Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

[Spiffor]

loin: I'm in complete agreement with you here. I reacted to GePap, who manages to be about "ZOMFG you had sex you must pay for the following 18 years!!1" while still being pro-abortion. I am personally very pro-choice, as I consider that sex and reproduction finally managed to become two different things, and it should stay that way.

His position is ludicrous, and I have found much more consistency among our noted anti-abortion posters.

[loinburger]

Ah, gotcha.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
I put moral weight on responsibility, not sex itself. Sex as an act has consequences, consequences known to the parties before they undertake them. I expect people to be upfront and upright and bear the responsibility of their action, be it sex, smoking, driving, whatever.

The test case in the OP is one in which the man (allegedly) did not know of the consequences of having sex.

There have also been cases of men having to pay child support for their non-biological children. I'll see if I can google up the article I'm thinking of.

Edit: Found one.

Of the four children born during [Morgan Wise's] marriage to Wanda Fryar, which ended in 1996, only the eldest, daughter Carli, was biologically his.

But the court that had handled his divorce would not consider the genetic evidence — and refused to allow him to stop paying child support for the boys. The court also cut off his visitation rights, even with his biological daughter

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Then I'd have to ask, LoTM, from where does the government get it's right to compel one person to support another for a period of 18 years? I can't imagine that the Virginia legislature would, for instance, have the right to mandate you pay me $10,000/year for the next 7 years, though I'd have to check with one of the forum lawyers.

Where does the government get the right to compel support for a child?

There are other ways of configuring society. We could have the govt take care of unwanted children - though that would have consequences. We could leave unwanted children to die on dungheaps - we could sell them into slavery. However none of those things are what the plaintiffs are arguing for. In the US we make it the bioligical parents responsibility to care for their offspring, until such a time as that bond is severed by adoption, or they grow up, or die. The plaintiffs are not challenging that principle, just misunderstanding it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
loin: I'm in complete agreement with you here. I reacted to GePap, who manages to be about "ZOMFG you had sex you must pay for the following 18 years!!1" while still being pro-abortion. I am personally very pro-choice, as I consider that sex and reproduction finally managed to become two different things, and it should stay that way.

His position is ludicrous, and I have found much more consistency among our noted anti-abortion posters.

But the point here is that sex and reproduction are NOT 2 different things. At least not yet. At least not to a male who hasnt been sterilized. There is no foolproof, non permanent, male controlled contraception. So whenever fertile male has intercourse, there is a chance of pregnancy. These guys dont like it, and instead of lobbying for better birth control, are trying to change child support law. thats whats ludicrous.


Now you may like the social consequences of birth control and abortion. Id say that the social consequences are in fact more mixed - a whole range of social changes have taken place, with direct and indirect effects some good, and some bad. The picture is at least as mixed as say, the effects of free trade in farm products

But thats beside the point. At least here in the US the argument made for abortion rights, at the gut level is NOT "Yippee, now sex is free" - if anything that reduces support for abortion rights. The winning slogan is "keep your laws off my body" we (or at least thos of us in blue states) recognize how personally intrusive it is for the govt to force a woman to carry to term. Which is fundamentally a different question from that raised by the plaintiff.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Than, I don't understand why you're pro-abortion. Pregnancy is a very well-known consequence of sex. If the women (except the ones who are raped) become pregnant, they have to bear responsibility for their actions, i.e. accepting to have vaginal sex with a man. Those who choose abortion just waive the responsibility they have incurred with their actions.

I cant speak for GePap, heaven knows, but heres my response. Im pro choice, because ive spent 9 months living with a pregnant person. I know that if a persons body were assaulted the way a fetus can and often does assault the mothers body, that person would be considered justified in killing the assailant in self defense. (in our case we wanted the child, and the result, as the mother will attest, was well worth it) Whatever social benefits may or may not accrue from tying sex more closely to consequences, dont justify the imposition on personal freedom involved.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
To explain my position:

I consider birth-control (both contraception and abortion) to be the best thing to come out of the 20th century, because it finally freed women of a servitude that lasted millions of years: the act of sex (a basic human need) meant that their body and their future didn't belong to them anymore.

To me, birth-control freed half of mankind more effectively than the philosophy of liberalism, which is already an immense human achievement.

Thanks to birth-control, we can now staisfy our basic human need (sex) without wrecking havoc in our individual future. I personally have to thank birth-control for being free now (instead of having to get a daily bread for one or two children, as I spent 2.5 years with the same girl), and I have to thank birth-control for not having to spend my life with a girl who doesn't love me anymore.

This freedom, I have it because my ex and I were in agreement. However, had she suddenly flipped out wrt childbearing, I'd have been a prisoner of her choices. I don't understand why my sexual freedom should depend on someone else's, while her's only depends on herself.

There are many consequence to sex apart from fetuses - there are emotional and other human consequnces, which obviously affect both. However the fetus, lives in her body, and she has the right to make decisions about what happens to her body, not because theres a fetus in it, but because its HER body. Spiff, do you really think you should have the right to force her to terminate? Do you think thats compatible with freedom?

Ah, but you say, you just want freedom from writing a check, not to be able to force termination. Do you see what youve done? If you have succeeded you havent freed yourself from the consequenc of sex - reproduciton - youve still reproduced. Theres still someone walking around whose father you are, who shares your genes. The human consequence is still there. All youve freed yourself from is a FINANCIAL obligation. To YOUR child. Who will remain your child, even though you choose to wash your hands of the monetary responsibility.

I can understand, if i dont entirely sympathize with that wish. But I dont see that society is obligated to oblige it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor
loin: I'm in complete agreement with you here. I reacted to GePap, who manages to be about "ZOMFG you had sex you must pay for the following 18 years!!1" while still being pro-abortion. I am personally very pro-choice, as I consider that sex and reproduction finally managed to become two different things, and it should stay that way.

His position is ludicrous, and I have found much more consistency among our noted anti-abortion posters.

Excuse me?

Men are not paying for having sex. They are payiong for having sex with someone they have no interest in long term relations with and failing to use proper birth control.

And as Loinburger already stated, abortion and reponsibility are not related. A woman is reponsible for getting pregnant. Since the fetus gestate inside of her, she, unlike the man who simply gives sperm, has more choices. Its simple biology.

If men want the same ability, let them gestate fetuses inside of themselves. UNtil then, that connection you are trying to make is not valid.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger

The test case in the OP is one in which the man (allegedly) did not know of the consequences of having sex.

There have also been cases of men having to pay child support for their non-biological children. I'll see if I can google up the article I'm thinking of.

Edit: Found one.

Whether a man has to pay child support is a decision for the courts. That courts can come up with questionable decisions is a different discussion from the discussion of whether men who have children they did not seek have to pony up support as a principle.

The arguement made by this groups is that in principle men should not have to fear having to pay child support for biological offpsring they did not seek. I think I have made my disagreement with that plainly clear.

[Sava]

This is a ploy for irresponsible men to get out of paying for child support, as well as a chance for "right to lifers" to bash abortion. Also, I've seen a few dumbass comments about how men should somehow have a say in pregnancy. Whatever. Can a man die from a pregnancy or child-birth? No. So stfu dumbasses.

The only goal here is to either restrict abortion, or to allow deadbeat dads to get out of paying child support.

All other arguments in this thread are meaningless and irrelevant.

[GePap]

I have a problem with the notion that there can be some sort of "equality" between men and women when it comes to reproductive rights.

The problem is this: Women get pregant. Men do not.

That is an undeniable, basic biological difference between men and women. You can't not legislate it away, and any attempt to do so verges on the absurd.

Women will always bear greater costs, and have greater choices, when it comes to reproduction, because they get pregant (and again, if anyone missed it, MEN DON'T).

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap
I have a problem with the notion that there can be some sort of "equality" between men and women when it comes to reproductive rights.

The problem is this: Women get pregant. Men do not.

That is an undeniable, basic biological difference between men and women. You can't not legislate it away, and any attempt to do so verges on the absurd.

Women will always bear greater costs, and have greater choices, when it comes to reproduction, because they get pregant (and again, if anyone missed it, MEN DON'T).

Exactly.


And... as far as medicine has come, women can still DIE from childbirth.

As far as men are concerned, you can **** a woman once... and disappear.

That's it.

She can get pregnant from that one time. And maybe it takes a while before she knows, maybe there are factors involved, not knowing who the father is, not having a family to support her (emotionally as well as financially). There are a slew of issues involved here.

But somehow there is this sense of equality?

Please, that's complete bull****.

Anyone who says there's equality regarding this issue needs to be punched in the face and kicked in the balls.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

There are other ways of configuring society. We could have the govt take care of unwanted children - though that would have consequences. We could leave unwanted children to die on dungheaps - we could sell them into slavery. However none of those things are what the plaintiffs are arguing for. In the US we make it the bioligical parents responsibility to care for their offspring, until such a time as that bond is severed by adoption, or they grow up, or die. The plaintiffs are not challenging that principle, just misunderstanding it.

Actually, most places I am familiar with allow for parents to give children up to the care of the State. In some cases the State will take children away from some parents.

I believe you are mistaken about what the basis of this argument is.

The way things are done now, a man who finds himself the father of a child he does not want is made in essense an indentured servant for 18 years (or longer in some cases).

What is being fought for are the rights over reproduction for men, as the OP indicates.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


But the point here is that sex and reproduction are NOT 2 different things. At least not yet. At least not to a male who hasnt been sterilized. There is no foolproof, non permanent, male controlled contraception. So whenever fertile male has intercourse, there is a chance of pregnancy. These guys dont like it, and instead of lobbying for better birth control, are trying to change child support law. thats whats ludicrous.

Equal rights are ludicrous?

[GePap]

"Indentured servant"?

Actually, most places I am familiar with allow for parents to give children up to the care of the State. In some cases the State will take children away from some parents.

The first is called adoption, and it is still a choice. And the state will only trake children away from unfit parents. Being unwilling does not make unfit.

If the man does not want a child, use birth control. If that fails, too bad. Hope the woman didn't want that child either, or that she won;t seek child support.

Until men get pregant, what this group wants is bull****.