Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

Personally, I think an opt-out system that allows a man to record his objection to a pregnancy, before the fetus becomes viable, and thereby waiving any obligation to pay child support or any future custody/visitation rights is a fair system. If the woman can't financially support her child without the biological father's support, then an opt-out policy will simply add a new layer to her decision on whether to have an abortion or, if she's pro-life, put the child up for adoption.

An opt-out system doesn't mean the man is "forcing" the woman to have an abortion or even to proceed with the pregnancy if the woman instead doesn't want the baby. There's no invasion of body autonomy here.

The reality is, though, an opt-out system will never exist in today's society, because unlike Roe v. Wade, an opt-out system would have to be legislated by statute. Roe v. Wade, on the other hand, was a court decision that's been upheld for 30+ years respecting a woman's fundamental right to privacy. And considering how hotly contested abortions themselves are in our political environment, there is pretty much no chance an opt-out system gets put into statute.

Except maybe in California.

Dubay and Wells began dating in 2004. Dubay maintains that he made it clear to Wells that he was not interested in being a father and that Wells reassured him that she could not get pregnant because she was using contraception and because she had physical conditions that prevented pregnancy.[1] After they stopped dating, Wells informed Dubay that she had become pregnant. Although the two discussed adoption, Wells ultimately decided to have the baby and pursued child support payments from Dubay. Dubay was ordered to pay $475 per month plus half of the baby's health care expenses by Saginaw County Circuit Judge Patrick McGraw. The National Center for Men agreed to take Dubay's case and challenge the child support order.

On March 9, 2006, the National Center for Men challenged the child support order in District Court. Michigan's Attorney General made a motion to have the case dismissed, and on July 17, 2006, District Court Judge David M. Lawson agreed and dismissed Dubay's lawsuit.[4] The National Center for Men appealled the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 14, 2007. Oral arguments began September 10, 2007, and in November the appeals court affirmed the District court decision, noting precedent stating that "the Fourteenth Amendment does not deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."[5]

Melanie McCulley, a South Carolina attorney coined the term male abortion in 1998, suggesting that a father should be allowed to disclaim his obligations to an unborn child early in the pregnancy.[80] Proponents hold that concept begins with the premise that when an unmarried woman becomes pregnant, she has the option of abortion, adoption, or parenthood; and argues, in the context of legally recognized gender equality, that in the earliest stages of pregnancy the putative (alleged) father should have the same human rights to relinquish all future parental rights and financial responsibility—leaving the informed mother with the same three options.

McCulley states:

'When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. His responsibilities to the child begin at conception and can only be terminated with the female's decision to abort the fetus or with the mother's decision to give the child up for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decisions of the female to determine his future. The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood. Unlike the female, he has no escape route'.
​

McCulley's male abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unwed men and unwed women by giving the unwed man by law the ability to 'abort' his rights in and obligations to the child. If a woman decides to keep the child the father may choose not to by severing all ties legally.

The legal concept was tried in Dubay v. Wells and was dismissed. This was not surprising, since legislation in the various jurisdictions currently sets forth guidelines for when child support is owed as well as its amount. Accordingly legislation would be required to change the law to implement McCulley's concept.

So who knows, if it's found that the 14th amendment does "deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."

 

[Gaborn]

Personally, I think an opt-out system that allows a man to record his objection to a pregnancy, before the fetus becomes viable, and thereby waiving any obligation to pay child support or any future custody/visitation rights is a fair system. If the woman can't financially support her child without the biological father's support, then an opt-out policy will simply add a new layer to her decision on whether to have an abortion or, if she's pro-life, put the child up for adoption.

An opt-out system doesn't mean the man is "forcing" the woman to have an abortion or even to proceed with the pregnancy if the woman instead doesn't want the baby. There's no invasion of body autonomy here.

The reality is, though, an opt-out system will never exist in today's society, because unlike Roe v. Wade, an opt-out system would have to be legislated by statute. Roe v. Wade, on the other hand, was a court decision that's been upheld for 30+ years respecting a woman's fundamental right to privacy. And considering how hotly contested abortions themselves are in our political environment, there is pretty much no chance an opt-out system gets put into statute.

Except maybe in California.

Or, she'll expect (and receive) the support of tax payers while the father gets off. Sorry if I don't want to be responsible for you not keeping it in your pants.

 

[Shanadeus]

Or, she'll expect (and receive) the support of tax payers while the father gets off. Sorry if I don't want to be responsible for you not keeping it in your pants.

I've covered this before Gaborn.
The cost for the tax payers would probably stay the same or even decrease.

And then there's the argument of justice sometimes costing people - and the cost being worth the freedom gained.

 

[scosher]

So who knows, if it's found that the 14th amendment does "deny to [the] State the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways."

Yeah, but it's still distinct from Roe v. Wade, where there was an explicit statute that outright prohibited women from having abortions, and that was considered a denial of a fundamental right without due process.

The only way a court can institute an "opt-out" without the legislature's involvement is if they decide to uphold the validity of a contract between a man and woman before the child's birth, where one waives the right to child support.

In fact, I think there were already cases like that (didn't go up to the Supreme Ct), but they deemed those contracts void for public policy reasons because the right to child support is a fundamental right of the child, and not the parents' to contract away.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

The cost for the tax payers would probably stay the same or even decrease.

This is contingent on your belief that the pro-abortion stance will be embraced, which I think gives your own rhetorical skills a little too much credence. I know that's what you believe, but that's not reality. We're not on the precipice of a society where abortion is the kneejerk "You're pregnant!? Well what are we doing staring at that over the counter test? Let's get you to the abortion clinic!" reaction to unplanned pregnancy.

 

[Chococat]

That sounds like a pretty great world actually, aside from a couple of minor points.

With more use and acceptance of birth control the risk of becoming pregnant when having sex would be very low.

It is already very low when both parties take responsibility.

Additionally, if abortions are also free, easy to come by and culturally accepted then the "risk" might not be large enough to result in the sort of selective behavior you're talking about when it comes to sex.

Your taking about abortion for a man's point of view where it has no health repercussion for a man's body and mental health. The stigma is always going to be there because it physically mess with a women's body and mind. Biology doesn't change just because you deny it. (Just like to state, I am not against abortions, but I believe they should used as a last means- education, contraception, and the day after pill should cover 99% of accidents). What would be easier with our current medical procedures for all if vasectomies would be more accepted in younger men. That way, when and if they ever want children, they can just reverse the procedure- no more acciedents.

I also don't see why this would result in the removal of monogamous bonds.

Because the primary reason for monogamous bond is to produce a family with offspring. I'm not just talking about humans, I'm looking at pairing in the animal kingdom.

Those that form monogamous bonds do so to raise a family. Those that are promiscuous only come together for sex and then separate leaving the female (most of the time) to raise the offspring.

Sure, people could stay together for "love", but by definition that would not be a true monogamous bond. A life time partner sure.

See your missing the part that marriages would be obsolete. The family bond would only exist between the mother and child- thus the mother is married to the child. There would be no "fathers". A women may choose to take a partner into the life of her and her child, but no man would have the right to a child unless she sign that right away. Remember- the child you argue is 100% hers. You would have to be one hell of a guy to get a women to sign away any rights to her child.

As I've already pointed out, marriages could get an actual purpose in that they'd be child-rearing bonds (or another institution could be implemented for this purpose) and upon entering that bond you accept that all members of said bond will be given responsibility for a child created with genetic contribution from a person inside the bond (with a clause about this not applying when children has been created with genetic contribution from persons outside of that bond).

Yes, marriages could be based on child rearing purpose only. But you are missing the the very real problem for men you just want to have sex that the pool of women you could freely have sex with will go down- unless both use fool proof contraception, or have entered a marriage contract where the women is guarantied if there is an accidental, her partner is going to stand by her. Women not only are hardwired to want children, they are hardwired to seek out relationships.

To have a relationship with a man, one of the trade offs is to have sex more often than most women desire. Why have sex with a man if there is not chance for a relationship or a child? A man who just wants recreation sex is is going to be the low man on the totem pole when it comes to getting some.

As you can see, this would be a scalable relationship that would work for monogamous, trigamous and N-gamous relationships.

Scalable by the women choice of if she is going to have sex or not. If you are going to give the full responsibility of conception to a women- you're are going to change the reason why a women would seek out to have sex with men. I don't think you are really thinking about the ramifications to society and relationships as a whole.

People being selective about what partners they want children with is also a good thing as this would result in more children being born out of planning and a desire to want a child rather than because of accidents.

Please don't frame this as if you care about kids, cause you don't. Far as you are concerned, they are not your problem. You are actively advocating for fatherless children.

So yeah, sounds like a great world.

Sure if you like the sexes to be more unbalanced in relationships than they already are.

 

[Shanadeus]

Yeah, but it's still distinct from Roe v. Wade, where there was an explicit statute that outright prohibited women from having abortions, and that was considered a denial of a fundamental right without due process.

The only way a court can institute an "opt-out" without the legislature's involvement is if they decide to uphold the validity of a contract between a man and woman before the child's birth, where one waives the right to child support.

In fact, I think there were already cases like that (didn't go up to the Supreme Ct), but they deemed those contracts void for public policy reasons because the right to child support is a fundamental right of the child, and not the parents' to contract away.

Then one have to target that instead.

Why is the right to child support from your biological parents a fundamental right of the child?

I could see this issue being handled by bringing up the whole practice of anonymous sperm donations.

Do we really want sperm donors to be held responsible for a child that someone else choose to create with their sperm?

If not, then that right there could be used to say that "children don't have a fundamental right of child support from their biological parents, only the parents that accept the children and thus the financial burden that come along" or something.

I'm not lawyer so I have no idea if this approach would work.

 

[jiien]

Why? Would it be better if the male and the female baked the cake together? Is it really any worse than comparing pregnancy to a disease?

Because holding a gun to someone's head is not at all the same as not wanting to have financial responsibility for a decision that was not at all yours. If the woman decides to have the child regardless of what the man wants, why should he have support her and the child? That is not to say that it wouldn't be admirable or "right" for him to do so; rather, we should not have a law that dictates he HAS to, even if it was never his choice. I don't think it's that hard to understand that holding a gun to someone's head over cake eating is not at all comparable...and it's silly to try and draw such an analogy. Analogies, in this thread, are simply used to misrepresent your (not singling you out, though you are included) opinion as something far removed from what you are actually suggesting, in an attempt to put it into the realm of 'Well of course what you say is soooo obvious!'. If you can't justify why you feel a certain way without an analogy, you should probably rethink why you even think a certain way to begin with. This discussion is not so complicated as to require analogies (especially poor and misleading ones).

And when was I talking about pregnancy as a disease?

Yes, by definition it is a choice. But under such coercion, it's not a real choice, it's the premise of a Saw movie.

Again, this is why misleading analogies are silly. Sure, it sounds outrageous to shoot someone over eating a cake; it's so innocent! How can he do such a thing! Of course it's reprehensible, because your "analogy" was designed to inspire such emotional response, without taking into consideration the more multi-faceted situation you are comparing it to. It speaks nothing to the consensual act that put the two people in the position they are in. It speaks nothing to the joint decision they must make to handle the consequences of their previous action. It speaks nothing to the actual situation. No, it speaks of a man with a gun to a woman's head over cake.

 

[Shanadeus]

That sounds like a pretty great world actually, aside from a couple of minor points.

With more use and acceptance of birth control the risk of becoming pregnant when having sex would be very low.

It is already very low when both parties take responsibility.

Right, and I wouldn't want this system implemented without free and widespread contraceptives being implemented.

Additionally, if abortions are also free, easy to come by and culturally accepted then the "risk" might not be large enough to result in the sort of selective behavior you're talking about when it comes to sex.

Your taking about abortion for a man's point of view where it has no health repercussion for a man's body and mental health. The stigma is always going to be there because it physically mess with a women's body and mind. Biology doesn't change just because you deny it. (Just like to state, I am not against abortions, but I believe they should used as a last means- education, contraception, and the day after pill should cover 99% of accidents). What would be easier with our current medical procedures for all if vasectomies would be more accepted in younger men. That way, when and if they ever want children, they can just reverse the procedure- no more acciedents.

It's pretty interesting that you brought that alternative up, because it's something I've made a thread about:

An uncomfortable solution: World-wide restriction of the procreation ability

The problem with this was that it'd be an unparalleled invasion of the individual's bodily autonomy.

Also, it's worth pointing out that an abortion is safer than a pregnancy and they're as "mentally scarring" as any other procedure.

And this isn't a man's point of view.

I also don't see why this would result in the removal of monogamous bonds.

Because the primary reason for monogamous bond is to produce a family with offspring. I'm not just talking about humans, I'm looking at pairing in the animal kingdom.

Those that form monogamous bonds do so to raise a family. Those that are promiscuous only come together for sex and then separate leaving the female (most of the time) to raise the offspring.

Sure, people could stay together for "love", but by definition that would not be a true monogamous bond. A life time partner sure.

See your missing the part that marriages would be obsolete. The family bond would only exist between the mother and child- thus the mother is married to the child. There would be no "fathers". A women may choose to take a partner into the life of her and her child, but no man would have the right to a child unless she sign that right away. Remember- the child you argue is 100% hers. You would have to be one hell of a guy to get a women to sign away any rights to her child.

You're making a lot of assumptions and many that seem to be drawn from humany's past and present situation. I'm no sociologist so I'll refrain from getting into a lengthy argument on what sociological changes this would have on society but I disagree with you on many points such as:

• That people would only form monogamous bonds to raise a family (From Wikipedia: "Monogamy refers to a form of marriage in which an individual has only one spouse at any one time. However, monogamy may also refer to the more general state of having only one mate at any one time and as such may be applied to the social behavior of some animals.[1] In current usage monogamy often refers to having one sexual partner irrespective of marriage or reproduction.")
  
• That marriages would be obsolete (they could be done out of love/tradition or for reasons below)
  
• That large majority of women in a relationship with someone would not accept them as the shared parent of the child they choose to give birth to (as per my suggestions in this thread, women wouldn't have to worry about men bailing out half-way through the pregnancy. Once they've accepted parenthood there are no take-backs and they are eligible for child support if the woman is poor enough.)

As I've already pointed out, marriages could get an actual purpose in that they'd be child-rearing bonds (or another institution could be implemented for this purpose) and upon entering that bond you accept that all members of said bond will be given responsibility for a child created with genetic contribution from a person inside the bond (with a clause about this not applying when children has been created with genetic contribution from persons outside of that bond).

Yes, marriages could be based on child rearing purpose only. But you are missing the the very real problem for men you just want to have sex that the pool of women you could freely have sex with will go down- unless both use fool proof contraception, or have entered a marriage contract where the women is guarantied if there is an accidental, her partner is going to stand by her. Women not only are hardwired to want children, they are hardwired to seek out relationships.

To have a relationship with a man, one of the trade offs is to have sex more often than most women desire. Why have sex with a man if there is not chance for a relationship or a child? A man who just wants recreation sex is is going to be the low man on the totem pole when it comes to getting some.

Or, as I've pointed out above, a woman consider sex as worth the the possible abortion it might entail if her contraceptive fails.

I won't get into the whole deal about how hardwired we are to want children or seek out relationships but as someone posted a page back or so, we humans form the weakest kinds of bonds with our children among all primates and this bond is probably non-existent when we're talking about a fetus.

Also, many people chose not to follow whatever biological imperatives that exist in nature and their significance is, in my opinion, never greater than our social conditioning.

Why have sex with a man if there is not a chance for a relationship or a child you say?

Well, they might just want to have a good fuck (yes, women think this way and more will once our society move away from sexist norms and stereotypes such as the one you posted)

QUOTE=Chococat]

As you can see, this would be a scalable relationship that would work for monogamous, trigamous and N-gamous relationships.

Scalable by the women choice of if she is going to have sex or not. If you are going to give the full responsibility of conception to a women- you're are going to change the reason why a women would seek out to have sex with men. I don't think you are really thinking about the ramifications to society and relationships as a whole.[/QUOTE]

See above for my opinion on why and why not women seek out to have sex with men.

People being selective about what partners they want children with is also a good thing as this would result in more children being born out of planning and a desire to want a child rather than because of accidents.

Please don't frame this as if you care about kids, cause you don't. Far as you are concerned, they are not your problem. You are actively advocate for fatherless children.

What's wrong with fatherless children?
Because many children fare well without one.
Or without a mother.

Hint: Gay couples.

So yeah, sounds like a great world.

Sure if you like the sexes to be more unbalanced in relationships than they already are.

A world where sexual partners are more selective, where fewer people have children because of accidents and where women are more empowered than ever before?

Sounds like paradise.

 

[Chococat]

Right, and I wouldn't want this system implemented without free and widespread contraceptives being implemented.

It's pretty interesting that you brought that alternative up, because it's something I've made a thread about:

Yeah, well I believe everyone (men and women) should be sterilized at birth. If anyone wants a child, they would have to prove before a panel that they are capable and worthy to be parents. Too many selfish self centered immature people are having kids now days.

Also, it's worth pointing out that an abortion is safer than a pregnancy and they're as "mentally scarring" as any other procedure. And this isn't a man's point of view.

I never said pregnancy wasn't safe- but that doesn't make abortion any less of a risk. When a women gets pregnant, a whole cascade of hormonal and neurological changes happen inside her. Depending on when and for what reason the abortion is done, it can and often is an experience that haunts many women years later. Just because you choose to dismiss biological function and human emotions does change the fact that it happens.

You're making a lot of assumptions and many that seem to be drawn from humany's past and present situation.

Any you are making allot of assumption about how women and other men would respond in a world you desire. Your suggest is just as much of a hypothesis as mine- neither can be proven as a true possible outcome.

eligible for child support if the woman is poor enough.

No. If a women can not support a child- it should be taken away. Society should not have to come to the rescue of the women of a women who made a poor choice. The child for the child's sake should be removed and placed with people who care about it. Why should society support a women who made a poor choice? Why should society pay for a child when the man who father it doesn't even think it is worth supporting. You are not only passing your responsibilities off on the women for your actions, but expect society to pay for them too? You're no man, you're a leech.

Or, as I've pointed out above, a woman consider sex as worth the the possible abortion it might entail if her contraceptive fails.

You mean both a MAN and a WOMEN contraception fails. BOTH are responsible for the prevention of impregnation- not just the women.

I won't get into the whole deal about how hardwired we are to want children or seek out relationships but as someone posted a page back or so, we humans form the weakest kinds of bonds with our children among all primates and this bond is probably non-existent when we're talking about a fetus.

I would like to hear your arguments against the biological responses. Because in order for your idea to truly work biology has to be taken into account of both men and women. To dismiss it by saying "the bond is weak" show a total disregard for people emotions and feelings.

Well, they might just want to have a good fuck (yes, women think this way and more will once our society move away from sexist norms and stereotypes such as the one you posted)

If contraception existed in the ideal form you posted in your other thread- I would agree. But it doesn't. You ideas applied to society with it technology as it is now if find is sexist and selfish. Men and women are both responsible for creating children, no matter how much you want to deny it.

What's wrong with fatherless children?

I'm bias because I had a pretty shitty childhood as a fatherless child. If my mother would have gotten child support from the dead beat, maybe I could have had milk every week of the month instead of just the week when food stamps came in. Raw government oats are pretty tasty when there is nothing left in the house. That is the price a child pays for a man's right to fuck with no responsibilities to the child he help create.

Because many children fare well without one.
Or without a mother.
Hint: Gay couples.

It is a proven fact that children do better in households with 2 parents either strait or gay because the children have more finical and emotional support. Gays tend to be better parents than most straight couple because of all the hoops they have to jump through to enjoy the privilege that is automatically giving to straight people. A determined single parent with a support network can do just fine, but those with support or the financial means to do so are few and far in between.

Yeah, so I am against men trying to dismiss there responsibilities to their offspring for the child's sake.

A world where sexual partners are more selective, where fewer people have children because of accidents and where women are more empowered than ever before?

Sounds like paradise.

Assuming the technology and laws are in place that both men and women are "sterile" until they time they choose to have offspring, sure. In the current and foreseeable future future where contraception is not fool proof-no. Children deserve financial support from both parents.

 

[JayDubya]

A world where sexual partners are more selective, where fewer people have children because of accidents and where women are more empowered than ever before?

Sounds like paradise.

Your "paradise" of "empowerment" seems rather reliant on increased inequality.

 

[NovemberMike]

You do. Wear a damn condom. Alternately, figure out a way for a man to grow a womb.

Or have sex with men. Very few children come from that.

 

[natasi]

A man's time of physical commitment in creating a child is equal to the amount of time it takes to ejaculate.

A woman's time of physical commitment is approximately two years, which includes the duration of pregnancy, birthing, and breastfeeding.

If a man told me he had an equal say in whether we should have a child or not, I would tell him to go fuck himself, since I sure as hell wouldn't.

 

[Shanadeus]

A man's time of physical commitment in creating a child is equal to the amount of time it takes to ejaculate.

A woman's time of physical commitment is approximately two years, which includes the duration of pregnancy, birthing, and breastfeeding.

If a man told me he had an equal say in whether we should have a child or not, I would tell him to go fuck himself, since I sure as hell wouldn't.

I'd tell him to go fuck himself too.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Nope.

Then so how is it a choice when instead of shooting, you threaten them with the financial destitution of single motherhood or the psychological trauma of giving their child up for adoption?

It's a possibility for sure.
But that it's been attempted speaks more for it than against.

Lots of dumb ideas have been attempted. And we're not even talking about actual implementation here, you've got a handful of theorists who have suggested it, but there's been no mass political movement to adopt it.

If I'm going to be honest with you I'm not entirely sure if this is the case over here.
We're already a socialist state where child benefits are given to all children so I don't see the need of such a system here.

I'll send in a motion though through a parliament member and let you know how it goes.

What socialist state are we talking about here? Then someone who cares more about this issue than, oddly, you seem to can look up whether or not you might be subjected to such a dire fate as financially support a child you conceived.

---------

Because holding a gun to someone's head is not at all the same as not wanting to have financial responsibility for a decision that was not at all yours.

That's why I called it an "analogy" and not "restating the situation." Since this thread loves dictionary definitions, let me drop this on you.

a·nal·o·gy

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology . an analogous relationship.
4. Linguistics .
a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b. a form resulting from such a process.
5. Logic . a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

analogy

1. agreement or similarity, esp in a certain limited number of features or details
2. a comparison made to show such a similarity: to draw an analogy between an atom and the solar system
3. biology the relationship between analogous organs or parts
4. logic, maths a form of reasoning in which a similarity between two or more things is inferred from a known similarity between them in other respects
5. linguistics imitation of existing models or regular patterns in the formation of words, inflections, etc: a child may use ``sheeps'' as the plural of ``sheep'' by analogy with ``dog'', ``dogs'', ``cat'', ``cats'', etc

The similarity in question is the similarity of the two actions ("opting out of financial responsibility" and "holding a gun to your head") resulting in a similar outcome ("the other person's 'choice' isn't a real choice.")

If the woman decides to have the child regardless of what the man wants, why should he have support her and the child? That is not to say that it wouldn't be admirable or "right" for him to do so; rather, we should not have a law that dictates he HAS to, even if it was never his choice.

Why shouldn't we?

I don't think it's that hard to understand that holding a gun to someone's head over cake eating is not at all comparable...and it's silly to try and draw such an analogy.

Holding a gun to someone's head to compel a certain choice is certainly analogous to using the threat of financial destitution or psychological trauma to compel a certain choice.

Analogies, in this thread, are simply used to misrepresent your (not singling you out, though you are included) opinion as something far removed from what you are actually suggesting, in an attempt to put it into the realm of 'Well of course what you say is soooo obvious!'. If you can't justify why you feel a certain way without an analogy, you should probably rethink why you even think a certain way to begin with. This discussion is not so complicated as to require analogies (especially poor and misleading ones).

I have stated my justification numerous times in this thread, namely, I feel that threatening a female with financial destitution or psychological trauma makes her decision about whether not to "choose" abortion not a real "choice." I'm simply using the analogy in the attempt to highlight how the male severely restricts the female's choice when he "opts out" of been financially responsible for the child he conceived.

And when was I talking about pregnancy as a disease?

You didn't. My analogy was in response to Shanadeus' analogy comparing pregnancy to a disease.

 

[jiien]

stuff

I really don't have much left to say; I think we just have very differing point of views. I did not contest that you gave an analogy. I was trying to convey that I think it was a poor one, one that does not do justice to the actual discussion at all. You can argue that the similarities makes it a good analogy, and I can argue that the differences makes it a poor one. I guess we'll leave the analogy thing at that. I have thought about it, given your comments, and I think I can understand why you would draw such an analogy, given your opinions.

Analogy aside, I think I can also understand why you would think that the woman is left with no "choice" given that she has to abort/not carry to term if the man does not want to either, given the financial/physical burden without his support. However, despite this, I think you, and many others in this thread, are simply ignoring inherent biological inequality, and trying to somehow "fix" it with a law that requires the man to support the woman if she so chooses. To me, this simply reverses the inequality; now, if the woman so chooses, the man has no choice but to take on the financial burden (this thought isn't novel, as many in this thread have already expressed this opinion). Hasn't the gun been put to the man's head now? Moreover, I don't think there is a "fix", nor does there need to be one. We are talking about biology; this is the way things are, and the way things will stay forever. Men and women are inherently unequal, and it seems shortsighted to try and come up with solutions for a difference that will remain such for the rest of time.

Finally, I think this all still boils down to personal responsibility, something that no law will ever be able to cover for. It is both partners' job to ensure that if they do not want a child, they take the necessary precautions. It is both partners' responsibility to ensure that if they are going to engage in risky behavior, they discuss beforehand how an accident will be dealt with. It is both partners' responsibility to come to a mutual agreement, and accept the consequences of their actions. Biology allows the male to have much less of a stake, and since that is the case, the woman better damn well be prepared for the consequences of her greater risk. That is her inherent inequality, her inherent disadvantage, but such is life.

 

[Zionyx]

Nature's greatest practical joke was making sex feel good.

 

[Dan Yo]

It is both partners' responsibility to ensure that if they are going to engage in risky behavior, they discuss beforehand how an accident will be dealt with.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't take this discussed agreement into account. If the woman changes her mind at any time, the guy will pay.

 

[Satyamdas]

To have a relationship with a man, one of the trade offs is to have sex more often than most women desire. Why have sex with a man if there is not chance for a relationship or a child?

Wow, there are still people who believe this?? Here's a tip, friend. Women desire sex for pleasure wayyyyyyyyyyyy more than you think, oftentimes more than their male partners. Why have sex with a man if there is no chance for a relationship or child? Because it feels fucking good.

Why the fuck do you think countless women risk their marriages where they ALREADY have children for some sex on the side?? Because it feels THAT good and they are doing it for nothing more than physical gratification. Get that antiquated myth out of your head that women only have sex out of obligation or some desire for a family. Speaking of which:

A man who just wants recreation sex is is going to be the low man on the totem pole when it comes to getting some.

Total. Bollocks. You are so fucking backwards on this I doubt you are speaking from any real world experience.

A man who is good at recreational sex is going to be the HIGH man on the totem pole when it comes to getting some. Wanna know why? Because women want good sex just as much as men do. They talk to their friends about how good certain men are in bed and advertising pays, my friend. Many women who hear how good so-and-so is in bed will go behind their friend's back to see for herself what the fuss is about. Women are not sitting around waiting for some Mr. Right to come sweep her off her feet. That might happen, and might be a best case scenario, but in the meantime she is going to be getting some dick. Not for a family, but for pleasure. This is Pussy101 son, you really have to get that outdated shit upgraded.

Gays tend to be better parents than most straight couple because of all the hoops they have to jump through to enjoy the privilege that is automatically giving to straight people.

[citation needed] *Cough*Bullshit*Cough*

So what about hetero couples who have to jump through a ton of hoops to adopt a child? They must fall below gays but above the average straight couple on the "better parent" scale, huh? Fucking nonsense.