Support NeoGAF

[ClassyPenguin]

It sounds really misogynistic to me. I understand the legal issue when it comes to paternal rights and paying child care once it is born, but this whole idea of "opting out" sounds more of Men's Rights line of thinking and not something that is practical or realistic.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Do you have any thoughts on other potential solutions, then?

I don't think anything will change until a fully reversible male birth control implant solution is invented. Till that day we'll be stuck with what we've got. I hope the sex contract thing never happens though because it will just take longer for real change to occur

 

[H.Protagonist]

I don't think anything will change until a fully reversible male birth control implant solution is invented. Till that day we'll be stuck with what we've got.

I remember there was a male contraception thread a while ago that talked about the injection method being tested now in India that Squiddy mentioned, but the replies from guys in the thread was... not encouraging (from what I remember). Even though it was totally reversible, many didn't seem to want to even consider it because it involved a needle near their junk. :/ So even if you guys do get a sure method, I don't feel like many be willing. I'd love to be wrong, though.

 

[el retorno]

In magnitude most definitely and undeniably! In basic principle they're actually fairly similar: Two people made a choice resulting in a consequence, and one is going to make a choice that forces the other to do something that will control part of their life that the other otherwise should have absolutely no claim to. Again, you are right, there's a fucking world of difference in magnitude that makes one far more clear cut than the other, but it still doesn't change that this simply is an effort to make things more equal to both parties rather than one sided.

Ones about body autonomy one is about property and financial autonomy. I think the principles are quite different and not just degree.

I remember there was a male contraception thread a while ago that talked about the injection method being tested now in India that Squiddy mentioned, but the replies from guys in the thread was... not encouraging (from what I remember). Even though it was totally reversible, many didn't seem to want to even consider it because it involved a needle near their junk. :/ So even if you guys do get a sure method, I don't feel like many be willing. I'd love to be wrong, though.

Nothing will probably change till there is a pill or something similarly non-invasive

 

[Absinthe]

Never looked into it. What is the waiting time for an adoption?

Oh, and to comment on the subject, wrap it up if you don't want to support a kid for the next 18 years, and wrap it up twice if you're really concerned about it "breaking".

 

[LuCkymoON]

The only real way to fix this is have all children grown in artificial wombs in labs.

 

[akira28]

Maybe give the man the right to the embryo and a surrogate to carry it to term, then.

Problem solved. Closing shop. Get off my lawn or you'll be shot. Never darken my doorstep again. This means you. Good day.

 

[EviLore]

That's the Vasalgel which I mentioned in my post earlier. Last I saw the stage III clinical trials are in progress again and if those pan out it could be commercially available in 2015.

Obviously condoms are still the way to go outside of a monogamous relationship due to STI transmission, but a magic bullet solution for male contraception is a game changer. Crazy girls, you're on the table again! ;b

 

[Uni on Everything!]

Yes, it's similar. You put your penis in another woman and your spawn grows in her. Not you. It grows in her. And it doesn't matter if the woman made the same decision. What she decided has nothing to do with what you decided. Unless the guy is slow, his act should happen with the assumption he may have to pay child support for 18 years. You can't have equal say when you do not face the same consequences. You won't die based on if the baby is born. You won't be faced with diabetes. Or elevated blood pressure that might kill you. Uncontrolled bleeding. Infection. Need for surgery. Or depression. Or rupture of your uterus.

After all that, you can't have equal say. This baby, in another person's body, is not a direct threat to your health. In all issues related to your health, you have complete say over what happens to your body. I can't say this any more clearer, so I'll leave it up to Wiki. I, and the American government and most reasonable 1st world governments, don't give a shit that the two people made the same decision. Who cares? If you make a decision like this that can lead to a baby, it means different things to the guy and girl. That's the only thing that matters.

And, this argument does not give credit to the 80% of single family households lead by women. They are showing more responsibility than a good chunk of guys in here. You guys are embarrassing me.


Their beliefs don't invalidate the point. As a guy, once you decide to have sex, expect consequences. It's bullshit to not take responsibility. There is plenty of truth to the idea: don't want a kid, don't have sex. Sorry, life's not fair. You won't get a pony for Christmas this year, either. But we might have some tissues around here somewhere.

You keep saying everything is about the woman, the baby grows in the woman, the health risk is the woman's, the decision is ultimately the woman's, and that the man has no choice once he decides to put his penis inside of her. So if the choice is 100% the woman's, then the only logical conclusion I can draw is that the decision to keep the baby irregardless of what the man wants should be 100% on the woman. Her body, her choice, her responsibilities. How can you just disregard the fact that both parties had an equal part in creating the baby, but only one party has the right to decide if it lives or dies? And only one party will be financially responsible for that decision?

80% of single family households lead by women... so what? It could be for any variety of reasons. Father died? Man wanted out? Woman wanted out? Father left? Woman left? Being responsible is knowing when you are mature enough and financially stable enough to have kids, not just popping them out one after the other for the sake of having them and screwing up the lives of the child and all that are involved. So no, leading a single family household does that automatically make you responsible. I hope you ARE embarrassed if you believe that. In fact, I would go so far as to argue that it just shows how IRRESPONSIBLE some people are.

"Don't want a kid, don't have sex." Why aren't you applying that to women? She wants to have sex, she should be fully aware of the risks and responsibilities that it comes with.

I'm all for better sex ed, better contraceptive measures, teaching more responsibility to would be parents. What I'm not for is this notion that it took two hands to clap, but only one hand has the power of deciding the future. This is exactly why things are not and never will be equal between men and women. There is always a call for more equality, but when it comes to abortion or divorce it is clearly not anywhere even close to being equal.

What, that socialist manifesto? The government is responsible for shifting the blame on the people who had sex, so the government should pay for this shit? Who's the government but the people. I need to pay my tax money because some asshole didn't put 2 and 2 together after health class? Where are these guys surprised about a pregnancy that happened after sex? I want to punch them in the face.

This I actually agree with you on. What's even more loony is that whole debate where they wanted companies to pay for employee contraceptives. Nobody is forcing you to have sex. Two consenting adults want to have sex? Then pay for your own god damn consequences.

 

[Rhindle]

That's the Vasalgel which I mentioned in my post earlier. Last I saw the stage III clinical trials are in progress again and if those pan out it could be commercially available in 2015.

Their website says they haven't progressed beyond animal studies. If that's the case, 2015 is a pipe dream.

Plus there's no money behind it apparently. They're trying to fund trials through Indigogo - give me a break.

 

[H.Protagonist]

Ones about body autonomy one is about property and financial autonomy. I think the principles are quite different and not just degree.



Nothing will probably change till there is a pill or something similarly non-invasive

Some of our more sure birth control methods are quite invasive, and even the pill comes with its share of awfulness. If guys won't bite until the perfect, painless method comes along, then you'll be waiting forever. If men really want more control over this sort of thing, I hope they'll suck it up and use it, small needle or not.

That's the Vasalgel which I mentioned in my post earlier. Last I saw the stage III clinical trials are in progress again and if those pan out it could be commercially available in 2015.

Obviously condoms are still the way to go outside of a monogamous relationship due to STI transmission, but a magic bullet solution for male contraception is a game changer. Crazy girls, you're on the table again! ;b

It would be amazing if it pans out, but if guys aren't willing to put up with a momentary discomfort, then it's all for naught.

And crazy girls are going to give you waaaaay equal or more trouble than a baby, methinks.

 

[Keri]

Except no one here is arguing that. No one wants to see a kid in poverty but if a guy doesn't want a kid and tells the woman that but the woman ignores it and has the kid anyway, and the guy bails, how is part of the blame not on the woman? She knew ahead of time.

I think everyone in this thread would agree it's a scum of the earth move to ditch a woman and kid at the last minute before abortion was a possibility, but, if the kid ends up in poverty it's always 100% the mans fault? Really?

No, that's exactly what you're arguing. You are arguing that a man's right to choose whether or not he wants to financially support his biological child, trumps the right of the child to have financial support from both of its parents.

You also appear to be justifying the inevitable increase of children living in poverty, by blaming the outcome on women.

You're also advocating a situation that is unconscionably unbalanced and unfair for two people, in order to financially benefit one person (the man).

 

[ronito]

What, that socialist manifesto? The government is responsible for shifting the blame on the people who had sex, so the government should pay for this shit? Who's the government but the people. I need to pay my tax money because some asshole didn't put 2 and 2 together after health class? Where are these guys surprised about a pregnancy that happened after sex? I want to punch them in the face.

'I don't know how she got pregnant. I was just fuckin her and she told me a few months later...'

I thought she was just trolling. She was serious about an enlightened society? Pfft, how about a little enlightenment? Don't want a kid? I know how to avoid one.

'But..but..but...dem tittays?!' or 'But, she did it first...it's her fault'

I really feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Here's the issue. Just like in business there are costs that you cannot avoid, shrinkage of your inventory, poaching your talent and technology, etc. A wise business person doesn't get indignant about it they know that an ounce of prevention is worth ten pounds of cure. Yes, I'm asking you to pay for birth control. You know why? Because that $10 of pills can save you thousands in welfare costs for a child that was unwanted, thousands on paying for childbirth for a child the mother was not financially ready to have, and thousands more in not having to educate the kid or worse jail him should he go astray. Sure you can scream indignity all you want. But you're paying more taxes for it.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Men deserve a way to keep a child if his partner wants to abort, but its not feasible unless we can magically have it grown in a tube en masse.

Also, the amount of "you should think of consequences before you have sex" in this thread is tragic. Shit happens.

 

[Cipherr]

Is there a romantic way of saying , "baby we goin fuck but first I need you to sign this here paper relinquishing all rights to legal redress should our sexual congress result in a pregnancy"?
Should make a GAF thread about it

There is no romantic way to discuss prenuptial agreements either. But they do exist. Your reasoning here is broken. Romance has nothing to do with it.

stuff

You are swinging for the fences with assumptions there. It seemed to me that he was saying the guy didnt want a child, as in not wanting to be a father, not that he was ONLY against financial support.

And don't tell him "If the guy didn't want a child, why did he have sex" because thats the same ridiculous line people use to rail against abortions. The reality of the situation is that it isn't fair. Its lopsided, and the male in the scenario does get the short end. If a woman decided she wanted the child, she gets to keep it, we all agree with that. The man doesn't get a say, his 'wants' don't matter, period. We all agree with that as well.

Its not fair, but its the way things are. That being said, there's gonna be some people that are going to dislike that its unfair. The only thing they can be told is to 'deal with it'. Unfortunately any other alternative is worse.

 

[Uni on Everything!]

I have a solution:

Implement means testing so only people that are financially stable, mentally fit, and can actually afford to have a child are allowed to have a child. Problem solved!

 

[Rhindle]

You also appear to be justifying the inevitable increase of children living in poverty, by blaming the outcome on women.

You're also advocating a situation that is unconscionably unbalanced and unfair for two people, in order to financially benefit one person (the man).

I think making a decision to bring a child into the world in the absence of two loving supporting parents is the most unconscionable decision. The financial considerations are totally secondary.

Trying to avoid paternal support is a scummy move, but frankly most of the blame for the child having a shitty life DOES go to the woman making the ultimate decision.

 

[ZenaxPure]

It would be amazing if it pans out, but if guys aren't willing to put up with a momentary discomfort, then it's all for naught.

To be honest I am not familiar with this exact procedure, is it guaranteed to work 100% of the time without any room for failure for all of eternity? Because until we get something of that nature than this problem isn't solved. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread when this first came up, what happens if this thing inevitably fails like any other means of protection? We just go back to square 1 because all this does is drive around the solution, not solve it.

No, that's exactly what you're arguing. You are arguing that a man's right to choose whether or not he wants to financially support his biological child, trumps the right of the child to have financial support from both of its parents.

You also appear to be justifying the inevitable increase of children living in poverty, by blaming the outcome on women.

You're also advocating a situation that is unconscionably unbalanced and unfair for two people, in order to financially benefit one person (the man).

Except I'm not at all? If you actually read my post you would see I don't condone the action of the father, all I said is that it IS partly the mothers fault if she knows ahead of time that the man may flake out. He was trying to argue that it is ALWAYS the mans fault with no shades of gray whatsoever, which just isn't true.

 

[Pau]

Fathers actually paying child support is a bit foreign to me so my gut response is that paper abortions wouldn't change much if they're not paying anyways. But I really am not aware of the situation in the United States.

 

[EviLore]

Their website says they haven't progressed beyond animal studies. If that's the case, 2015 is a pipe dream.

Plus there's no money behind it apparently. They're trying to fund trials through Indigogo - give me a break.

The human trials are in India. The lack of traction is in the west, where we're apparently cool with unwanted pregnancy.


H.Pro: When vasectomy comes up with guys, if they don't want kids or are done having kids, I hear about how it's emasculating to be shooting blanks, maybe more so than the snip snip procedure itself being the issue. They don't want surprise pregnancy, but at the same time not being able to hypothetically randomly impregnate girls due to their magical powers of virility is too high a price to pay.

Paradox!

Except for the guys with five kids. They're more than happy to get snipped, and some have been, but they're on permanent one hour sleep per night working 16 hour days with semi-hostile creatures climbing on them for the other seven. ;b

 

[H.Protagonist]

To be honest I am not familiar with this exact procedure, is it guaranteed to work 100% of the time without any room for failure for all of eternity? Because until we get something of that nature than this problem isn't solved. Like I mentioned earlier in the thread when this first came up, what happens if this thing inevitably fails like any other means of protection? We just go back to square 1 because all this does is drive around the solution, not solve it.



Except I'm not at all? If you actually read my post you would see I don't condone the action of the father, all I said is that it IS partly the mothers fault if she knows ahead of time that the man may flake out. He was trying to argue that it is ALWAYS the mans fault with no shades of gray whatsoever, which just isn't true.

As far as I recall from the thread, it was pretty high up there. On par with birth control (EL or Squiddy can correct me as they seem more familiar with it), I believe. They're still doing trials for it at the moment, though. And, as ours isn't 100% either (BC and even IUDs) we're all making do the best we can. As long as men have a reasonable option like birth control, then I'd say we're moving in the right direction. Certainly women have been making the best of it that we can despite the awfulness of hormones and lack of 100% certainty. Will men do less when it does become viable for them on the same terms?

Fathers actually paying child support is a bit foreign to me so my gut response is that paper abortions wouldn't change much if they're not paying anyways. But I really am not aware of the situation in the United States.

In my experience, men don't pay here. I might be a bit biased in that conclusion, though.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

I'd just like to point out these all sound a lot like the same argument anti-abortion abstinence only advocates use against women (in non-medical/non-rape cases): Don't want a baby? Don't have sex! It was your choice! You made the mistake, you live with it!

Except the actual argument isn't that callous, and I supremely object to the stance of pro-life ascribers as purely misogynistic. It's not about forcing the woman to live with some moral choice or poor decision, though it is an unfortunate consequence. Whether one wants to admit or not, there is a scientifically definable life at stake here, and its lack of qualification for legal status as a human being and thus its disenfranchisement at the hands of the parents is the root of the argument. The point is that there was a clear choice to engage in sex, and that the potential consequences of that free choice should not be to the direct detriment of the life created in the process which had no part in said choice. The woman, and concurrently the man as well, being of the age of consent, had right to full bodily autonomy before she had sex, and by having sex, which no matter how well protected outside of wholesale organ removal is scientifically verifiable to have a pregnancy risk greater than 0, there is an acceptance, whether explicit or implicit, that a child may result from said encounter. As ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it, ignorance of simple statistics, especially when so many claim to want more comprehensive sex ed, is no more acceptable. Furthermore, women can't claim "free choice/bodily autonomy" when it comes to abortions but then claim they were given no choice in regards to the pregnancy happening in the first place. Freedom in both the legal and philosophical sense has never been about doing whatever one wants without regard for the outcomes. As terrible as it may be to deal with an unwanted pregnancy (the notion of an unexpected pregnancy is patent nonsense), the pro-life belief is borne out of a desire to protect the life created in the process which has been given no choice or say in its own existence, not to merely antagonize women. The basis of half the laws in this country deal with those cases in which the exercise of one person's rights impinge on another. I do not begrudge women the right to control their bodies as they wish. However, in the case of a pregnancy, where the life in question is by all definable standards a separate entity and separate body from the mother, I think it unfair that in the course of the mother exercising her right to her "body" that it ends up usurping all rights of another life entirely. When it comes to one person exercising one right that causes the inability of another to exercise any rights at all, present or future, then I would think the ruling would be in favor of the latter. And biological tissue linkage between two organisms does not constitute legal status as a single human being/body, this precedent has already been set with conjoined twins, not to mention the fetus is completely genetically distinct from the mother. Rest assured, the rights of an entirely separate entity are being infringed upon in the course of abortion. Unfortunately, the law does not yet recognize these rights.

However, before going, I'd like to reiterate that the man is just as biologically and legally responsible for the pregnancy as the woman, hence why I am 100% pro-child support and 100% against any kind of opting out on the part of the father when the pregnancy is carried to term. It is morally and financially unfair to saddle the woman with all the responsibilities of a pregnancy that was 50% of the man's own making and consciously and autonomous taken part in by him, and while the law can't mandate that the two remain romantically or even socially involved, the law can mandate at least financial responsibility. There should also be as expansive a support system for single parents as there should be for the poor, homeless, jobless, or otherwise disadvantaged and disenfranchised in society. I would even go so far as to say that government-funded pre-natal care should be ubiquitous, both as a protection of the mother and that for the not yet enfranchised life within. I'm also entirely for comprehensive sex education, though not as an encouragement or enabling of adolescents to engage in sex, and preferably with an emphasis on the responsibility and commitment entailed therein.

 

[Freshmaker]

Her body, her choice, her burden.

If a dude doens't want to be a daddy there's a very easy way to avoid the shackles of the matriarchy.

Don't have sex.

Except the actual argument isn't that callous, and I supremely object to the stance of pro-life ascribers as purely misogynistic. It's not about forcing the woman to live with some moral choice or poor decision, though it is an unfortunate consequence.

It's really all about punishing a woman for having sex. Same reason the same types strenuously object to the cancer vaccine.

 

[Keri]

You are swinging for the fences with assumptions there. It seemed to me that he was saying the guy didnt want a child, as in not wanting to be a father, not that he was ONLY against financial support.

He's arguing that no one wants to see children in poverty, but ignoring that an increased amount of children living in poverty is the logical result of "paper abortions."

Either I'm confused and no one in this thread is arguing in support of "paper abortions," or he is confused and doesn't understand what the consequences of the proposal entails.

Zena, maybe you're not in favor of "paper abortions" (so perhaps I was wrong to phrase my post as 'you're arguing...') but to say that "no one here" is arguing in favor of increasing the amount of children living in poverty is wrong.

Trying to avoid paternal support is a scummy move, but frankly most of the blame for the child having a shitty life DOES go to the woman making the ultimate decision.

You realize that a significant amount of the population believes that abortion is murder, don't you? In fact, because of how widely held this belief is, a large portion of states have implemented incredible restrictions on access to abortion. In many places, the only way to obtain an abortion is to brave a crowd of protestors literally calling you a murderer.

If you understood all of the above, you might understand why some women will choose against abortion, despite the poor status of their finances.

This is also why "paper abortions" could never be equal to the choices women have. Signing a paper is not comparable to choosing between: (1) being considered a "murderer" by many; (2) being considered a horrible parent for having a baby while poor by many ; or (3) carrying an infant for 9 months, only to give them up at the end.

 

[Robot Pants]

Only if each decision of the divorcing of men from their children is mediated by a tribunal of 50 men and 50 women of all different racial and economic backgrounds.

Yea, that's never gonna happen.
That's like Jury Duty 2.0

 

[zero shift]

A deadbeat guy that won't accept financial responsibility would be a deadbeat father anyways. If you need a legal paper to formalize it, then so be it.

It should come with a restraining order of the guy from the newborn and the mother.

Pretty much this. According to statistics a high amount (maybe even a majority) of fathers in these situations turn into dead beat dads when it comes to child support.

The way I see what this paper does is have the women reconsider having a baby if the father says he doesn't want to support the child. And if the father doesn't sign the papers within four months then he's pretty much forced to claim the kid. All I see here is two positives for both parties.

It sounds really misogynistic to me. I understand the legal issue when it comes to paternal rights and paying child care once it is born, but this whole idea of "opting out" sounds more of Men's Rights line of thinking and not something that is practical or realistic.

I agree with you on this. But as I said above its a win for women as well. How many women do you believe would reconsider having a child if they knew a guy wouldn't be supporting it?

That being said I think this wouldn't work as well as some think. I'm sure many, if not most, guys will sign the sheet if they get their lover pregnant.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

It's really all about punishing a woman for having sex. Same reason the same types strenuously object to the cancer vaccine.

Except I just told you exactly why it isn't, or at least why in theory it isn't, even if some may use punishment of women as a justification (which it should never be). I deeply sympathize with those put in the position of having to cope with an unwanted pregnancy, and given the choice myself even I can't say with certainty that I would have the willpower to go through with it, though moral culpability would remain. It is a consequence of pro-life sentiment, but not the intended purpose. Though I can't help those who wish to ignore the points presented.

And I'm not sure what you mean about the "cancer vaccine" bit, and I highly doubt the two go 100% hand in hand.

 

[H.Protagonist]

The human trials are in India. The lack of traction is in the west, where we're apparently cool with unwanted pregnancy.


H.Pro: When vasectomy comes up with guys, if they don't want kids or are done having kids, I hear about how it's emasculating to be shooting blanks, maybe more so than the snip snip procedure itself being the issue. They don't want surprise pregnancy, but at the same time not being able to hypothetically randomly impregnate girls due to their magical powers of virility is too high a price to pay.

Paradox!

Except for the guys with five kids. They're more than happy to get snipped, and some have been, but they're on permanent one hour sleep per night working 16 hour days with semi-hostile creatures climbing on them for the other seven. ;b

I have heard that opinion, yes. They don't want anything affecting their sex drive or way they view themselves. Kind of pisses me off since every woman who takes birth control is messing with her body and mental health quite a bit when we get on the pill. Until you find the right one you're subject to all kinds of nastiness and discomfort, and even then it affects you quite a bit still. Feeling 'emasculated', seems like such a laughable justification, in the face of the stuff we have to put up with when being responsible.

 

[Snapshot King]

The obvious solution is that if a woman wants to abort and the man wants to keep the baby, the man gets bumped up in the adoption process for a new baby and the woman is forced to pay child support for said child.

 

[Slavik81]

I have heard that opinion, yes. They don't want anything affecting their sex drive or way they view themselves. Kind of pisses me off since every woman who takes birth control is messing with her body and mental health quite a bit when we get on the pill. Until you find the right one you're subject to all kinds of nastiness and discomfort, and even then it affects you quite a bit still. Feeling 'emasculated', seems like such a laughable justification, in the face of the stuff we have to put up with when being responsible.

It's a perception problem that's totally solvable with the right marketing.

Obviously, it's not possible to exactly emulate the marketing proposition of the pill, but there's important things to take away from it. Its message of giving users more control over their own body (and thus their lives) is a powerful one.

Though, I've never had a girlfriend who'd use the pill. They all found the side effects to be too much.

 

[Devolution]

The obvious solution is that if a woman wants to abort and the man wants to keep the baby, the man gets bumped up in the adoption process for a new baby and the woman is forced to pay child support for said child.

lol wut

 

[Freshmaker]

Except I just told you exactly why it isn't, or at least why in theory it isn't, even if some may use punishment of women as a justification (which it should never be).

It's all a massive rationalization towards that precise end however.

 

[Devolution]

Except I just told you exactly why it isn't, or at least why in theory it isn't, even if some may use punishment of women as a justification (which it should never be). I deeply sympathize with those put in the position of having to cope with an unwanted pregnancy, and given the choice myself even I can't say with certainty that I would have the willpower to go through with it, though moral culpability would remain. It is a consequence of pro-life sentiment, but not the intended purpose. Though I can't help those who wish to ignore the points presented.

And I'm not sure what you mean about the "cancer vaccine" bit, and I highly doubt the two go 100% hand in hand.

What is it with some people thinking inducing a miscarriage is the worst thing ever despite 75% of conceptions failing to making it to a full term pregnancy. Pro-life sentiment is so full of crap.

 

[Angry Fork]

I think men should only be held financially responsible for 2-5 years at most. 18+ or whatever it is is ridiculous to me. If the woman needs help afterwards there should be some state-ran fund like social security to offer money and everyone pays taxes towards it, it'll be some section of a nationalized healthcare system if it doesn't exist already. But if a guy didn't want the child I don't see why he should become a monetary slave for 18 years. 2-5 years is enough punishment for one ejaculation, there has to be some give and take.

Obviously free contraception should be the first and foremost semi-solution here, but that goes without saying. Only the "moral" try hard's are against this as they're more interested in punishing people for mistakes than fixing real existing problems. If a child is born by accident they'd rather leave it to fend for itself in order to poke fun at the 'slutty, stupid' mother/father than give a tiny portion of their check so society can take care of the kid (or prevent kids from showing up).

 

[Rhindle]

You realize that a significant amount of the population believes that abortion is murder, don't you? In fact, because of how widely held this belief is, a large portion of states have implemented incredible restrictions on access to abortion. In many places, the only way to obtain an abortion is to brave a crowd of protestors literally calling you a murderer.

If you understood all of the above, you might understand why some women will choose against abortion, despite the poor status of their finances.

This is also why "paper abortions" could never be equal to the choices women have. Signing a paper is not comparable to choosing between: (1) being considered a "murderer" by many; (2) being considered a horrible parent for having a baby while poor by many ; or (3) carrying an infant for 9 months, only to give them up at the end.

If abortion is not an available option, then the premise for this thread is moot. By definition, we're talking about situation where the decision to carry the pregnancy to term could go either way.

As far as cases where the woman's own religious beliefs are the issue, obviously that's perfectly understandable. But again, it's a situation where the woman effectively has no real choice in the matter - so that's again avoiding the real question of who bears the moral blame for a child's well-being (or lack thereof) in a situation where both parents had real choices.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

It's all a massive rationalization towards that precise end however.

Except it isn't? Did you read what I posted?

What is it with some people thinking inducing a miscarriage is the worst thing ever despite 75% of conceptions failing to making it to a full term pregnancy. Pro-life sentiment is so full of crap.

Because one is a conscious decision to end another life, and the other is a wholly uncontrollable natural biological process? Is that so hard to understand? This just seems borderline intentionally dishonest.

 

[Devolution]

Except it isn't? Did you read what I posted?

Except in the real world you're essentially forcing it on her from that perspective.

 

[Fivefold]

The obvious solution is that if a woman wants to abort and the man wants to keep the baby, the man gets bumped up in the adoption process for a new baby and the woman is forced to pay child support for said child.

Yeah but the man needs to go through a contraption that simulates birth pains via electrical impulses.

 

[EviLore]

I have heard that opinion, yes. They don't want anything affecting their sex drive or way they view themselves. Kind of pisses me off since every woman who takes birth control is messing with her body and mental health quite a bit when we get on the pill. Until you find the right one you're subject to all kinds of nastiness and discomfort, and even then it affects you quite a bit still. Feeling 'emasculated', seems like such a laughable justification, in the face of the stuff we have to put up with when being responsible.

Agreed that it's dismissing the very real side effects women have to deal with, and men should absolutely man up and take responsibility for themselves when it comes to contraception, but it's not that laughable a notion.

Men tend to vehemently protect their identification of manhood, as there are social consequences in all aspects of daily life for that manhood being undermined. Being straight, being virile, having a big penis, winning at sports, dominating other men in fighting or in business or with women. It's a pervasive concern and maybe the biggest one men have. Look at how that NFL guy may not be able to get a job as a free agent after the tabloids find photo evidence that he might be gay, or how an actor's stock rises if he shows impressive bits on camera (Fassbender), or how ED is used to dismiss and belittle a man any time it's found out or rumored at, or how sexual exploits are universally congratulated, etc. etc. etc. A man's social stock is based overwhelmingly on his perceived success at the masculine identity.

Men usually keep vasectomies to themselves, because they are often treated as lesser by their peers for admitting it.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

I'm completely on the observing side regarding this topic since I still haven't figured it out myself either, but, what if a girl lied about being on birth-control, and she got pregnant?

Can you still "blame" the man in that situation for not using a condom?

Sorry if someone has already asked/made this point. :/

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Except in the real world you're essentially forcing it on her from that perspective.

Noone forced her to have sex, and pregnancy is a natural biological consequence of that. What were forcing her to do is not willfully end another's life. I'm sorry if that means that she's forced to carry the pregnancy to term in the process. If there were some viable alternative in which the undesiring mother could have the embryo transplanted into some viable synthetic womb then perhaps it wouldn't be necessary, but as it is there is no alternative, and when the child comes about ultimately due to your decision it is ultimately your responsibility. Sorry if it seems so draconian that people actually get held accountable for their own chosen actions. Again, you can't claim complete free will and autonomy in regards to abortion and then claim that you were impregnated by the bogeyman.

 

[ZenaxPure]

Zena, maybe you're not in favor of "paper abortions" (so perhaps I was wrong to phrase my post as 'you're arguing...') but to say that "no one here" is arguing in favor of increasing the amount of children living in poverty is wrong.

I can see where you are coming from with that angle actually. In that case I would agree some people are arguing for it, but not in the most direct nature. To explain my own position though:

I am not entirely sure where I stand on the exact issue, I would have to do a lot of reading to fully comprehend the entirety of what a paper abortion covers. That said I do tend to lean towards that a man should have the right to sign away responsibility if he is given a reasonable warning. The way I see it is that as long as you are not at a point where an abortion is extremely dangerous to a mother then it is fair game because there is no choice actually being taken away from the woman then. In that exact situation if the kid ended up in a poverty situation I do see it as a mother's fault because she knew ahead of time what was going to happen. The whole "well then don't have sex!" bit just doesn't fly to me because that is throwing the entire blame on the man still. Shouldn't the woman have not had sex then? Who was forcing her to do it? Because so far everyone's argument against the men has been screaming "YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE SEX!" but then completely ignoring the part where the woman didn't have to have sex either. There is nothing positive about the situation for a man, he gets no control over his own fate while also getting thrown the entire blame despite the fact that it is 50% the woman's fault she got pregnant.

The short version of all that being, as the process goes on from the starting point (The choice to have or not have sex with someone) a woman has many more chances to jump ship while also being able to control what happens to the father. No, I don't think that is very fair at all.

 

[Devolution]

Noone forced her to have sex, and pregnancy is a natural biological consequence of that. What were forcing her to do is not willfully end another's life. I'm sorry if that means that she's forced to carry the pregnancy to term in the process. If there were some viable alternative in which the undesiring mother could have the embryo transplanted into some viable synthetic womb then perhaps it wouldn't be necessary, but as it is there is no alternative, and when the child comes about ultimately due to your decision it is ultimately your responsibility. Sorry if it seems so draconian that people actually get held accountable for their own chosen actions. Again, you can't claim complete free will and autonomy in regards to abortion and then claim that you were impregnated by the bogeyman.

What is with you people. How is an abortion any different than halting any other "natural" process like a disease? What makes it so special when compared with a tumor? If we went by what's natural we might as well give up surgery altogether.

Hell you know what's "natural" to our species? INFANTICIDE. But we decided that's cruel and rightfully so.

 

[Jenov]

Great posts, Keri. This topic has come up a number of times but many posters keep reverting to a men vs women fairness question and tend to ignore the overall picture (the children's welfare).

 

[CrunchyFrog]

What is with you people. How is an abortion any different than halting any other "natural" process like a disease? What makes it so special when compared with a tumor? If we went by what's natural we might as well give up surgery altogether.

You keep dodging what seems to be the fundamental difference between the two sides here. In the pro-life ideology that lump of tissue you call a "tumor" is a human being as much deserving of legal protection as anyone. You don't. I get that. I can see how that kind of belief can arise among certain people, and I don't begrudge you for having it as ultimately that kind of question is subjective. But you continually refuse to even acknowledge the terms of the other perspective, and at best you're being intellectually dishonest.

Hell you know what's "natural" to our species? INFANTICIDE. But we decided that's cruel and rightfully so.

So people are not allowed to decide that abortion is cruel too? I don't refute that there are a lot of things with regards to human rights that seem arbitrary, but it seems you're not letting the other side play by the same rules as you.

 

[Devolution]

You keep dodging what seems to be the fundamental difference between the two sides here. In the pro-life ideology that lump of tissue you call a "tumor" is a human being as much deserving of legal protection as anyone. You don't. I get that. I can see how that kind of belief can arise among certain people, and I don't begrudge you for having it as ultimately that kind of question is subjective. But you continually refuse to even acknowledge the terms of the other perspective, and at best you're being intellectually dishonest.

Why should I acknowledge faulty logic? How is a woman deciding she wants to end her pregnancy any less "natural"?

So people are not allowed to decide that abortion is cruel too? I don't refute that there are a lot of things with regards to human rights that seem arbitrary, but it seems you're not letting the other side play by the same rules.

What's cruelty? What's natural? Stop talking in vague terms.

 

[Keri]

If abortion is not an available option, then the premise for this thread is moot. By definition, we're talking about situation where the decision to carry the pregnancy to term could go either way.

As far as cases where the woman's own religious beliefs are the issue, obviously that's perfectly understandable. But again, it's a situation where the woman effectively has no real choice in the matter - so that's again avoiding the real question of who bears the moral blame for a child's well-being (or lack thereof) in a situation where both parents had real choices.

You're being reasonable and considering the difficulty many women have with the issue of abortion. I really appreciate that.

I think that I could agree with you: theoretically, if a woman was pregnant, who had no moral, religious or emotional qualms against abortion (such that the decision was as simple as signing a paper) then the decision to carry the child to term, despite otherwise bad circumstances, would be a poor one with little justification.

My feeling though, is that the decision is typically a difficult one that isn't so simple (although, I don't have anything to support this position, other than my gut instinct).

I'll also add that, in a perfect world, where the same woman described above had the financial means, such that the child would be well cared for, I could potentially support a "paper abortion" for the biological father.

Unfortunately, this isn't usually the reality.

The way I see it is that as long as you are not at a point where an abortion is extremely dangerous to a mother then it is fair game because there is no choice actually being taken away from the woman then. In that exact situation if the kid ended up in a poverty situation I do see it as a mother's fault because she knew ahead of time what was going to happen.

The problem is that, for some potentially significant portion of women, abortion isn't a choice (for religious, moral or other reasons). For those women, a "paper abortion" merely punishes them and the child.

And even for the women who theoretically have no qualms, such that it may be fair to blame them for bringing a child into poverty, the fact that we have an identifiable person to blame...does nothing to help the child. If we don't do anything, then we're just punishing an innocent child.

This is the ultimate problem with "paper abortions." Even though there may exist circumstances where they could make sense, there is no workable way to allow them that doesn't risk significant harm to children and an incredible burden on some portion of women (for whom abortion isn't an option).

[Also, Prost, thanks for the kind words!]

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Why should I acknowledge faulty logic?

Please tell me where the logic is faulty. And since turnabout is fair play, why should I acknowledge the faulty logic of conflating an embryo, a complex bundle of stem cells, hormones, and function specific differentiation with the capacity to form a sentient being, with a tumor, a single cell who's mitotic limiting mechanism has gone haywire through molecular damage to DNA and is missing sentience along with a number of other features of a distinct entity? And I never said that abortion was unnatural, but that it hijacks a natural process and through the conscious decision of the mother induces for the express purpose of ending the life of the pregnancy. The crux is the conscious decision making, not the naturalness or lack thereof.

What's cruelty? What's natural? Stop talking in vague terms.

Erm, you're the one who brought up infanticide as both cruel and natural? Maybe you wanna define it so we know where you're coming from? You should be beyond silly semantic arguments like this anyway. Cruelty should be fairly obvious, causing undue harm to another being. As stated above, the notion of "naturalness" is not the basis of my argument, and ultimately irrelevant.

 

[Devolution]

Please tell me where the logic is faulty. And since turnabout is fair play, why should I acknowledge the faulty logic of conflating an embryo, a complex bundle of stem cells, hormones, and function specific differentiation with the capacity to form a sentient being, with a tumor, a single cell who's mitotic limiting mechanism has gone haywire through molecular damage to DNA and is missing sentience along with a number of other features of a distinct entity? And I never said that abortion was unnatural, but that it hijacks a natural process and through the conscious decision of the mother induces for the express purpose of ending the life of the pregnancy. The crux is the conscious decision making, not the naturalness or lack thereof.

It doesn't hijack a natural process anymore than surgery to help someone live or live in comfort does. Are people, in this case women, not allowed autonomy and freedom from being organ slaves to other people let alone an embryo?

Erm, you're the one who brought up infanticide as both cruel and natural? Maybe you wanna define it so we know where you're coming from? You should be beyond silly semantic arguments like this anyway. Cruelty should be fairly obvious, causing undue harm to another being. As stated above, the notion of "naturalness" is not the basis of my argument, and ultimately irrelevant.

You keep using emotive terms that have nothing to do with anything. If you're going to use terms like "cruel" how is disposing of something with no real cognizance more cruel than forcing a woman to be an organ slave for another being?

 

[Deified Data]

Her body, her choice, her burden.

I can only agree - this is the only view consistent with my stance on abortion as a woman's right. Like abortion, there should be a specific window in which men can legally "opt out" with no legal obligations. In a perfect world. And some men say patriarchy has no negative effect on them.

Fathers actually paying child support is a bit foreign to me so my gut response is that paper abortions wouldn't change much if they're not paying anyways. But I really am not aware of the situation in the United States.

Pretty much - child support is optional here, too. They'll hound you for a few years but if you change jobs and addresses enough they'll just give up.