line to be drawn about conception in the first place as the topic of a womans right to abortion is not one that I am debating. I wholeheartedly believe that the choice to abort an unwanted life is a woman's right. I just also happen to believe that the choice to withdraw support of an unwanted life is also a mans right.
It's not a man's right. Once the child exists post birth, it exists. It's his and there's nothing he can do about it.
Quote:
It is similar to making the analogy that since a 90 year old comatose person (the 'child' in your analogy) is no longer a 12 year old (fetus) and since now, as a 90 year old, he is currently categorized as a 'child', then he never had life as a 12 year old (fetus). Because in order for him to have ever had life as a 12 year old (fetus), the 90 year old (child) would have to remain in the state in which he had been as a 12 year old (fetus).
No, it's a child in your analogy. I'm arguing it's not the case. Just because some tables are made of wood, does not mean trees are tables. Potential doesn't change this fact.
Quote:
To my knowledge, the numbers didnt lie...The term clearer is subjective, and imo it is impossible to be more accurate than the raw stat itself...however, your clarification may have indeed provided subjective redress for some here.
The raw stats include way more than what you are willing to address. Based on what I have been reading, the question 'do Women receive more aid than Men?' needs to be rephrased. If it is teen pregnancies that lead to public assistance than the question should be 'do children receive more aid than men?' because these girls requiring assistance are not women. I don't know the answer to that. I could say more, but it would probably aggravate you further, so I won't.
Quote:
Firstly I regard the group in discussion as one demographic, so this will likely be another fundamental difference between our contentions. Two, I cant see how sample sizes even matter, when we are speaking in terms of percentages..UNLESS one does parse each category along lines of race, minority status, hair color, eye color, height, income status, fingernail length...etc. Im simply unwilling to go there. You may label me what you want.
Sample size matters. If more men were single fathers we would probably see less variation in demographics between the groups.
Solytaire, another thought that comes to mind when discussing a woman's right to abort vs a man's right to regect a child- I don't know if it's appropriate to group women who choose life or choice.
A woman that chooses to allow development might not feel that she has a choice. I'm thinking of religious people here that are pro-life. According to their worldview, abortion is not an option. It's an afront to their god, their morals, their way of being, etc. On the flip side, there are women that do not hold those views and choose to abort. Should these women be considered one in the same? If so, in what context? With this in mind, I feel I should revisit the 'where do rights come from?' thread. When it comes to abortion and child support, rights seem dependent upon society, the gov and our laws. Hmmm, I haven't really thought this out well enough. If anything crystallizes for me, maybe I'll come back to it.
So what you are saying is that she must get the man to sign something to say he wants the child before she can get child support?
Some girls don't have the period on a regular bases. Some of them won't even realized they are pregnant until it is too late (well in my opinion having a abortion more then 1 month after conception is immoral), in these situations I think they guy should just man up, and look after his kid. After all what kind of person are you if you walk away from your own child.
Nope,
If I were still single, I'd keep a mourning after pill at the house, for the next day. I would offer it to her, and if she turned it down, and she became pregnant, then it would be her child, her responsiblity, and her choice.
My choice would be that I don't want another child, and I don't want to support her for 18 years either.
I plan on my son having the same option, he will know about condoms, he will know not to trust a girl when she says, "I'm on the pill", and if there is a male birth control pill out by then, he will be on it.
The whole point here is, women have choices. Sure they have the choice to have sex in the first place, the man gets the same choice. But beyond that, everything is up to her, the man has no rights beyond the initial accidental conception. The man should have the same choice as the woman. Since he can't force her to get an abortion, he should have the right to walk away. That doesn't mean he shows up 5 years later wanting to have something to do with the child, that means he walks away forever. If the child wants to know their biological father after they turn 18, then thats their business as an adult.
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.
