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.
Im not arguing it...I just outright willfully deny that that is any kind of analogue to my scenario...Im just flat out not acknowledging it, and deeming it nonsensical, because it is, and therefore wont be entertained...btw, conceivably a mother is certainly entitled to having a tube shoved up her a55 to slurp all of her nags/discontent with the father who exercises his right to abandon his parental responsibility, as well...there is no arguing it.
You're about monetary value. I'm asking what the value is of the procedure some women elect. It's certainly not equivalent to what's payed to abortionists. If a man wants to forgo financial parental responsibility because a woman can elect to have a gruesome procedure, than I think he should pay her what that's worth. Heck, people sue for millions for side effects that don't touch abortion. If I were to elect for such a procedure based on $$$ it would easily begin at 500k and up.
Quote:
it would only be impossible absent creativity, an attitude of equality, and the motivation to follow thru...
Equality is the horror of abortion or birth. Men will never have to contend with either so I don't see how equality will play a role. Women will always get the physiological shaft, and no amount of money could begin to compensate.
abortion or birth. Men will never have to contend with either so I don't see how equality will play a role. Women will always get the physiological shaft, and no amount of money could begin to compensate.
You're about monetary value. I'm asking what the value is of the procedure some women elect. It's certainly not equivalent to what's payed to abortionists. If a man wants to forgo financial parental responsibility because a woman can elect to have a gruesome procedure, than I think he should pay her what that's worth. Heck, people sue for millions for side effects that don't touch abortion. If I were to elect for such a procedure based on $$$ it would easily begin at 500k and up.
How am I about the monetary aspects?...I hardly ever mention financial obligations in particular..I do that for a few different reasons, one being because I dont deem it very intrinsic to my overarching argument. You are mentioning money and pigeonholing me into that money-centric mindframe, and then shuffling it off on me as though I am primarily concerned with money somehow...when that is not the case. Rarely, if ever, have I initiated anything about finances or money in this dialogue, as those arent the only aspects of parental responsibility and human rights that I take into account in the debate. Going forward, I would appreciate it if you could interpret my comments directly as I write them, just as I do yours...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Equality is the horror of abortion or birth. Men will never have to contend with either so I don't see how equality will play a role. Women will always get the physiological shaft, and no amount of money could begin to compensate.
But that is your subjective opinion...I guarantee you there is some man out there who will contend that things he lives with as a man rival that of childbirth...
How am I about the monetary aspects?...I hardly ever mention financial obligations in particular..I do that for a few different reasons, one being because I dont deem it very intrinsic to my overarching argument. You are mentioning money and pigeonholing me into that money-centric mindframe, and then shuffling it off on me as though I am primarily concerned with money somehow...when that is not the case. Rarely, if ever, have I initiated anything about finances or money in this dialogue, as those arent the only aspects of parental responsibility and human rights that I take into account in the debate. Going forward, I would appreciate it if you could interpret my comments directly as I write them, just as I do yours...
What other argument is there? Child support does not equate parenting, never will. It's the money that's at issue for some men, nothing more.
Quote:
But that is your subjective opinion...I guarantee you there is some man out there who will contend that things he lives with as a man rival that of childbirth...
That has nothing to do with equality when a pregnancy results.
What other argument is there? Child support does not equate parenting, never will. It's the money that's at issue for some men, nothing more.
There are many other arguments..money is the only thing that is at issue for some men, just as pain of childbearing is the only issue at hand for SOME women...while other women love every minute of the experience. right up until the cesarian or childbirth...thats my point exactly...some people dislike the consequences of their actions whereas others dont mind accepting them...Mothers have the options to accept the pain in childbirth or not through abstainence, abortion, putting the child up for adoption. Thats fair enough. So, Im advocating that both genders be afforded options to exercise their preference of how to deal with the consequences of their actions.. Men should be afforded options of abstainence, aborting their responsibility, or putting the child up for adoption as well. Currently only 2 out of the 3 legally exists for men/fathers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
That has nothing to do with equality when a pregnancy results.
How does that not have nothing to do with anything? If he thinks his troubles in life as a man warrant heavy consideration in his right to accept or abandon his responsibility to his child...again that is his experience and therefore his right.
There are many other arguments..money is the only thing that is at issue for some men, just as pain of childbearing is the only issue at hand for SOME women...while other women love every minute of the experience. right up until the cesarian or childbirth...thats my point exactly...some people dislike the consequences of their actions whereas others dont mind accepting them...Mothers have the options to accept the pain in childbirth or not through abstainence, abortion, putting the child up for adoption. Thats fair enough. So, Im advocating that both genders be afforded options to exercise their preference of how to deal with the consequences of their actions.. Men should be afforded options of abstainence, aborting their responsibility, or putting the child up for adoption as well. Currently only 2 out of the 3 legally exists for men/fathers.
You start this post by stating there are many other arguments outside finances and the paragraph ends with finances. A man cannot legally be made to be a father in a child's life. He can only be made to contribute financially. Obviously, this is about money.
Quote:
How does that not have nothing to do with anything? If he thinks his troubles in life as a man warrant heavy consideration in his right to accept or abandon his responsibility to his child...again that is his experience and therefore his right.
There is no physiological equality. Whatever he's going through financially, it is not an abortion or birth.
You start this post by stating there are many other arguments outside finances and the paragraph ends with finances. A man cannot legally be made to be a father in a child's life. He can only be made to contribute financially. Obviously, this is about money.
what are you talking about...? No disrespect intended, but you are flat out lying about by statements. Nowhere did I mention finances.. If your opinion is that finances are the only thing that fathers should be or can be legally obligated for then thats fine, and thats your opinion...not mine...
Ill be honest with you, and I mean no offense by this, but I have a low tolerance for those who lie about my statements, or those who reconstruct and manipulate my statements to comply with their argument. I have absolutely no problem having a civil, sensible debate with you on this issue, but I simply cannot continue to engage in it if my comments/statements are wrongly restated or misinterpreted and reconstructed to portray something that I didnt state. Could you please show me where I ended my previous paragraph with anything that has to do with finances, as you stated?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
There is no physiological equality. Whatever he's going through financially, it is not an abortion or birth.
there is no physiological congruency but physiological equality is relative to the physiology of the person doing the comparison, which is why I dont think biological composition/physiology should be any kind of decisive factor in a debate about equality. Again, hypothetically, if some guy were to state that: because he is taller or stronger than women he deserves to be given special consideration and or privileges during hiring, no one would accept his entitlement based on the misnomer that there is not physiological "equality" or physiological congruency.. Likewise, if some guy were to say that because of his physiology to be compelled to rape people, therefore he cannot be punished because his testosterone is SOOO physiologically overpowering that he cannot control it; whereas women should be punished for having sex at all, simply because they dont physiologically have as much testosterone as men, and therefore arent as sexually impulsive as men, according to their physiology -- no one would accept these silly notions based on physiology...In this country that promotes equal rights, we dont grant the genders any other entitlements based on what they think they are entitled to due to their own physiological composition. (well we used to, but we rightfully deemed that to be discriminatory.)
Last edited by solytaire; 10-10-2009 at 10:39 AM..
what are you talking about...? No disrespect intended, but you are flat out lying about by statements. Nowhere did I mention finances.. If your opinion is that finances are the only thing that fathers should be or can be legally obligated for then thats fine, and thats your opinion...not mine...
You are talking about men that don't want the responsibility. The only responsibility they have lawfully is financial. I'm not sure how else to get that across to you. Men cannot and are not forced to be fathers. Please explain to me what other responsibilities you are talking about.
Quote:
Ill be honest with you, and I mean no offense by this, but I have a low tolerance for those who lie about my statements, or those who reconstruct and manipulate my statements to comply with their argument. I have absolutely no problem having a civil, sensible debate with you on this issue, but I simply cannot continue to engage in it if my comments/statements are wrongly restated or misinterpreted and reconstructed to portray something that I didnt state. Could you please show me where I ended my previous paragraph with anything that has to do with finances, as you stated?
You are not conveying your point clearly. Perhaps, if you answer my question above, I'll get it. What legal responsibility does any man have other than finances?
Quote:
there is no physiological congruency but physiological equality is relative to the physiology of the person doing the comparison.
Well, it's a comparison between any man and any woman. There will never be physiological equality.
there is no physiological congruency but physiological equality is relative to the physiology of the person doing the comparison, which is why I dont think biological composition/physiology should be any kind of decisive factor in a debate about equality. Again, hypothetically, if some guy were to state that: because he is taller or stronger than women he deserves to be given special consideration and or privileges during hiring, no one would accept his entitlement based on the misnomer that there is not physiological "equality" or physiological congruency..
People are hired based on physiological capabilities all the time, and they are paid for it. My job does not require a lot of strength, but I had to take a physical prior. I had to be able to do this or that (bend over and pick up a stick and the like). A person in a wheel chair, for example, would not and could not be hired for my job. A person has to be capable.That's just how it goes. So, if we're talking finances, which until you show otherwise that's what I'm assuming, services rendered by the woman (abortion or birth) cannot be equally compensated by a man. Until that situation changes, and it likely never will, there will never be equality. You would like to take these two situations (abortion or birth) out of the equation, but that's like ignoring the elephant in the room. It cannot work.
People are hired based on physiological capabilities all the time, and they are paid for it. My job does not require a lot of strength, but I had to take a physical prior. I had to be able to do this or that (bend over and pick up a stick and the like). A person in a wheel chair, for example, would not and could not be hired for my job. A person has to be capable.That's just how it goes. So, if we're talking finances, which until you show otherwise that's what I'm assuming, services rendered by the woman (abortion or birth) cannot be equally compensated by a man.
right..and if a woman is deemed incapable solely because of her biological composition, and is therefore never considered a viable applicant, then that employer is holding an arbitrary bias. At one time women were deemed incapable of public servitude such as policewomen/military service women, simply because they are unable to perform the combat necessary to defend the public...but those hiring practices are archaic and antiquated today because the physiology of women is equal (not congruent), yet causes them to perform differently in their physical capabilities.
However you can certainly assume till pigs fly...That is your bias that allows you to only factor financial responsibilities into an equation, not mine.....and I wont be baited into shifting MY argument about a father's right to relinquish his responsibilities.. to a man's current legal responsibiliities to his offspring..when in nature, fathers dont even have a financial responsibility to their offspring; as that is a social construct, not a natural NOR physiological one. So since, again, IM NOT TALKING ABOUT finances you can assume what you will...and for the record, services rendered by a man, cannot be equally naturally compensated by a woman either, point being?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Until that situation changes, and it likely never will, there will never be equality. You would like to take these two situations (abortion or birth) out of the equation, but that's like ignoring the elephant in the room. It cannot work.
No, you would like to take a father's opinion regarding the value of his own life experiences out of the equation...You can apply your bias to support your claim that the biological composition, and the subsequent life experience of women (childbearing) entitles them to an unequal lifestyle if you want, but you will not be allowed to apply your own bias to my argument for the same purposes.. now THAT cannot work. lol ..If you want to arbitrarily dismiss the value of a father's biological experiences because you feel that childbirth merits some kind of special consideration then feel free to do so...but you're certainly right that it wont work, because Im not going to do it.. I dont expect any biological situations to suddenly become congruent either, however they can absolutely be equalized...because I dont believe a woman's biological function is anymore significant than a man's and vice versa...and you wont be allowed to impose your belief regarding the same onto the overarching dialogue with me in particular.
Last edited by solytaire; 10-10-2009 at 03:21 PM..
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.
lol ..If you want to arbitrarily dismiss the value of a father's biological experiences because you feel that childbirth merits some kind of special consideration then feel free to do so...but you're certainly right that it wont work, because Im not going to do it.. I dont expect any biological situations to suddenly become congruent either, however they can absolutely be equalized...because I dont believe a woman's biological function is anymore significant than a man's and vice versa...and you wont be allowed to impose your belief regarding the same onto the overarching dialogue with me in particular.
