Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:04 pm UTC

I didn't address this very well either:
nitePhyyre wrote:If someone says something like, "In places where ending a pregnancy is easy, we should update child support laws to reflect that." ...

Updating laws is always a good idea. I just fundamentally disagree that we're at the place where it's proper right now. Like, miles and miles and miles away. Soooooo far away that the hypothesis needed to support the conversation of "what would you do if?" is entirely, utterly foreign to the current situation.

However:

First, get abortion rights to the point where a woman can, with a minimal loss of income/travel/time/work/etc etc walk in an get an abortion without the harassment, without the waiting periods, without the forced "informative" medical procedures, without the stigma. Think along the lines of "any medical clinic".

Next, make it so she does not have to pay a dime and she, further, has any related medical expenses covered.

THEN, and only then, can we discuss a system where:
0) Within legal period for abortion, and if the abortion regulations meet the above stipulations
1) Mothers who refuse to participate on moral or religious grounds are excepted. Father is liable.
2) Potential fathers can be notified, if known or voluntarily furnished by the mother.
3) Notification is the duty of the state.
4) If notification fails with a period (i.e. a week),
-- 4.1) or if the mother can't or is unwilling to identify the father, father is liable.
-- 4.2) If father is found at a later date and paternity is established, father is liable.
5) If contact is successful, father has a decision period (i.e. a week).
-- 5.1) Failure to furnish decision within period, father is liable.
-- 5.2) Within the period, father can opt-out
6) State may not infringe on a woman's ability to get the abortion if, during the outlined process, she crosses the legal abortion boundary.
7) Participation in above cannot invalidate woman from receiving any state assistance she would be otherwise entitled to.
8) Father has no further ability to deny paternity. (This includes adoption)

That ... might be a fair compromise. At least a place to start a discussion once the prerequisites are reached.

BUT WE'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE YET.

(Also, I know there are apt to be complaints with 4.1. Tough. Shit. Otherwise, you're punishing the mothers who legitimately doesn't know who the father is, in an attempt to protect the occasional father who's villainous sexual partner is out to get her. Plus the kids. Furthermore, the state has no ability (short of ESP?) to tell the difference.)

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby setzer777 » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:13 pm UTC

Actually, if we're talking about ideal situation scenarios, it seems like the following would be simpler and better:

1. After birth there is a time-period where either parent can forfeit all rights and responsibilities to their child, without the consent of their partner.
2. If they do so, the partner with custody receives an allowance from the state, based on estimations of cost of child-raising, similar to the formulas used to calculate child-support.

While this obviously costs the taxpayer more money, it doesn't seem entirely dissimilar to what we have now, where if both partners jointly put the child up for adoption, it becomes the financial responsibility of the state (until an adoptive family is found).

EDIT: If this proved to be too much of a financial burden on the state, I could see ways to make it less so: perhaps each individual only gets one "out", after which they are required to pay child support, or make it only available to those whose income is below X amount (above which it's determined they could provide child support with no financial burden).
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:23 pm UTC

That system really sucks for the women who continued with a pregnancy thinking their partner was committed, only to have him skip out legally and without consequence. Honestly, the state is nearly providing him incentive to do so. Pregnancy and birth are not a cakewalk, nor emotionally neutral. I can't stress that enough, nor emphasize how little value people (men?) in the thread are placing in it.

I think, though, that all you've done in an attempt to be more fair to a tiny portion of men, is victimize a much larger portion of women and children.

As you mention, the costs to the state would be rather large. Without also addressing notification and cutoffs, it doesn't yet address the initial complaint regarding an uninformed father.

greengiant
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby greengiant » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:31 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:stuff

-- 4.1) or if the mother can't or is unwilling to identify the father, father is liable.

stuff

(Also, I know there are apt to be complaints with 4.1. Tough. Shit. Otherwise, you're punishing the mothers who legitimately doesn't know who the father is, in an attempt to protect the occasional father who's villainous sexual partner is out to get her. Plus the kids. Furthermore, the state has no ability (short of ESP?) to tell the difference.)


I completely agree with you that we're nowhere near a point where we should think about introducing this sort of thing. I also wouldn't want to make up my mind until we were because we're talking about a society that is massively different to our own and may have very reproductive different problems/issues that have to be dealt with. It's hard to gauge whether this would be a positive thing or not in such a society.

However, if your system were implemented, I would rather see 4.1) simply say 'or if the mother can't identify the father, father is liable'. I accept that it might work out the same since there's no way for the state to determine whether the mother is lying, but just because we can't stop someone from hiding the father's identity, it does not mean we should give them permission to do so.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Griffin » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:34 pm UTC

Here's my take on the whole situation, sort of a personally, morally optimal sequence of events for handling the widest variety of occurences. I fully understand that some of you would disagree, but here it is:

Since we're assuming the parents don't want to be together, default is one parent takes custody and the other pays child support

Two people have sex, pregnancy occurs. Assuming no other actions and full knowledge, default, since both parties share equal responsibility for protecting themselves from this outcome. This is assuming honesty and lack of coercion on the part of both parties - if either is true, that parties responsibility is always at least equal to the other parties. It also assumes lack of any previous agreement (such as that applied to sperm donation or insemination by request, which does happen), which obviously changes things.

The mother must make a reasonable attempt to contact the father about the pregnancy as soon as possible, or takes full responsibility.

Or, mother can choose to have an abortion. She takes responsibility for costs, father has no say in the matter. If father requests she carry to term, she may choose to and he accepts all responsibility (but she is in no way obligated to, and does not need to pay any support)
If she decides she wants to keep it...
Father can request abortion. He is responsible for all costs incurred if mother agrees.
If Mother does not agree, unless there are medical considerations that make the issue risky, she carries the child to term.

The Mother or Father can then request the child be put up for adoption (the father only if he offered the abortion responsibility option earlier). If one prefers to keep the child, they accept full responsibility and custody. If they both desire the child, or if the mother desires it and the father has failed to follow and state his intent, responsibility is shared.
She can later abdicate this responsibility through putting the child up for adoption.

In this situation, the mother has slightly more responsibility, but also many more options and a larger amount of power. Obviously this is based around certain assumptions - in places where abortion is not allowed, it doesn't apply.

As far as the wellbeing of the child argument...
I don't think people should have any legal responsibility or moral responsibility based solely on genetic relationships, but I do think the well being of children is something we should value as a society and difficult situations should be addressed on the societal level. It isn't "punishment" and it's not a "burden on taxpayers", its simply the investment we as a society make to create the best future for our citizens, in the same way we offer support for children in the foster/adoption system, and education to all children regardless of the stupid choices their parents may have made.
Last edited by Griffin on Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:13 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby setzer777 » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:36 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:That system really sucks for the women who continued with a pregnancy thinking their partner was committed, only to have him skip out legally and without consequence. Honestly, the state is nearly providing him incentive to do so. Pregnancy and birth are not a cakewalk, nor emotionally neutral. I can't stress that enough, nor emphasize how little value people (men?) in the thread are placing in it.

As you mention, the costs to the state would be rather large.

Without also addressing notification and cutoffs, it doesn't yet address the initial complaint regarding an uninformed father.


That's a good point. I guess I'm being pretty naive in assuming that when we reach the "ideal situation" in terms of sex ed, birth control, abortion availability, etc. the number of fathers (or mothers) intentionally misleading their partners and then abandoning responsibility would be small (i.e. assuming that few people intentionally want to have children *and* want those children raised with no involvement from them).
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:41 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
Azrael wrote:That system really sucks for the women who continued with a pregnancy thinking their partner was committed, only to have him skip out legally and without consequence. Honestly, the state is nearly providing him incentive to do so.
That's a good point. I guess I'm being pretty naive in assuming that when we reach the "ideal situation" in terms of sex ed, birth control, abortion availability, etc. the number of fathers (or mothers) intentionally misleading their partners and then abandoning responsibility would be small (i.e. assuming that few people intentionally want to have children *and* want those children raised with no involvement from them).

Yeah, "ideal" is so far off, as greengiant points out last page, that ... well, who the fuck knows?

I wasn't defaulting to a deceptive father, but more likely a completely frazzled and panicked father who's just learned first hand how difficult pregnancy is even for him and what a nightmare the first week at home is. I don't want that guy having a state sponsored get-out-of-jail-free-have-blissful-full-night-sleep-again-and-go-live-like-a-care-free-bachelor card.

Because holy fuck, can you imagine how many guys, in that intense moment, might take it who wouldn't otherwise even remotely consider leaving?

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nitePhyyre » Fri Mar 18, 2011 8:56 pm UTC

Sorry For my tone in the last post. I was snarky.

Azrael wrote:I didn't address this very well either:
nitePhyyre wrote:If someone says something like, "In places where ending a pregnancy is easy, we should update child support laws to reflect that." ...

Updating laws is always a good idea. I just fundamentally disagree that we're at the place where it's proper right now. Like, miles and miles and miles away. Soooooo far away that the hypothesis needed to support the conversation of "what would you do if?" is entirely, utterly foreign to the current situation.

I had a post written up but this ninja'd it and pretty much made what I had written up moot.

Here's the thing, and I guess this is where our difference comes from: I'm Canadian.
Azrael wrote:First, get abortion rights to the point where a woman can, with a minimal loss of income/travel/time/work/etc etc walk in an get an abortion without the harassment, without the waiting periods, without the forced "informative" medical procedures, without the stigma. Think along the lines of "any medical clinic".

Next, make it so she does not have to pay a dime and she, further, has any related medical expenses covered.

We already have all of that. We've had it (more or less) from 1969 onwards.


I don't understand #4: If the mother has no idea who the father is, he is automatically liable?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
drkslvr
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:59 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby drkslvr » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:28 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:I'll point you to the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a good place to start.

Welcome to the US. The only country where "I had my fingers crossed!" is a legitimate reason for not ratifying a treaty you've signed.

Azrael wrote:Abortion isn't an opt-out. It's not legal everywhere, or at all times. It's not available most places where it's legal. It's not financially (time off, travel, procedure) feasible for all women. Nor is it universally accepted, morally or religiously. So stop whinging that since you can't make someone else do what you want with their body. It's not your body. For at least the fifth time, you don't get to demand a third turn just because the other party goes after you. That's not fair. That's being whiny.

  1. Available isn't the same as free.
  2. If you have a hard time getting abortion due to the costs and the lost time and work, that's a sign that you better scrounge up the money, because a child is going to be hundreds, possibly thousands, of times more expensive.
  3. If you object to abortion for moral reasons, it's possible here in the US for adoptive parents to pay for your medical procedures relating to pregnancy. In most other developed nations, healthcare is universal, so this isn't nearly as big a deal.
  4. Most importantly, the woman still has the final choice in the arrangements these folks are proposing. In fact, her choices are the same as they would have been even if the father didn't opt out. Abortion, adoption, or parenthood. The only difference is that they would have to know that if they chose parenthood, they would be doing it on their own. In truth, this could be the case anyway, as has been pointed out, as many fathers (and occasionally mothers) simply abandon their children with the other parent. At least with this system, the parent who would end up with the kid would know ahead of time what they were getting into and could make an informed decision.

The "third turn" argument misses the point because the woman still has many more "turns" than the man, including the last and most important "turn". Saying it five times doesn't make it right.

I admit that #3 depends on having a desirable baby. But like was pointed out earlier, the three biggest indicators of adaptability are young, white, and healthy. Every baby will have the first one going for them, and the vast majority will have at least one of the other two.

Finally, this isn't a situation for all places and all times. It's a solution for here and now. Would this work in Nicaragua? Probably not, or at least not as well, for about a half-dozen reasons that I can think of just off the top of my head. But it would work in most of the developed world. Done right, it would be significantly more equitable than the system that is currently in place.
Help a paralyzed kitten get surgery! Fundly.com/Help-Link-Walk-Again
Image
Like Link's page for photos and updates on his status: Facebook.com/HelpLinkWalkAgain

User avatar
drkslvr
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:59 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby drkslvr » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:35 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:I wasn't defaulting to a deceptive father, but more likely a completely frazzled and panicked father who's just learned first hand how difficult pregnancy is even for him and what a nightmare the first week at home is. I don't want that guy having a state sponsored get-out-of-jail-free-have-blissful-full-night-sleep-again-and-go-live-like-a-care-free-bachelor card.

Because holy fuck, can you imagine how many guys, in that intense moment, might take it who wouldn't otherwise even remotely consider leaving?

True. But couldn't the same be true for women? Abortion becomes legal. After the first month of morning sickness, the woman thinks she'd much rather have control of her body functions again. So she "opts out" of motherhood. Is it any more reprehensible for the father to do this than for the mother?

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure that the numbers would be as dramatic as you seem to think. I mean, we're all here, aren't we? Obviously, there are plenty of women who don't opt out. The same could easily be true for men.
Help a paralyzed kitten get surgery! Fundly.com/Help-Link-Walk-Again
Image
Like Link's page for photos and updates on his status: Facebook.com/HelpLinkWalkAgain

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Mar 18, 2011 9:45 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:I don't understand #4: If the mother has no idea who the father is, he is automatically liable?

... just like he is now. It really only ever applies if somehow paternity is later established. No change, pretty insignificant, but it was a state in the table of possibilities so I included it.

Regarding the differences between countries: Yeah, social conservatism can be a bitch.

drkslvr wrote:Available isn't the same as free.
Nor did I indicate an equality between those two. I said that legality is not the same as availability. Abortion is legal in South Dakota. There are no providers in the entire state.

drkslvr wrote:If you have a hard time getting abortion due to the costs and the lost time and work, that's a sign that you better scrounge up the money, because a child is going to be hundreds, possibly thousands, of times more expensive.

So wait. Your answer to being poor is "don't be poor". That doesn't work. Do you really believe that everyone can come up with the $500 to $2000? No shit it's only going to get worse, but that doesn't mean everything is fine now. Plus, what little funding (and later, tax incentives) one can qualify for because of a child does not exist whatsoever for termination.

... because the woman still has many more "turns" than the man, including the last and most important "turn".
"Many" more turns?

Let's see, even if we entirely ignore her right to bodily autonomy:
Primary contraception: 1 turn each
Secondary contraception: Considering you have to know there's a problem, and availability is not universal, let's call this a 0.1 turns for women.
Abortion: Availability, morality (50% acceptance both genders), stigma, hurdles, costs multiplied together ... 0.1 turns for women.
Adoption: 2 parties, 2 choices each = 4 choices total. Only 1 combination that leave the father in the position of supporting an unwanted child: 0.25 women. Offset for biology x50%

So let add those up:
Men: 1
Women: 1.325

By respecting bodily autonomy everything between primary contraception and adoption is still only one turn for the woman, regardless of an argument that my weighting is unfair. It's the "It's my body turn". The guy's "It's my body turn" ended when he let the sperm slip through his defenses. Further reducing it to 1 vs 1.25.

Yeah, not seeing "many" here.

drkslvr wrote: Obviously, there are plenty of women who don't opt out. The same could easily be true for men.

Do I really need to quote the percentage of single mothers? It would only rise.

(Edits at 10:00 UTC, 6:00 EST)

User avatar
drkslvr
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:59 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby drkslvr » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:14 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:"Many" more turns?

Let's see, even if we entirely ignore her right to bodily autonomy:
Primary contraception: 1 turn each
Secondary contraception: Considering you have to know there's a problem, and availability is not universal, let's call this a 0.1 turns for women.
Abortion: Availability, morality (50% acceptance both genders), stigma, hurdles, costs multiplied together ... 0.1 turns for women.
Adoption: 2 parties, 2 choices each = 4 choices total. Only 1 combination that leave the father in the position of supporting an unwanted child: 0.25 women. Offset for biology x50%

So let add those up:
Men: 1
Women: 1.325

By respecting bodily autonomy everything between primary contraception and adoption is still only one turn for the woman, regardless of an argument that my weighting is unfair. It's the "It's my body turn". The guy's "It's my body turn" ended when he let the sperm slip through his defenses. Further reducing it to 1 vs 1.25.

Yeah, not seeing "many" here.


Contraceptive pill: 1 Women, 0 Men
Barrier contraceptive: 1 Women, 1 Men
Secondary contraception (aka Plan B): 1 Women, 0 Men
Early term abortion: 1 Women, 0 Men
Mid term abortion: 1 Women, 0 Men
Adoption: 1 Women, 0 Men

In most of the developed world, you're looking at 6 chances for women to avoid being a parent, and only 1 for men. The question isn't "Is it easy to avoid being a parent?". The question is "Is there a chance to avoid being a parent?" If the barrier fails (or if you were trusting her to be using the pill correctly and she wasn't), should you get another chance? The woman could potentially have up to four more chances at that point, and in all cases would have at least one. The way the system works right now, it's very possible for a man to have zero chances if that occurs.
Help a paralyzed kitten get surgery! Fundly.com/Help-Link-Walk-Again
Image
Like Link's page for photos and updates on his status: Facebook.com/HelpLinkWalkAgain

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:18 pm UTC

What's next, deciding that every day between when a woman finds out she's pregnant and abortions are no longer legal counts as a discrete turn? Why only a trimester break down? There's no procedural differentiation. Why not by weeks? Fuck no you can count abortion any more than once. Or continue to insist that abortion is that easy. As easy as a condom. Seriously.

Plan B only applies if you know something is wrong! Unless you're suggesting it be used, contrary to safe medical practice, each time.

As for the double up pill vs. barrier, I'll counter with double bagging. Or to be even more comedic, pulling out.

And I guess we both forgot surgical sterilization. While it doesn't so much affect your artificially inflated nonsense, it becomes more relevant when being realistic.

User avatar
drkslvr
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:59 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby drkslvr » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:43 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:What's next, deciding that every day between when a woman finds out she's pregnant and abortions are no longer legal counts as a discrete turn? Why only trimester break down? There's no procedural differentiation. Why not weeks? Fuck no you can count that any more than once. Or continue to insist that abortion is that easy. As easy as a condom. Seriously.

As for the double up pill vs. barrier, I'll counter with double bagging. Or to be even more comedic, pulling out.

And I guess we both forgot surgical sterilization. While it doesn't so much affect your artificially inflated nonsense, it becomes more relevant when being realistic.

"Double bagging" decreases efficacy. I suppose that you could count pulling out as a choice for the man, but you would have to count it as a choice for the woman, too. Stop means stop. The same is true for sterilization. Not as easy for a woman as a man, but still an option for both.

There is a huge procedural difference between abortion at 1 month and abortion at 6 months. You are completely wrong on this point. And you're right. We could count every week as a new choice. We could count every morning she wakes up with morning sickness but decides to go through with it anyways a new choice. We could count every time she decides not to drink because she doesn't want to harm the baby a new choice. We could count every time she writes a check and thinks, "There is no way I can afford to be a parent," as a new choice. She could have a dozen new choices every day up to the point of viability.

Finally, the difference between being a parent and using a condom and the difference between being a parent and getting an abortion are both so large, that the difference between using a condom and getting an abortion aren't significant. It's like the difference between the guy who tries to get to the moon in his Air Jordans and the guy who tries to get to the moon in his G6. *nods to the Kei$ha fans* They're both so far from the moon that the difference between them is statistically... nothing. Totally irrelevant. Less than 0.0001%.

EDIT:
Plan B only applies if you know something is wrong! Unless you're suggesting it be used, contrary to safe medical practice, each time.
Another ninja edit?

In any case, you're right. I said up to 4 more chances. But she still has more if that one fails.
Help a paralyzed kitten get surgery! Fundly.com/Help-Link-Walk-Again
Image
Like Link's page for photos and updates on his status: Facebook.com/HelpLinkWalkAgain

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3070
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby PAstrychef » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:47 pm UTC

How the (excuse me) Fuck did we get to arguing this like game theory? Men already opt out of parenthood by leaving. Even when paternity is known, even when they are legally enjoined to support the child, they just walk away. This option is open to them for the life of their offspring, from conception to death.
Women are told that the possibility of pregnancy is the risk they must assume if they want to have sex. If the sex occurs outside a relationship where the father is socially obligated to support his offspring, (even then, men still leave when told of impending fatherhood) then her choosing to not be a parent is shown as murder, abandonment, unnatural and worse.
There are no turns in this activity-it really isn't a game. And if a woman is expected (if not at the moment required) to carry any child that results from sex, then the man in the picture is damn sure equally required to shoulder part of the burden. Cause a check in the mail-even if you didn't want] kids when you went out fucking around-is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than actually raising a child.
How about if a woman could name any man she ever slept with as the father and dump the kid in his lap as she strolls out of the hospital-would that be "fair?" How about if she could implant the fetus in the abdomen of the guy who claimed he wanted the child she did not? How many men do you think would go along with that idea?
If a guy is determined to raise his direct genetic offspring, there are plenty of stupid and willing women out there he could probably hire to carry his kid, if he promised to take it away after birth. But we never hear about that happening, do we? We don't hear about men going out and trying to be single adoptive parents, the way we hear about women doing so. Gay couples sure, but not single men.
So guys-please. Don't think you're more important than you are in this equation. But don't imagine that you get to get away for free if there are consequences to your actions-even if they aren't "fair".
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:48 pm UTC

drkslvr wrote:There is a huge procedural difference between abortion at 1 month and abortion at 6 months. You are completely wrong on this point. And you're right. We could count every week as a new choice. We could count every morning she wakes up with morning sickness but decides to go through with it anyways a new choice. We could count every time she decides not to drink because she doesn't want to harm the baby a new choice. We could count every time she writes a check and thinks, "There is no way I can afford to be a parent," as a new choice. She could have a dozen new choices every day up to the point of viability.

…The reasonable conclusion from the slippery slope here is not that women have a bajillion choices and men need to be given a bajillion more, but that the whole operation of trying to arithmetically balance men's and women's opportunities to forgo child support is silly.

drkslver wrote:in his G6. *nods to the Kei$ha fans*

"Like a G6" is a Far East Movement song. And it's "Ke$ha."
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:55 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
drkslvr wrote:... And you're right. We could count every week as a new choice. We could count every morning she wakes up with morning sickness but decides to go through with it anyways a new choice. We could count every time she ...

…The reasonable conclusion from the slippery slope here is not that women have a bajillion choices and men need to be given a bajillion more, but that the whole operation of trying to arithmetically balance men's and women's opportunities to forgo child support is silly.

I would've hoped that falling into his own absurdism would've made that point. Oh well.

One chance each. His body. Her body.

Then, baby. At which point 25% of the possible outcomes result in the man being liable for an unwanted child. While 100% of them required the effort of the woman to carry the pregnancy to term.

User avatar
drkslvr
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:59 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby drkslvr » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:09 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:"Like a G6" is a Far East Movement song. And it's "Ke$ha."
Pop culture fail. Can you tell I don't actually listen to pop/hop/dance/electo/whatever that stuff is?

Azrael wrote:One chance each. His body. Her body.

Then, baby. At which point 25% of the possible outcomes result in the man being liable for an unwanted child. While 100% of them required the effort of the woman to carry the pregnancy to term.

If I were being conservative, I would still end up with something like this:
Before pregnancy: Each have a chance to not be parents without needing the consent of anyone else
During pregnancy: The woman has a chance not to be a parent without needing the consent of anyone else
After pregnancy: The woman has the chance not to be a parent without needing the consent of anyone else

I'm not really arguing for a specific solution to this disparity. I just see it as unequal and unfair. Yes, life is unfair. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it better. I don't see why people recoil at the suggestion that a woman consents to have a child by having sex while they insist that a man does consent to having a child by having sex. The double standard doesn't sit well with me. But obviously some people are fine with it, and that being the basis you're working from, I don't think we're ever going to come to an agreement.

I'm out of here for now. Going to be gone for a couple days. It was nice talking about this with you folks, though. Enjoy your weekend!
Help a paralyzed kitten get surgery! Fundly.com/Help-Link-Walk-Again
Image
Like Link's page for photos and updates on his status: Facebook.com/HelpLinkWalkAgain

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Diadem » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:39 pm UTC

PAstrychef wrote:How the (excuse me) Fuck did we get to arguing this like game theory? Men already opt out of parenthood by leaving. Even when paternity is known, even when they are legally enjoined to support the child, they just walk away. This option is open to them for the life of their offspring, from conception to death.

Ehm, what mythical land are you from? Men are liable to play child support even if the man and woman signed a contract explicitely waiving the man of all responsibility prior to insemination. Ehm, yeah, of course, there will always be people who break the law. But what you are saying is like arguing "But why don't you just kill him if you disagree with him. People do that all the time". Yeah, sure, they do. But can we please assume that all actors involved desire to lead a normal life. Otherwise this discussion is obviously not going anywhere.

Women are told that the possibility of pregnancy is the risk they must assume if they want to have sex. If the sex occurs outside a relationship where the father is socially obligated to support his offspring, (even then, men still leave when told of impending fatherhood) then her choosing to not be a parent is shown as murder, abandonment, unnatural and worse.

While true in some nations, that's again not a terribly interesting point when you're arguing about what the law and society should look like. Besides there are plenty of options open to women which do not carry a social stigma (birth control pills, the morning after pill). Those are not 100% perfect, I admit, but it's still a hell of a lot easier to avoid pregnancy for women than for men.

And if a woman is expected (if not at the moment required) to carry any child that results from sex, then the man in the picture is damn sure equally required to shoulder part of the burden. Cause a check in the mail-even if you didn't want] kids when you went out fucking around-is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than actually raising a child.

The difference being that the woman wants the child, and the man does not. Which is rather a big difference.

How about if a woman could name any man she ever slept with as the father and dump the kid in his lap as she strolls out of the hospital-would that be "fair?"

*blink*
Ehm, of course not. You're proposing to fix an unfair situation by making it even more unfair? You're not even trying to find arguments anymore are you?

How about if she could implant the fetus in the abdomen of the guy who claimed he wanted the child she did not? How many men do you think would go along with that idea?

Ehm, all of them? Reality doesn't work that way, obviously, but I'm sure everybody agrees that would be an entirely fair and satisfactory solution in cases like that, if it were possible.

If a guy is determined to raise his direct genetic offspring, there are plenty of stupid and willing women out there he could probably hire to carry his kid, if he promised to take it away after birth. But we never hear about that happening, do we? We don't hear about men going out and trying to be single adoptive parents, the way we hear about women doing so. Gay couples sure, but not single men.

Oh right. Because men by definition are crappy fathers who don't give a shit about children. Nice sexism there.

So guys-please. Don't think you're more important than you are in this equation. But don't imagine that you get to get away for free if there are consequences to your actions-even if they aren't "fair".

Ah so now we're victim blaming. How is this any different from telling women they should shut up about abortions and right of bodily autonomy and just accept the consequences of their actions - even if they aren't "fair"?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby bigglesworth » Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:54 am UTC

Azrael wrote:First, get abortion rights to the point where a woman can, with a minimal loss of income/travel/time/work/etc etc walk in an get an abortion without the harassment, without the waiting periods, without the forced "informative" medical procedures, without the stigma. Think along the lines of "any medical clinic".

Next, make it so she does not have to pay a dime and she, further, has any related medical expenses covered.
As far as I know, in the UK there is... not quite this stage, but close enough for discussion on the internet. 10% of GPs disagree to some extent with abortion in the UK, but I don't know what that means the proportion of women that get discouraged/slowed by them is. Apart from that, the NHS provides them for free.
Azrael wrote:THEN, and only then, can we discuss a system where: (rules)
As for these rules, interesting. What is your opinion on whether a woman should have a legal right to deny paternity?
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3070
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby PAstrychef » Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:56 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
PAstrychef wrote:How the (excuse me) Fuck did we get to arguing this like game theory? Men already opt out of parenthood by leaving. Even when paternity is known, even when they are legally enjoined to support the child, they just walk away. This option is open to them for the life of their offspring, from conception to death.

Ehm, what mythical land are you from? Men are liable to play child support even if the man and woman signed a contract explicitely waiving the man of all responsibility prior to insemination. Ehm, yeah, of course, there will always be people who break the law. But what you are saying is like arguing "But why don't you just kill him if you disagree with him. People do that all the time". Yeah, sure, they do. But can we please assume that all actors involved desire to lead a normal life. Otherwise this discussion is obviously not going anywhere.

Liability does NOT equal compliance. A desire to lead a normal life (what ever that might be) may well include one in which child support payments go to pay for other things.

Women are told that the possibility of pregnancy is the risk they must assume if they want to have sex. If the sex occurs outside a relationship where the father is socially obligated to support his offspring, (even then, men still leave when told of impending fatherhood) then her choosing to not be a parent is shown as murder, abandonment, unnatural and worse.
While true in some nations, that's again not a terribly interesting point when you're arguing about what the law and society should look like. Besides there are plenty of options open to women which do not carry a social stigma (birth control pills, the morning after pill). Those are not 100% perfect, I admit, but it's still a hell of a lot easier to avoid pregnancy for women than for men.

If these are not socially stigmatized why are there states where licensed pharmacists are allowed to refuse to provide them because of personal objections? And there are failures of birth control-one reason unplanned pregnancies are unplanned is due to contraceptive failure. And that's assuming that the woman in question has access to it in the first place.

How about if she could implant the fetus in the abdomen of the guy who claimed he wanted the child she did not? How many men do you think would go along with that idea?
Ehm, all of them? Reality doesn't work that way, obviously, but I'm sure everybody agrees that would be an entirely fair and satisfactory solution in cases like that, if it were possible.

I rather suspect that men would suddenly find parenthood much less exciting if they had to go through the pregnancy part of it.
If a guy is determined to raise his direct genetic offspring, there are plenty of stupid and willing women out there he could probably hire to carry his kid, if he promised to take it away after birth. But we never hear about that happening, do we? We don't hear about men going out and trying to be single adoptive parents, the way we hear about women doing so. Gay couples sure, but not single men.
Oh right. Because men by definition are crappy fathers who don't give a shit about children. Nice sexism there.

Never said that men make bad parents. Men can and do make great parents. We just don't hear about men so committed to raising their genetic offspring that they impregnate willing women in order to become single parents.
So guys-please. Don't think you're more important than you are in this equation. But don't imagine that you get to get away for free if there are consequences to your actions-even if they aren't "fair".
Ah so now we're victim blaming. How is this any different from telling women they should shut up about abortions and right of bodily autonomy and just accept the consequences of their actions - even if they aren't "fair"?

That was, rather exactly, my point.
(At one point we were talking about the differences in maternal and paternal rights-If we've strayed afield of that, sorry for the confusion)
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nitePhyyre » Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:18 am UTC

PAstrychef wrote:How the (excuse me) Fuck did we get to arguing this like game theory?
Uhhh, cause its awesome!
PAstrychef wrote:Men already opt out of parenthood by leaving. Even when paternity is known, even when they are legally enjoined to support the child, they just walk away. This option is open to them for the life of their offspring, from conception to death.
Wait, wait, wait. Do they not garnish wages where you live?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

Randomizer
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:23 am UTC
Location: My walls are full of hungry wolves.
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Randomizer » Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:46 am UTC

When did "women's right to choose" become "men's right to deny responsibility"? Since when is having to pay to support one's own offspring because "Boo hoo, my partner didn't abort!" so dang unfair? ...Or maybe, just maybe, when men say that the situation is unfair, what they're secretly saying is, "I wish I were a woman." :o Well, let's look at a situation that is fair:

What if everyone were hermaphrodites? Then both parties would have exactly as many choices. Let's consider a hermaphrodite couple - we'll call them the "man" and "woman" and "he" and "she" for this example, although they've both got the same equipment. After sex the "man" could become pregnant, the "woman" could become pregnant, or both. Likelihood of pregnancy is exactly equal and both have access to the same methods to prevent pregnancy in themselves and their partner.

If the man becomes pregnant he has the options of carrying the child to term or not, and if he does, the woman would have to pay child support. If instead the woman becomes pregnant, she has those same options, and should she carry to term, the man would pay child support. If neither become pregnant, there will be no child to support. If both become pregnant, they both have the option to abort or not. If neither abort, both are financially responsible to the other, which ends up as neither paying since it would come out the same as both paying (or, if paying based on ability, the one making the most pays to the one making the least). If both abort, neither pays because there is no child to support. If one aborts and one does not, the abortive parent is financially responsible to the one who kept the child. In all situations of non-termination, adoption is an option when agreed upon by both parties, in which case no one pays support.

This way it's completely fair as both parties are equally responsible, have equal chances at preventing pregnancy, equal chances/ability to terminate pregnancy, and of being stuck with child support. Certainly this situation is entirely fair.

Hermaphrodite option two - same as option one, except no one is required to pay child support. At all. You get pregnant, you want the kid, you raise it. Again, everyone has exactly the same options, chances, and choices, so it's entirely fair.

Real life is the same, except that all men have a birth defect in which uteruses/ovaries/boobs never developed, and all women have a birth defect in which testes/penises never developed. Men can be forced to pay child support, but cannot be impregnated/force their partner to pay child support in turn. Women can be impregnated, but are unable to impregnate their partners. As the men and women did not choose this anatomical state, it is completely unfair.

The question now is, which is better? Would a man rather risk having to pay child support, as "unfair" as it is, or be in a "fair" situation where his "girlfriend" could just as easily impregnate "him" as he could her?

Personally I prefer the latter, but that might be because I'm an evil, conniving woman. ;)
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3070
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby PAstrychef » Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:15 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Wait, wait, wait. Do they not garnish wages where you live?

Want to avoid that? Move out of state, leave your job, never have a job-I've worked with people in Family Law situations, and finding non-paying, liable parents is an artform. Nor is it always successful.
On the other hand, there is a growing pool of men who have been found to NOT be the father of the children they were claimed to be the father of, who are now on the hook for child support because they acted in a father's capacity towards those children in the eyes of a judge. (Big article over at the NYTImes.com)
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:23 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:
Azrael wrote:THEN, and only then, can we discuss a system where: (rules)
As for these rules, interesting. What is your opinion on whether a woman should have a legal right to deny paternity?

Well, I suppose there's nothing that can be done about the pocket veto of not identifying the father. And I'm ok with that. I might even clarify that in the rules, except I can see a huge possibility for abuse of the state -- mother claims she doesn't know the father, gets state support, then moves in with the father. So the details there are ... complicated.

Otherwise, I don't see much reason to reform the existing ideas (the execution often sucks, but that's way out of scope) regarding claiming sole custody for cause.

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Greyarcher » Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:53 pm UTC

Randomizer wrote:When did "women's right to choose" become "men's right to deny responsibility"? Since when is having to pay to support one's own offspring because "Boo hoo, my partner didn't abort!" so dang unfair?
It came up briefly around page 6 or 7--where the thread merged--and people were discussing inequality in parents' veto power over their respective burdens. I believe "right to decline parenthood" was a phrase used, though--as you see--I'd call it more "right to decline the burdens associated with parenthood". Personally, I liked Yurell's post. Naturally, the devil's in the details, but I think the remarks on unfairness or inequality weren't entirely inaccurate.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Nath » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:11 am UTC

Azrael, I completely agree that both parties have a right to their bodily autonomy. As you say, there is no discrepancy in rights.

But here's why I disagree with your stance:
But you're still responsible for the consequences.

Yes, but just because two people had some influence on some outcome, that doesn't mean that they are equally responsible. There are degrees of responsibility, and the degree of responsibility should be proportional to the degree of influence a person had.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation where abortion is free, easily available, painless, safe and stigma-free. Basically, Scotty just beams the dang thing out of there and doesn't tell anybody. Yay. In this case, the mother has a much greater degree of influence on whether or not the child is born. The father is basically a sperm donor, and it's entirely the mother's decision whether or not to create a child with this sperm. In this situation, I'd say the father has very little responsibility, but also not a lot of parental rights. It would be as if you gave someone some wood and they carved it into a plough or a spear or something else. You were involved, but it really wasn't up to you what they built out of it.

Let's consider another hypothetical situation where abortion is impossible. In this case, it probably makes sense to give the parents equal responsibility and parental rights. It's still not a symmetric situation, because biology etc. But there isn't really a way around this.

Reality is somewhere in between these two scenarios. In places where abortion is practical, I think yurell's solution has merit. If the father pre-disowns the kid, then he should share the medical cost if the mother decides to have an abortion.

I got a little carried away with the decision theory. Feel free to ignore the following paragraph:
Spoiler:
I wrote all this out while overlooking one basic point, though: the baby was made because both parties consented to have sex. This means that as long as everybody knows the deal in advance, you could distribute parental responsibilities any way you please without violating anybody's rights. Both parties weigh the expected utility of having sex against the expected utility of having a kid (with the accompanying responsibilities), and freely come to a decision. So maybe the fairest way to assign parental rights and responsibilities is to try and make the expected utility of sex as similar as possible for men and women. This could even be tailored to individuals depending on their own utility functions, which would have to be declared in advance.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:04 am UTC

PAstrychef wrote:Men already opt out of parenthood by leaving. Even when paternity is known, even when they are legally enjoined to support the child, they just walk away. This option is open to them for the life of their offspring, from conception to death.
nitePhyyre wrote:Wait, wait, wait. Do they not garnish wages where you live?
PAstrychef wrote:Want to avoid that? Move out of state, leave your job, never have a job-I've worked with people in Family Law situations, and finding non-paying, liable parents is an artform. Nor is it always successful.


You're still coming across as that guy that thinks men are scum and couldn't possibly benefit from a legal method when going into exile is on the table. There is no analogy for this situation. You're saying this discussion is invalid because men can achieve the result illegally. The closest analogy, though, and this is too outrageous not to mention, is saying abortion doesn't need to be legal because women can get back alley abortions illegally.

PAstrychef wrote:
Ah so now we're victim blaming. How is this any different from telling women they should shut up about abortions and right of bodily autonomy and just accept the consequences of their actions - even if they aren't "fair"?

That was, rather exactly, my point.
(At one point we were talking about the differences in maternal and paternal rights-If we've strayed afield of that, sorry for the confusion)


I can't process what you said. Are you saying people who want abortions outlawed because pregnancy is a consequence that must be dealt with and who also want men to be able to deny parenthood are hypocritical? I can't perfectly remember everything that was said in this thread, but I've skimmed the last couple of pages and I don't think anyone has held both of those positions. That leads me to think you're playing the devil's advocate, except that doesn't make sense in the context of your other posts. So...did you blame the victim, get called out on it, then say yes, you were blaming the victim? I can't take you seriously. I mean, I can't believe that you are being serious. If you aren't making a weird joke, please say so.

Edit: Fixed some tags

User avatar
Aaeriele
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Aaeriele » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:30 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:You're still coming across as that guy that thinks men are scum and couldn't possibly benefit from a legal method when going into exile is on the table. There is no analogy for this situation. You're saying this discussion is invalid because men can achieve the result illegally. The closest analogy, though, and this is too outrageous not to mention, is saying abortion doesn't need to be legal because women can get back alley abortions illegally.

I think what's being said is more "the situation is currently tilted in favor of men, so it makes more sense to first work towards tilting it back to equality, then improving things for both sides from there."
Vaniver wrote:Harvard is a hedge fund that runs the most prestigious dating agency in the world, and incidentally employs famous scientists to do research.

afuzzyduck wrote:ITS MEANT TO BE FLUTTERSHY BUT I JUST SEE AAERIELE! CURSE YOU FORA!

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:33 pm UTC

The situation is legally tilted more in favor of men?

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3070
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby PAstrychef » Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:54 pm UTC

There are two situations here, one where the man is the person who wants to be a parent and the woman doesn't and one where the woman decides to be a parent and the man doesn't want to.
In the first situation the man is pretty much out of luck, as the woman's right to her body trumps his interest in his genetic material.
In the second, the man has had the fun part, and now says no thanks to the less fun part. Since one argument against abortion is that possible pregnancy is the outcome of sex and women should, if necessary, pay that price, then the same argument should be made about men.
At the moment society sees fit to say that if men father a child, they are responsible for that child, even if they said they didn't want it. After all,they are as free to abstain from sex as women are.
Now that abortion and other forms of contraception are relatively accessible, women get to decide if they are willing to be a parent in many, but by no means all, situations.
And the argument I mostly hear here is that it's unfair to the man if the woman makes the decision to have the child once the man says he's uninterested and then expects him to pay child support. Apparently, that makes him a victim. But he contributed to the problem, right?
Are you saying people who want abortions outlawed because pregnancy is a consequence that must be dealt with and who also want men to be able to deny parenthood are hypocritical?

Yes. Because if a woman must carry the child to term, then the man has equal culpability.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Greyarcher » Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:45 pm UTC

The problem, Pastrychef, is that while we recognize the burden upon the women and properly that she should be able to reject that burden, you completely ignore any burden upon the man or that he should should have an equal ability to reject that burden. If the woman is allowed to reject bearing her burden of parenthood after the moment of conception, extending equality would permit the man a equivalent roughly equivalent time and power to reject bearing his burden. (Though, as Yurell says, less time on the man's side would be better so that the man can't simply declare that he's not sharing the burden without giving the woman time to decide whether she wants to bear the child without the financial support).

They both contributed the problem as you say. But that one has veto power over her respective burden while the other does not is unequal; giving her veto power over her burden, but also denying a veto to the other party and requiring him to bear the burden at her decision, is unequal freedom of choice.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby bigglesworth » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:06 pm UTC

But that's easily resolved by the fact that a woman can only reject the biological, bodily burden. This is not unusual, there are few laws or societal standards that say you should carry biological burden.

After birth, the woman therefore has exactly the same rights as the man, except in the instance where paternity is uncertain or in the instance where she chooses to reject paternity by remaining silent on that front.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Greyarcher » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:15 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:But that's easily resolved by the fact that a woman can only reject the biological, bodily burden. This is not unusual, there are few laws or societal standards that say you should carry biological burden.

After birth, the woman therefore has exactly the same rights as the man, except in the instance where paternity is uncertain or in the instance where she chooses to reject paternity by remaining silent on that front.
Hmm? I'm not talking about after birth--I'm talking about that midway zone where she can decide if she wants an abortion. At that point, rejecting the burden naturally means rejecting the biological burden and financial burden of parenthood (any abortion costs aside); it's a package veto. And I'm talking about the equality in granting each party a veto power over that second burden--their respective financial burdens--rather than only one having the veto and making the decision for both parties.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby bigglesworth » Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:22 pm UTC

And I don't think that it's ridiculous that while it's impossible for the biological burden to be given up without the financial one also, that not to be a necessary part.

Anything else either is either unfair on the part of the male, or reduces women to baby-bearing cattle.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Iulus Cofield » Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:13 pm UTC

PAstrychef wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:Are you saying people who want abortions outlawed because pregnancy is a consequence that must be dealt with and who also want men to be able to deny parenthood are hypocritical?

Yes. Because if a woman must carry the child to term, then the man has equal culpability.


Okay. I'm not sure any such person exists, anymore than I am sure a Jewish neo-Nazi exists. Given the vast number of people in the world, surely at least one person fits the bill, but you sound misandrist, really misandrist, when you address extreme outliers like they are the norm.

PAstrychef wrote:Now that abortion and other forms of contraception are relatively accessible, women get to decide if they are willing to be a parent in many, but by no means all, situations.
And the argument I mostly hear here is that it's unfair to the man if the woman makes the decision to have the child once the man says he's uninterested and then expects him to pay child support. Apparently, that makes him a victim. But he contributed to the problem, right?


This is the direct equivalent of saying "Abortion should be outlawed because women must deal with the consequences of sex." Do you think abortion should be outlawed? If so, then you're being consistent. If not, well...

User avatar
Aaeriele
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Aaeriele » Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:15 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:This is the direct equivalent of saying "Abortion should be outlawed because women must deal with the consequences of sex." Do you think abortion should be outlawed? If so, then you're being consistent. If not, well...


Actually its saying 'both men and women should deal with the non-physical consequences of sex' which is not inconsistent at all.

Men don't have to deal with the physical consequences by virtue of not having any in the first place. Women don't have to deal with the physical consequences by having the choice of an abortion.

This is not hard.
Vaniver wrote:Harvard is a hedge fund that runs the most prestigious dating agency in the world, and incidentally employs famous scientists to do research.

afuzzyduck wrote:ITS MEANT TO BE FLUTTERSHY BUT I JUST SEE AAERIELE! CURSE YOU FORA!

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3070
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby PAstrychef » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:34 am UTC

I'm a big believer in abortion on demand, actually. But if a guy is going to take the risk of pregnancy that sex entails, then he can't just say "I don't want to deal with this" and walk away. Or would it be better that women be forced to have abortions if the man says he won't pay child-support? No two-parent agreement, no kid.
Women are being portrayed as having this vast and inimical power over men's lives by virtue of requiring them to pay for the children they father. Even kids they didn't intend to father.
Everyone wants to be able to have sex when they want to, without worrying about pregnancy. Say that the couple were using contraception and it failed. She is opposed to abortion, which is why they were using contraception in the first place. He knew this at the time. Can he still say "but I don't want a kid?"
It sounds to me like the men posting here want a get out of jail free card.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:00 am UTC

Aaeriele wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:This is the direct equivalent of saying "Abortion should be outlawed because women must deal with the consequences of sex." Do you think abortion should be outlawed? If so, then you're being consistent. If not, well...


Actually its saying 'both men and women should deal with the non-physical consequences of sex' which is not inconsistent at all.

Men don't have to deal with the physical consequences by virtue of not having any in the first place. Women don't have to deal with the physical consequences by having the choice of an abortion.

This is not hard.


See, I would like to agree with you. I would like to think non-physical consequences were not the primary motivating factor behind abortions, but they are. That study found that 13% of women chose to have abortions at least in part due to health concerns. 74% reported dramatic lifestyle changes as a contributing factor and 73% said not being able to afford a baby was a contributing factor. Let's not pretend abortion is something other than women declining parenthood in the large majority of cases. So, yeah. I don't think it is unfair to say there is a legal double standard between the rights of mothers and fathers. I mean, I believe abortion needs to be legal if only because people will get them regardless and then you have serious safety issues, so I'm okay with whatever justification the Supreme Court came up with to do that. But most abortions happen for the same reason that dead beat dads happen.

PAstrychef wrote:I'm a big believer in abortion on demand, actually. But if a guy is going to take the risk of pregnancy that sex entails, then he can't just say "I don't want to deal with this" and walk away. Or would it be better that women be forced to have abortions if the man says he won't pay child-support? No two-parent agreement, no kid.
Women are being portrayed as having this vast and inimical power over men's lives by virtue of requiring them to pay for the children they father. Even kids they didn't intend to father.
Everyone wants to be able to have sex when they want to, without worrying about pregnancy. Say that the couple were using contraception and it failed. She is opposed to abortion, which is why they were using contraception in the first place. He knew this at the time. Can he still say "but I don't want a kid?"
It sounds to me like the men posting here want a get out of jail free card.


You're still...uh, I'm struggling for an effective way to communicate this. You're treating men and women differently. This differing treatment makes it okay for women to do something, something you're a big believer in, but then saying men can't have something similar because they're men and it sounds an awful like you're working on the presumption that men are scum and women aren't. Do you think men are scum? I'd like to believe you don't.

User avatar
Aaeriele
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Aaeriele » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:02 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:See, I would like to agree with you. I would like to think non-physical consequences were not the primary motivating factor behind abortions, but they are. That study found that 13% of women chose to have abortions at least in part due to health concerns. 74% reported dramatic lifestyle changes as a contributing factor and 73% said not being able to afford a baby was a contributing factor. Let's not pretend abortion is something other than women declining parenthood in the large majority of cases. So, yeah. I don't think it is unfair to say there is a legal double standard between the rights of mothers and fathers. I mean, I believe abortion needs to be legal if only because people will get them regardless and then you have serious safety issues, so I'm okay with whatever justification the Supreme Court came up with to do that. But most abortions happen for the same reason that dead beat dads happen.


It doesn't matter what percentage of them happen due to physical reasons or not. The fact that physical reasons are a possibility makes the availability a necessity.

Even if it did, what's to say that "dramatic lifestyle changes" aren't including the very dramatic lifestyle change for a period of at least 9 months or more that a pregnancy involves? That "affording a baby" doesn't factor in potential need for maternity leave?

"Nearly four in 10 indicated that they had completed their childbearing, [...]. Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively)."


These all have bearing on physical consequences/bodily autonomy.
Vaniver wrote:Harvard is a hedge fund that runs the most prestigious dating agency in the world, and incidentally employs famous scientists to do research.

afuzzyduck wrote:ITS MEANT TO BE FLUTTERSHY BUT I JUST SEE AAERIELE! CURSE YOU FORA!


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests