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.
This thread turned into the same arguments being posted over and over again a long time ago. I, and others have already responded to every argument being made in these new sets of posts. Nothing new is going to come out of this debate, and I'm not going to keep going in circles. People are simply going to have to accept to disagree. A financial abortion is some people's idea of equality, but that is highly subjective. It does not create an ACTUAL equality, and it does create a whole host of other issues. Equality is not possible in pregnancy. Pregnancy is not fair, or equal to either gender, it's not like it's all rights, sunshine and roses for a woman. I'm reposting my last post, as it sums up why I, and the vast majority of Americans would not support this.
Quote:
What you propose is not, and never will be true equality because biology forces women to be the ones carrying the child, and everything that entails. There are reasons that the laws are what they currently are. You aren’t the first, or last who would love to change this, and give men license to walk away absolutely consequence free, (something a woman can never do), but it will NEVER happen.
Laws must balance individual freedoms, and rights with the needs of others, and society. Thinking people are not going to support a law where the consequence of this supposed “equality" is to create a tool to coerce any woman who can't afford a child alone into having an abortion, or if they refuse, will force society to pay for the child that results from your mistake. The results of any such a law would untenable to society, and will be flatly rejected by most.
Life is not fair, pregnancy is not fair, it's not even close to fair for women either, and that's the only reason they have a choice. There will never be a way to make biology fair. Society will always demand men pay for the children they father. Newsflash, life isn't fair. Adults deal with the cards they are dealt. Men and women know going into sex what their choices, and responsibilities are. Anyone who can't handle their particular set of consequences can abstain from sex.
I heard your arguments, there is no need to respond with another wall of the same arguments repeated. When the consequences of an idea are utterly destructive, the idea must be rejected.
Just because biology is unfair does not necessarily mean that the law needs to be (as) unfair (as it currently is), though. After all, disabled people are also screwed due to biology and yet the law thankfully makes special accommodations for them to compensate them for biology being unfair to them.
The special accommodations for the disabled have serious limitations. For example, in general, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations to support a disabled employee, but they are not required to hire, or continue to employ a person if those accommodations create an undue hardship, or burden on the business. It's part of society to balance the rights of the disabled with the rights of a business.
This thread turned into the same arguments being posted over and over again a long time ago. I, and others have already responded to every argument being made in these new sets of posts. Nothing new is going to come out of this debate, and I'm not going to keep going in circles. People are simply going to have to accept to disagree. A financial abortion is some people's idea of equality, but that is highly subjective. It does not create an ACTUAL equality, and it does create a whole host of other issues. Equality is not possible in pregnancy. Pregnancy is not fair, or equal to either gender, it's not like it's all rights, sunshine and roses for a woman. I'm reposting my last post, as it sums up why I, and the vast majority of Americans would not support this.
Yes, I have already heard the "let's violate individual rights in order to save taxpayer money" argument before and I certainly don't buy it. After all, a similar rationale can be used to justify forcing sperm donors to pay child support, to ban anonymous sperm donation, to forcibly sterilize poor people, et cetera.
Fundamentally, this isn't even completely about equality for me (and Yes, this proposal will result in greater equality between the sexes if abortion is made free and widely accessible everywhere). Rather, it is about not holding individuals responsible for someone else's decision. Indeed, by your rationale, if a woman carries a pregnancy to term and ruins her health and becomes disabled or whatever as a result of this, then I should be held responsible for this since I was the one who get this woman pregnant in the first place. Basically, unless one considers personhood to begin at conception/fertilization or at implantation, I simply don't see any convincing argument in favor of forcing male-bodied people to pay child support (especially if their female sexual partners promised to get abortions in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and lied or changed their minds in regards to this later on). Indeed, I am simply following logic to where it leads. Logic might not always be pleasant, but that's just the way it is.
Also, though, I would like to point out that expecting anyone, either male-bodied or female-bodied, to abstain from penis-in-vagina sex with all fertile and potentially fertile people of the opposite sex is both utterly unrealistic and utterly unacceptable. Indeed, this advice comes straight out of the pro-life playbook and would result in massive numbers of both men and women being single and lonely for the rest of their lives if everyone followed this advice; after all, there simply wouldn't be enough infertile people, especially attracting infertile people, for everyone.
In addition to this, though, I would like to point out that the burden on the taxpayers in this scenario of mine might not be that large. After all, how many women promise to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and lie or change their minds in regards to this later on?
The special accommodations for the disabled have serious limitations. For example, in general, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations to support a disabled employee, but they are not required to hire, or continue to employ a person if those accommodations create an undue hardship, or burden on the business. It's part of society to balance the rights of the disabled with the rights of a business.
You appear to be correct in regards to this. Of course, the key here is finding the right balance in regards to this, and frankly, telling male-bodied people to abstain from penis-in-vagina sex with all fertile and potentially fertile female-bodied people for the rest of their lives certainly does not appear to be striking the right balance in regards to this. After all, this is the exact same advice that pro-lifers give women who never want to risk being forced to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term!
Also, though, in regards to pregnancy, as far as I can tell, some women who get abortions do consider the whole process to be relatively easy. If a woman considers abortion to be immoral, though, then she can avoid promising to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and also be more careful as to exactly which men she has sex with. Indeed, this might be easier for her to do than it is for a man considering that, as far as I know, on average, women have a lower sex drive than men have. Likewise, if a woman considers contraception to be immoral, then she should abstain from having sex with fertile and with potentially fertile men in the first place.
In addition, for all of the people who oppose this, let me ask you this (involving a hypothetical scenario):
Bob and Jane are in an open (non-monogamous) marriage and have two children (Michael and Ashley) together. With Bob's knowledge and approval, Jane has sex with Robert (but also promises Robert beforehand that she will get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy). Robert accidentally gets Jane pregnant and Jane changes her mind in regards to abortion and decides to carry this pregnancy to term in spite of the fact that this pregnancy can kill her. Afterwards, this pregnancy indeed ends up killing Jane; in addition to this, Jane's and Robert's fetus/baby dies either shortly before or shortly after the death of its mother Jane.
Due to Jane's death, her husband Bob, her son Michael, and her daughter Ashley are in a much worse financial position than they were before (due to the fact that Jane was the main breadwinner of her family before her death). Thus, my question to you is this--should Robert be forced to pay child support to Bob's and Jane's children or should the taxpayers be forced to financially support Bob's and Jane's children instead? After all, Robert is the one who caused Jane's life-threatening pregnancy (though it was obviously Jane who chose to carry her life-threatening pregnancy to term)!
Basically, the point of my scenario here is that I am vehemently opposed to forcing someone to pay for someone else's decision even if this means that the taxpayers should be forced to pay for this decision afterwards. Frankly, if a woman doesn't want to get an abortion, then she shouldn't have sex with men who are personally okay with the idea of opting-out of paying child support. If pro-life men are expected to abstain from sex with women who are personally okay with having an abortion, then it's certainly fair game to likewise expect pro-life women to abstain from sex with men who are personally okay with opting-out of paying child support.
Also, though, in regards to pregnancy, as far as I can tell, some women who get abortions do consider the whole process to be relatively easy. If a woman considers abortion to be immoral, though, then she can avoid promising to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and also be more careful as to exactly which men she has sex with. Indeed, this might be easier for her to do than it is for a man considering that, as far as I know, on average, women have a lower sex drive than men have. Likewise, if a woman considers contraception to be immoral, then she should abstain from having sex with fertile and with potentially fertile men in the first place.
you have an oversimplified way of looking at things which does not take into account the realities of sexual relationships. stop thinking that just because some women don't want se as often as some men that, that is easy for her to be "more selective". it is doubtful that any woman considers abortion relatively easy. do tell how does one tell a "potentially fertile man" from a normal fertile man?
you don't take into account people, both men and women lie. you will not change that. human interaction is much more complicated than your limited and stereotypical ideas about women. your only recourse is to take better care of your sperm if you are worried it will turn into child support.
you have an oversimplified way of looking at things which does not take into account the realities of sexual relationships. stop thinking that just because some women don't want se as often as some men that, that is easy for her to be "more selective".
If one has less of a sex drive, then why exactly wouldn't one be more selective in regards to whom exactly one will have sex with?
Quote:
it is doubtful that any woman considers abortion relatively easy.
Any woman? Do you honestly want to bet on that? After all, some women might consider embryos and early fetuses to be oblivious, mindless collections of tissue and cells (which, for the record, is accurate).
Quote:
do tell how does one tell a "potentially fertile man" from a normal fertile man?
Potentially fertile men got vasectomies done. The reason that they are potentially fertile is that their vasectomies can fail due to re-canalization.
Quote:
you don't take into account people, both men and women lie. you will not change that.
Sure, people lie. However, this certainly doesn't mean that one shouldn't extract written promises from someone as a back-up option in the event that this individual is lying or will end up changing his or her mind in regards to this.
Quote:
human interaction is much more complicated than your limited and stereotypical ideas about women.
Stereotypical?
Quote:
your only recourse is to take better care of your sperm if you are worried it will turn into child support.
By becoming a literal eunuch and taking hormone replacement therapy afterwards, correct? Completely serious question, for the record.
Also, can you please respond to this hypothetical scenario of mine? :
Bob and Jane are in an open (non-monogamous) marriage and have two children (Michael and Ashley) together. With Bob's knowledge and approval, Jane has sex with Robert (but also promises Robert beforehand that she will get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy). Robert accidentally gets Jane pregnant and Jane changes her mind in regards to abortion and decides to carry this pregnancy to term in spite of the fact that this pregnancy can kill her. Afterwards, this pregnancy indeed ends up killing Jane; in addition to this, Jane's and Robert's fetus/baby dies either shortly before or shortly after the death of its mother Jane.
Due to Jane's death, her husband Bob, her son Michael, and her daughter Ashley are in a much worse financial position than they were before (due to the fact that Jane was the main breadwinner of her family before her death). Thus, my question to you is this--should Robert be forced to pay child support to Bob's and Jane's children or should the taxpayers be forced to financially support Bob's and Jane's children instead? After all, Robert is the one who caused Jane's life-threatening pregnancy (though it was obviously Jane who chose to carry her life-threatening pregnancy to term)!
(Basically, the point of my scenario here is that I am vehemently opposed to forcing someone to pay for someone else's decision even if this means that the taxpayers should be forced to pay for this decision afterwards. Frankly, if a woman doesn't want to get an abortion, then she shouldn't have sex with men who are personally okay with the idea of opting-out of paying child support. If pro-life men are expected to abstain from sex with women who are personally okay with having an abortion, then it's certainly fair game to likewise expect pro-life women to abstain from sex with men who are personally okay with opting-out of paying child support.)
If one has less of a sex drive, then why exactly wouldn't one be more selective in regards to whom exactly one will have sex with?
Any woman? Do you honestly want to bet on that? After all, some women might consider embryos and early fetuses to be oblivious, mindless collections of tissue and cells (which, for the record, is accurate).
Potentially fertile men got vasectomies done. The reason that they are potentially fertile is that their vasectomies can fail due to re-canalization.
Sure, people lie. However, this certainly doesn't mean that one shouldn't extract written promises from someone as a back-up option in the event that this individual is lying or will end up changing his or her mind in regards to this.
Stereotypical?
By becoming a literal eunuch and taking hormone replacement therapy afterwards, correct? Completely serious question, for the record.
you assume women have a lower sex drive so it is easier for them to not have sex than the man, women don't necessarily have a lower sex drive than men. sex drive is individual. plenty of men with low sex drive. you assume too much for your arguments.
again with the assumptions, just because a woman has an abortion and or thinks it is nothing but a clump of cells does not mean it is an easy thing for her to do. you assume too much that is not based on fact at all.
you want to boil down intimate relationships with a written contract. I doubt that would go over well nr would most people be interested in that.
you make stereotypical remarks about women, like the low sex drive and they don't think abortion is a big deal.
you seem to want to just argue you are inept at making sure you don't get anyone pregnant that won't have an abortion so you would have to pay child support. as it has been pointed out to you. man up take care of yourself. no one cares if you have to pay for a child you created even if you didn't want one.
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.
