This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
DotD - July 19 - [General Topic] Sexism, Misogyny, Tattoos, and Promiscuity
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I understand that. I was mostly commenting on the fact that that's the second time you've brought up the "don't have sex" point regarding men, when that doesn't actually solve the question of whether there is an implicit right for either or both parents to end their responsibility to the child (whether through abortion or adoption). Women currently legally have the right to sleep around while still having ways to deal with the consequences. Men do not have that right, except as granted by the mother. So when you keep arguing that a man who has sex should deal with the consequences, I don't see the point, because that's how the legal system more or less already works. Assuming you accept the fact that there is inequality, then there are two apparent solutions: either women need to be held accountable to the consequences of sex and shouldn't have sex if they aren't willing to have a child, or men should be allowed to have the ability to decide that they do not want to have a child during the pregnancy like women currently can (which is the side the original argument takes).
Post by
Squishalot
I'm actually quite surprised that the general consensus here is ending abortion and using gender-neutral child support laws, especially the former. The consensus has definitely shifted in this forum over the last several years. Overall, it's the only legitimately equal solution I could envision on reading this question, so I had hoped to hear a defense of a woman's right to abort in regards to this issue.
I'm not sure how a woman's right to abort features in this issue. A woman choosing to exercise her right to an abortion will mean that men don't have a choice about fatherhood, and presumably, there wouldn't be an issue. I don't think the forum consensus on abortion has shifted that significantly, to be honest. Perhaps it's more the fact that the thread has only been open a few hours, and hasn't had a chance to 'do the rounds', so to speak.
In relation to gender-neutral child support laws, I also don't think there was much change, most people online here have supported gender equality in all respects.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm not sure how a woman's right to abort features in this issue. A woman choosing to exercise her right to an abortion
will mean that men don't have a choice about fatherhood
, and presumably, there wouldn't be an issue.
How is that not an issue in and of itself?
If both parties are on the hook for raising the child or providing suitable compensation towards that end, shouldn't both parties have the same rights of withdrawal if there are any?
Post by
Squishalot
I'm not sure how a woman's right to abort features in this issue. A woman choosing to exercise her right to an abortion
will mean that men don't have a choice about fatherhood
, and presumably, there wouldn't be an issue.
How is that not an issue in and of itself?
It's not an issue in the context of this discussion, because your initial post stipulates that it's immoral to force a woman to have an abortion or to prevent her from having one?
If both parties are on the hook for raising the child or providing suitable compensation towards that end, shouldn't both parties have the same rights of withdrawal if there are any?
Certainly, but it means that the discussion should focus on how to apply the man's right of withdrawal, rather than addressing a woman's right of withdrawal. That's why you're not getting any major 'right to abort' outcry from here, because a woman's right to abort isn't the focus of this discussion. We've assumed that fact, and we're looking at how to equalise it by providing a man's right.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm not sure how a woman's right to abort features in this issue. A woman choosing to exercise her right to an abortion
will mean that men don't have a choice about fatherhood
, and presumably, there wouldn't be an issue.
How is that not an issue in and of itself?
It's not an issue in the context of this discussion, because your initial post stipulates that it's immoral to force a woman to have an abortion or to prevent her from having one?
Yes, that is a premise of the argument for the solution he offered. In fact the very basis for it. So how, again, is it not an issue?
Post by
Squishalot
Sheesh, give me a chance to edit a reply to your edit! :)
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Sheesh, give me a chance to edit a reply to your edit! :)
Sorry, I was kinda waiting all day for you to wake up :P
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Certainly, but it means that the discussion should focus on how to apply the man's right of withdrawal, rather than addressing a woman's right of withdrawal. That's why you're not getting any major 'right to abort' outcry from here, because a woman's right to abort isn't the focus of this discussion. We've assumed that fact, and we're looking at how to equalise it by providing a man's right.
I think you're misunderstanding the point of the original post I made. It illustrates a problem (succinctly: both men and women are both held to similar legal standards when it comes the raising and caring for a child, but they are not given the same initial rights when it comes to choosing to participate in that endeavor) and then argues for his solution to the problem (give men the opportunity to opt out of fatherhood for the same period that a woman can choose to abort or abandon the child). Someone analyzing this can either argue that there is no problem in the first place, argue that there is a better solution to the problem, or that the solution provided is more or less the way to go. To focus solely on arguing about one person's solution is actually one of the problems I see in debates here a lot, and it rarely leads anywhere. It's positive movement in regards to the problem that I would hope to see. The provided argument is, as I stated at the beginning, just there for context: to provide one viewpoint on the problem.
And just to put it out there, I thought ElhonnaDS's analysis was exactly the right way to approach the question. She disagreed the the original post, but then tackled the problem head on, even answering the questions I proposed.
Post by
Squishalot
Sheesh, give me a chance to edit a reply to your edit! :)
Sorry, I was kinda waiting all day for you to wake up :P
Lol, I'm glad my views are that important to you :P Unfortunately, I've got a pretty busy day here, so I'll be in and out!
Certainly, but it means that the discussion should focus on how to apply the man's right of withdrawal, rather than addressing a woman's right of withdrawal. That's why you're not getting any major 'right to abort' outcry from here, because a woman's right to abort isn't the focus of this discussion. We've assumed that fact, and we're looking at how to equalise it by providing a man's right.
I think you're misunderstanding the point of the original post I made. It illustrates a problem (succinctly: both men and women are both held to similar legal standards when it comes the raising and caring for a child, but they are not given the same initial rights when it comes to choosing to participate in that endeavor) and then argues for his solution to the problem (give men the opportunity to opt out of fatherhood for the same period that a woman can choose to abort or abandon the child). Someone analyzing this can either argue that there is no problem in the first place, argue that there is a better solution to the problem, or that the solution provided is more or less the way to go. To focus solely on arguing about one person's solution is actually one of the problems I see in debates here a lot, and it rarely leads anywhere. It's positive movement in regards to the problem that I would hope to see. The provided argument is, as I stated at the beginning, just there for context: to provide one viewpoint on the problem.
Fair enough.
I would argue that his attempt to solve the problem is not a solution in and of itself. The key difference between his 'man solution' compared to the 'woman solution' (i.e. abortion) is that one involves taking a life, and the other does not. It is by far an inequitable comparison. If you include the ethics of abortion and consideration of an unborn child's life, then there is no practical way to equalise the positions between the potential parents.
Taking the ethics of abortion out of the question, I agree with Elhonna - the parents should be equally responsible for the child (and have equal privileges with the child). That could mean that the man in the position should at least be liable for half the cost of acquiring an abortion, irrespective of what the woman does, should he declare that he wants nothing to do with it during the 'abortion period'. I don't think that it's reasonable to get out completely scot free like the argument in your original post seems to want.
Edit: I should also note that it's still not an equal playing field either way, because if the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, there is no recourse there. How do you generate equality?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
That's the point here. Two hypothetical scenarios: If I had a one night stand (cheated on my wife) and there was a pregnancy, I might want to keep, and raise that baby. My sexual partner doesn't. She's going to England for an abortion, and there's no way I can stop her.
Conversely, she wants to keep, and raise the baby, but I don't. I'm not even working. I want her to go to England and get rid of it. I can't make her go. So I say "OK, but I didn't want this kid, you made a choice, so I am not going to give you any money for a choice you made." She has legal rights to take my money...
Yes, but we can generate an equitable scenario in the latter case, which is what the first post was suggesting, and what I'm trying to refine because I don't think it's equitable to have you do nothing to compensate for a problem that is partly your fault.
Post by
Thror
I'm actually quite surprised that the general consensus here is ending abortion and gender-neutral child support laws, especially the former. The consensus has definitely shifted in this forum over the last several years. Overall, it's the only legitimately equal solution I could envision on reading this question, so I had hoped to hear a defense of a woman's right to abort in regards to this issue.
Well, obviously in all circumstances, the woman's voice counts for more re: getting an abortion or not, considering that it's her body that will carry the child for nine months. I absolutely think the right to a medical abortion is just that, a right, but at the same time, it shouldn't be abused because someone prefers unprotected sex and didn't go on the pill and so just keep getting them. On the flip side, it shouldn't be rejected just because a woman wants to manipulate or get back at their ex (as happens in some cases).
I agree. And I really don't think it's common for women to get pregnant on purpose to "trap" a man, besides even if it happens, the man shouldn't have been having sex with anyone if he is not okay with the fact that a woman might get pregnant as it can happen even with birth control. And expecting a woman to get an abortion is just a horrible thing to do.
It is quite common. Also, it almost happened to me, once. When my ex-gf got a feeling that I might want to break up with her, she stopped taking birth control pills, to trap me basically. She would still swear she took them. Luckilly for me, I was never really "in the mood" since I started feeling like breaking up with her, so she never actually got me to impregnate her.
The forced responsibility on men is getting abused by a lot of women. I think it indicates a flaw in the parenthood laws.
I know too many guys who were trapped into fatherhood by women
And I know too many women who were trapped into single motherhood by men who wont even pay child support.
Then make a new topic about it. Two wrongs do not cancel each other out. They should be addressed separately as problems stemming from the laws. I wouldn't mind chiming in, that's what happened to my mother.
To formulate a concise opinion on the matter... yes, I think fathers should be able to opt out of fatherhood, in cases where the children are a fruit of malicious intent. It happens way too often, I personally know a few men who have been legitimately ruined by women like that. I do not think the solution would be simple, nor do I have a clear suggestion for a solution. It would have to be something really good to prevent abuse from the side of fathers.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I think the whole concept of "opting out" is absurd. You made a child, a person, and now you want to pretend you didn't and not even have the decency to PAY for it to have a better life?
I really don't think it's fair to blame women and say they're all trapping you, like I said, even if they do it on purpose, you are still responsible for letting it happen. So pay up for it.
You can't just opt out of a life.
And a thing isn't common because it happened to you..
The point is that women can, and do, by having an abortion. Men don't have that same opportunity.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
It's not inequality that men can't carry a baby or decide to not carry that baby though. In my opinion.
Why do you think that?
Also a lot of women do not have the option to get an abortion so why are we assuming they do?
Because if women can't opt out, then neither should men be able to either. We're taking that position for granted in some respects.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Thror
Like I said, if "opting out" was an option, it would have to be really well thought out so you would not get the men abusing it. It should serve to help to prevent women from abusing the system and should not just cause a situation where men start abusing the system. I am not just siding with men here, I know there are way too many @#$%^&bags who irresponsibly impregnate a woman and then leave her to her own fate and that should be addressed as well, because women worldwide suffer from that.
I really don't think it's fair to blame women and say they're all trapping you, like I said, even if they do it on purpose, you are still responsible for letting it happen. So pay up for it.
Two things I disagree with. I am not saying "all women are trapping us". There are specific cases where women take the child as a way of forcibly bonding a man to them, or at least a chunk of his wallet. I honestly am kinda baffled about how you seem to defend those women. Do you really think all women value human life as much as you do? Because they just don't. There legitimately are terrible mothers who basically trapped men into fatherhood, and never really cared about having the actual children. I actually know people who are victims to this. I know men who have been trapped and I have friends whose mothers used them as a way to obtain profit. You can't imagine how popular trapping men like that is in places like Russia.
And I really do not think that if someone actually lies to me about a thing, I am responsible for any outcome. If someone tells you "this button turns on the shower", and it actually blasts off a nuke in New York, would you accept your responsibility for pressing said button? The whole argument you are making rides on the fragile fact that there is a miniscule chance of failure in all forms of birth control, and really, that's such a weak base to build an argument upon.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
People need to take care of their kids. The end. Society doesn't function if no one is willing to take responsibility for themselves or their offspring. These are not high interest loans you got with an ex, that you feel should be someone else's responsibility to pay off. They are not motorbikes that you can just junk if they're not worth the upkeep, or you'd rather spend your money elsewhere. They're not disposable human beings.
It amazes me how people are so much more concerned how unfair it is to THEM that they don't have as much freedom to screw over their kids by dumping them on a doorstep to end up god knows where, to end their life before they are born, or to keep their inconvenient need to eat from preventing you from buying that newer car. Never mind that a child exists that needs to be supported, that you created, whose life will either be ended or irrevocably damaged by being discarded by you. Never mind that you KNOW how to prevent the child and the only reason you didn't was because you were too lazy to use adequate birth control, or because you sleep with people you don't know well enough to trust them as to whether they are using birth control- you can use condoms AND the pill if you really don't want a child. Never mind that you were responsible for creating the child and their subsequent needs. It's unfair to YOU how your deliberate sex act ended up in a human being that might cost you money rather than just die or be shipped off to some state home so you just can forget them and let someone else pay for them.
You can take the argument a step further. In some countries, a man can murder his daughter if she embarrasses them and misbehaves. He can force his wife to have at abortion legally, dragging her in forcefully if necessary. He can sell his daughter into prostitution, slavery or a child marriage and make some extra cash. He can send his 7 year old sons to work in a factory so they support the household. It's unfair to you, that just because of where you were born they have so much more freedom to monetize or dispose of their kids than you do, right? At what point do you completely lose all empathy and sense of responsibility to another human being enough that you're more concerned with the total equality of having as much freedom as the other parent to get rid of a kid than you are with how horrible it is to want to get rid of your kids?
The main argument that people seem to make in favor of abortion is "It's my body," which seems to indicate that the only reason a woman has the right to end a fetuses life is because it is physically a part of her body. To me that seems to imply that if not for the fact that it was inside them, they would feel they have no right to kill it. What the idea of this thread proposes is that the justification of abortion isn't that it's part of your body, and part of you. It isn't that you are physically attached and so it's not a separate person from yourself. The justification in this scenario is that it's more economically convenient to kill it, and you should have the right to do so even if it is in someone else's body, or the right to have them pay your share of the child's expenses if they "unfairly" decide that they don't want to remove a part of themselves to save you money.
It seems like hypocrisy to me. Some people's belief that it is part of a woman herself, and people have no right to pressure her into a decision one way or the other, is so strong that they feel her rights to not be coerced or even talked into making a different decision are more important than the right of the fetus which would eventually become a human being to be allowed to complete their growth and have a life. But some of those same people, when faced with the idea that her freedom to choose would have some impact on their own life suddenly want to put financial pressure on her to either pay their share of the child support or get rid of the kid. How does that work? That argument peels away the idea that someone's support of abortion is about the child being part of the woman, and her rights being oppressed, and leaves just the idea that abortion is more convenient and cheaper than kids, and so you have a right to in some part decide to do it, or place consequences on not doing it, even if it's part of someone else's body.
How do you reconcile both the idea that I shouldn't pressure a woman about abortion because my desire for that child to be allowed to be born is less important than her dominion over her own body, but you can pressure a woman because your desire to not pay child support is more important than her dominion over her own body?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.