Liberal or Conservative?

[Gin1984]

This is what I was trying to ask. FWIW I loathe the idea of abortion personally, but TheNick seems to be all over the map with his views. It seems to be a child with rights only if it's wanted by at least one of the parents. If no one wants it, then it has no rights and can be aborted.

I guess the answer should be that the man should be allowed to have the fetus which has been removed from the woman who wants the abortion. If he can incubate and birth it, he can have full say over it and the woman should pay him child support. Therefore equality.

I'm not all over the map.  I'm not against abortion.  I'm against fathers having no rights.

Like I said...I vote pro life because it is the only choice I have that will guarantee reproductive equality between men and women.  If there was an option that supported legal abortion and equal rights for fathers I'd support that, but since there isn't I'm more concerned about equal rights for fathers than special rights for women.

Incorrect, abortions happen even when illegal.  All that "pro-life" people do is bringing back more maternal deaths. 

[TheNick]

What equality actually means is that any distinctions between people are drawn based on the actual needs and circumstances of those people, rather than being drawn on the basis of irrelevant grounds and stereotypes. Equality doesn't mean that if we jail a rapist, we also have to jail an underage drinker. Rather, we draw distinctions based on the actual differences between those cases, while refraining from drawing distinctions on irrelevant grounds. That's what substantive equality means.

Equality.  If Person A and Person B are both convicted of rape they face the same penalties.

Equality.  If Person A and Person B are both caught drinking underage the same punishment applies.

Not Equality.  Person A and Person B make a fetus together...Person A has all the authority over it and Person B has none.  There is no need to discriminate against Person B because of his genitalia.

[TheNick]

Incorrect, abortions happen even when illegal.  All that "pro-life" people do is bringing back more maternal deaths.

Not nearly as many.  A few extra maternal deaths is a small price to pay for the many loving fathers out there that will not have to suffer the unwarranted loss of their unborn child because aborting it was more convenient for a woman who didn't want to be responsible for her actions.

[Sailor Sam]

Nick, if you personally lost a desired baby because of abortion, I'm sorry. Please accept that sincerely. That is legitimately painful, and you deserve to grieve.

Heres the second part - spewing discord and hateful words isn't grieving. Saying A+ to a few more dead women isn't right. You've gone past political stance, and you need to square yourself back up. Take a breath, and maybe take a step back. This might not be the right thread debate for you.

[mm1970]

The failure rate of contraceptives is not 0.000000001%.

Child support is to benefit the child, not to punish the father or to benefit the mother. Pregnant women can get abortions because they possess the uterus and the fetus contained within it. Men and women don't have the same biological abilities, even if that seems unfair to you.

Men and women don't have the same biological abilities?  Last I checked women required sperm to get pregnant.  Unless they've developed synthetic sperm men and women are both 50% responsible when a pregnancy occurs.

Yeah I suppose you could say well men shouldn't have sex if they aren't prepared to be a father, yet the same could be said about women who want abortions, couldn't it?  Shouldn't have had sex if you weren't prepared to be a mother...yet you think people who want to limit or do away abortions want to punish women for having sex lol.

I'm just pointing out the double standards and hypocrisy on the issue people love to overlook, especially women.

When the medical community is able to remove an embryo or fetus from a pregnant woman, to allow the fetus to grow to full term, so that the sperm source can raise the child, then let's talk.

Until then, a fetus is unable to grow to being full term or to be able to survive without a uterus.  The owner of the uterus has the say.

[mm1970]

Its no more illogical than saying a fetus is alive at 20 weeks, but at 19 weeks and 6 days abort away!

That depends.

At the center of the abortion debate, for me, is "when does life begin".  The pro-life side believes that is at conception.  The severe left believes at birth.

Most other people "don't know", and honestly, does the medical community really know?

So, at what developmental "age" can a fetus reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb, without major disabilities?  I'm sure the medical community can come up with a number - I'm sure there are statistics on miscarriages, premature labor, survival rates, disability rates.  Is it arbitrary?  To some degree, but there is actual science behind it.

I do not now, nor have I ever, believed that life begins at conception.  But what do other people believe?  Conception, implantation, quickening, what?  What does the medical community say?  From statistics (and personal experience), the % of embryos that are conceived that never implant, or never make it past 6 weeks - it's pretty staggering.  Do I think that taking a morning after pill is murder?  No.

[Cressida]

Men and women don't have the same biological abilities?  Last I checked women required sperm to get pregnant.  Unless they've developed synthetic sperm men and women are both 50% responsible when a pregnancy occurs.

Yeah I suppose you could say well men shouldn't have sex if they aren't prepared to be a father, yet the same could be said about women who want abortions, couldn't it?  Shouldn't have had sex if you weren't prepared to be a mother...yet you think people who want to limit or do away abortions want to punish women for having sex lol.

I'm just pointing out the double standards and hypocrisy on the issue people love to overlook, especially women.

When the medical community is able to remove an embryo or fetus from a pregnant woman, to allow the fetus to grow to full term, so that the sperm source can raise the child, then let's talk.

Until then, a fetus is unable to grow to being full term or to be able to survive without a uterus.  The owner of the uterus has the say.

Exactly. Honestly, TheNick, if you're that worked up about this, why don't you start lobbying for the above? Brave New World-style universal birth control and factory-grown babies. It's more likely to happen than your forced-birth utopia, since it doesn't infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy.

[ender]

Its no more illogical than saying a fetus is alive at 20 weeks, but at 19 weeks and 6 days abort away!

That depends.

At the center of the abortion debate, for me, is "when does life begin".  The pro-life side believes that is at conception.  The severe left believes at birth.

Most other people "don't know", and honestly, does the medical community really know?

So, at what developmental "age" can a fetus reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb, without major disabilities?  I'm sure the medical community can come up with a number - I'm sure there are statistics on miscarriages, premature labor, survival rates, disability rates.  Is it arbitrary?  To some degree, but there is actual science behind it.

I do not now, nor have I ever, believed that life begins at conception.  But what do other people believe?  Conception, implantation, quickening, what?  What does the medical community say?  From statistics (and personal experience), the % of embryos that are conceived that never implant, or never make it past 6 weeks - it's pretty staggering.  Do I think that taking a morning after pill is murder?  No.

So "life" is dictated by viability?

[Gin1984]

Its no more illogical than saying a fetus is alive at 20 weeks, but at 19 weeks and 6 days abort away!

That depends.

At the center of the abortion debate, for me, is "when does life begin".  The pro-life side believes that is at conception.  The severe left believes at birth.

Most other people "don't know", and honestly, does the medical community really know?

So, at what developmental "age" can a fetus reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb, without major disabilities?  I'm sure the medical community can come up with a number - I'm sure there are statistics on miscarriages, premature labor, survival rates, disability rates.  Is it arbitrary?  To some degree, but there is actual science behind it.

I do not now, nor have I ever, believed that life begins at conception.  But what do other people believe?  Conception, implantation, quickening, what?  What does the medical community say?  From statistics (and personal experience), the % of embryos that are conceived that never implant, or never make it past 6 weeks - it's pretty staggering.  Do I think that taking a morning after pill is murder?  No.

The average age for a formed CNS (not PNS though) is about 24-25 weeks.  The fetus will not survive without damage prior to the CNS formation.  Yes, we have occasionally been able to keep one alive at 21 weeks but every case that I have read in the literature (and according to my neurodevelopment grad prof as of 2012) there has been damage.

[Gin1984]

Its no more illogical than saying a fetus is alive at 20 weeks, but at 19 weeks and 6 days abort away!

That depends.

At the center of the abortion debate, for me, is "when does life begin".  The pro-life side believes that is at conception.  The severe left believes at birth.

Most other people "don't know", and honestly, does the medical community really know?

So, at what developmental "age" can a fetus reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb, without major disabilities?  I'm sure the medical community can come up with a number - I'm sure there are statistics on miscarriages, premature labor, survival rates, disability rates.  Is it arbitrary?  To some degree, but there is actual science behind it.

I do not now, nor have I ever, believed that life begins at conception.  But what do other people believe?  Conception, implantation, quickening, what?  What does the medical community say?  From statistics (and personal experience), the % of embryos that are conceived that never implant, or never make it past 6 weeks - it's pretty staggering.  Do I think that taking a morning after pill is murder?  No.

So "life" is dictated by viability?

Scientifically a fetus does not have life because it misses some of the requirements (though you can always find someone who tries to twist because of their personal beliefs).  My biochem professor used to refer to them as parasites until someone pointed out a couple journal articles that disagreed.  But really, they are closer to parasite than the actual organism it will develop into when at a fetal level.
I do have to find the argument about life of fetus odd.  That is an emotional and yes, often religious ideal (which is more odd given that the bible says life upon breathe, but anyway), but our legal system is set upon the idea of autonomy.  In no other case could you say, but man X is alive so you other person must give him blood, organs, anything really, even if that means death of a living breathing person.  Why is this fetus so different?  I mean this honestly, it make no sense to me.  You could not get an organ from a corpse to save a living person, unless of course that person was pregnant and the person was fetus (see Tx for example).

[yuka]

If I make you guys a new thread for abortion, will you hand this one back over to more general discussion? I recognize that I fed the flames too, for which I apologize.

[Squirrel away]

If I make you guys a new thread for abortion, will you hand this one back over to more general discussion?

+1.

[okonumiyaki]

So "life" is dictated by viability?

Well, we don't prosecute women for miscarriages. 

[davisgang90]

In a vain attempt to get the thread back on track, I'm a conservative, social and fiscal.

[GrumpyPenguin]

I used to say I'm socially and fiscally liberal.  After more careful economic thought, however, I find that where natural monopolies occur, I most definitely believe that unregulated markets will lead to very large deadweight losses to our society and hinders long-run growth significantly.  Yes, "government failure" has inefficiency as well, but government inefficiency vs. natural monopolies that maximizes profit?  I believe the government inefficiency is the better trade-off.  Good regulation of natural monopolies can still allow a reasonable rate of return.  And I take how our water industry is run over Comcast any day!  Imagine if our water supplies were owned and run by Comcast?  That would be a scary world.  Of course we want to reduce government inefficiency where we can. So I would probably describe myself as socially liberal, fiscally centrist.

[MandalayVA]

So "life" is dictated by viability?

Well, we don't prosecute women for miscarriages.

Yet. 

I used to be very heavily involved in the pro-choice movement, up to and including speaking with anti-abortion legislators.  One of my favorite lines was "okay, if you believe life begins at conception why not sponsor a bill that would allow fetuses to be listed as tax exemptions and counted as people on censuses?"  To a man all of them responded with a variation of "that's stupid, they're not born yet" before realizing what they had said.  Gotcha.  :D

For the record, I'm against forced child support for men.  Women, you choose to bring a child into the world, be prepared to pay for it yourself.

[EXLIer]

I vote Republican, mostly because Democrats continue to vote to deny me of my rights to own and carry a firearm of my choosing, and the excessive growth of government and over spending ( both do ).

I'm for:

100% totally unabridged firearm rights.
Small government - that includes a balanced budget and a realistic plan to pay down debt.
Decriminalization of marijuana - even though I've never used it.
Removing the Government from the business of marriage and letting the churches decide who they want to marry.
Some form of flat tax.

[Gin1984]

So "life" is dictated by viability?

Well, we don't prosecute women for miscarriages.

Yet. 

I used to be very heavily involved in the pro-choice movement, up to and including speaking with anti-abortion legislators.  One of my favorite lines was "okay, if you believe life begins at conception why not sponsor a bill that would allow fetuses to be listed as tax exemptions and counted as people on censuses?"  To a man all of them responded with a variation of "that's stupid, they're not born yet" before realizing what they had said.  Gotcha.  :D

For the record, I'm against forced child support for men.  Women, you choose to bring a child into the world, be prepared to pay for it yourself.

Some states are: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/arrested-having-miscarriage-7-appalling-instances-where-pregnant-women-were

[TheNick]

Exactly. Honestly, TheNick, if you're that worked up about this, why don't you start lobbying for the above? Brave New World-style universal birth control and factory-grown babies. It's more likely to happen than your forced-birth utopia, since it doesn't infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy.

Why would I lobby for that when I could just vote pro life?  A majority of men identify as pro-life, I'm not alone in the issue.  If women want to continue to be so radical in their views and give men zero reproductive rights, we just vote pro life as its our only means of obtaining reproductive equality.  You should be more concerned that in the last 20 years the amount of people who identify as pro choice declined by 9% while the number of pro lifers increased by 13% than the fact that I think a father should have some legal power to protect his unborn child from extermination.



Keep in mind, over the last 20 years American's have also been shifting towards becoming a less religious people as well.  Pro life becoming more popular in an era where the influence of the church is declining should make it quite obvious to you that people are taking issue with abortion on more than religious grounds.  The days of reproductive equality are right around the corner whether you like it or not, the question is will the pro-lifers win or will women be willing to compromise and stop demanding men have zero reproductive rights?

[ncornilsen]

Exactly. Honestly, TheNick, if you're that worked up about this, why don't you start lobbying for the above? Brave New World-style universal birth control and factory-grown babies. It's more likely to happen than your forced-birth utopia, since it doesn't infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy.

Why would I lobby for that when I could just vote pro life?  A majority of men identify as pro-life, I'm not alone in the issue.  If women want to continue to be so radical in their views and give men zero reproductive rights, we just vote pro life as its our only means of obtaining reproductive equality.  You should be more concerned that in the last 20 years the amount of people who identify as pro choice declined by 9% while the number of pro lifers increased by 13% than the fact that I think a father should have some legal power to protect his unborn child from extermination.



Keep in mind, over the last 20 years American's have also been shifting towards becoming a less religious people as well.  Pro life becoming more popular in an era where the influence of the church is declining should make it quite obvious to you that people are taking issue with abortion on more than religious grounds.  The days of reproductive equality are right around the corner whether you like it or not, the question is will the pro-lifers win or will women be willing to compromise and stop demanding men have zero reproductive rights?

I understand and agree partially with your sentiment - men basically have zero rights but significant responsibilities as far as a child go. But the issue with making it 'equal' is that there isn't a way to do so that isn't completely draconian or achieves any risk adjusted parity. 

And for those pointing out that making abortion illegal is just going to make women find illegal ways to do it... absolutely. It's exactly the way outlawing assault weapons or handguns in general isn't effective.


As for my political stance, I have to identify as conservative fiscally, and moderate on issues such as abortion and gay rights. (basically, I identify against the religious fundamentalist part of the Republican party.)

 I plain cannot vote for the democrats that are available, due to their second amendment stance. Any 'rights' afforded an unarmed population are at the whim of the ruling class, and therefore aren't real without a credible threat of counter violence. Almost every human rights violation in the last 150 years has been preceded by disarmament of the population, or was perpetrated against an already unarmed populous.

Which makes this election really suck. I will NOT vote for Hillary (as she really ought to be in jail) nor Sanders for his demagoguery... nor trump for his fascist demagoguery. I think I'll stay home and brew some beer on election day.

[Jack]

Forcing a man to pay a part of his income to support his child or dragging women to the abortion table against their will... both bad options, but I'll take the first one.

Here's the problem: it's only "his" child when it's convenient for the mother. When the father owes money, it's his child. When the father wants custody, it's the mother's child. This is not equitable.

The posts of user "TheNick" in this thread have certainly been disturbing. He appears to argue that when a man has sex with a woman, he acquires a property right in her body, which right entitles him to direct her future medical decisions, vetoing any wishes that she might otherwise have. Basically, "TheNick" has no principled objection to abortion; he merely has a problem with an abortion that hasn't been approved by a man.

The prevailing legal environment appears to be that when a woman has sex with a man, she acquires a property right in his future income, despite the fact that the man receives no consideration (either monetary or in right of custody of the ensuing child).

Seems to me that either men can have no say in abortions or they can be held accountable for the woman's decision to keep an [unwanted by the man] baby, but having both is not equitable. If allowing women to abort is reasonable, then allowing the man to permanently disclaim all rights and responsibility (subject to the same time constraints -- i.e., if abortion is only legal in the first trimester than the father should only have 3 months after learning of the fetus/child's existence) should be reasonable too.

Oh how ironic it is when the day has arrived when men are now treated as second class citizens and the idea that men want reproductive equality is "disturbing."

The fact that you might be forced to support a child that you helped create is not an example of oppression or of being treated as a second class citizen. It is merely a risk you take by engaging in potentially procreative sexual activities. If you don't think the risk is worth it, there is an easy solution: don't have sex.

You know what? Fuck you. We hear all the goddamn time about how things like "well if that slut didn't want to get pregnant then she should just close their legs" are offensive and anyone who says such things is a horrible person -- and it's true. But if that's the case, then SO IS WHAT YOU JUST SAID!

Damn hypocrites!



(For the record, I'm strongly pro-choice. The problem is that child custody/child support are in serious need of reform.)

MOD EDIT: Forum Rule #1.

[Gin1984]

Forcing a man to pay a part of his income to support his child or dragging women to the abortion table against their will... both bad options, but I'll take the first one.

Here's the problem: it's only "his" child when it's convenient for the mother. When the father owes money, it's his child. When the father wants custody, it's the mother's child. This is not equitable.

The posts of user "TheNick" in this thread have certainly been disturbing. He appears to argue that when a man has sex with a woman, he acquires a property right in her body, which right entitles him to direct her future medical decisions, vetoing any wishes that she might otherwise have. Basically, "TheNick" has no principled objection to abortion; he merely has a problem with an abortion that hasn't been approved by a man.

The prevailing legal environment appears to be that when a woman has sex with a man, she acquires a property right in his future income, despite the fact that the man receives no consideration (either monetary or in right of custody of the ensuing child).

Seems to me that either men can have no say in abortions or they can be held accountable for the woman's decision to keep an [unwanted by the man] baby, but having both is not equitable. If allowing women to abort is reasonable, then allowing the man to permanently disclaim all rights and responsibility (subject to the same time constraints -- i.e., if abortion is only legal in the first trimester than the father should only have 3 months after learning of the fetus/child's existence) should be reasonable too.

Oh how ironic it is when the day has arrived when men are now treated as second class citizens and the idea that men want reproductive equality is "disturbing."

The fact that you might be forced to support a child that you helped create is not an example of oppression or of being treated as a second class citizen. It is merely a risk you take by engaging in potentially procreative sexual activities. If you don't think the risk is worth it, there is an easy solution: don't have sex.

You know what? Fuck you. We hear all the goddamn time about how things like "well if that slut didn't want to get pregnant then she should just close their legs" are offensive and anyone who says such things is a horrible person -- and it's true. But if that's the case, then SO IS WHAT YOU JUST SAID!

Damn hypocrites!


(For the record, I'm strongly pro-choice. The problem is that child custody/child support are in serious need of reform.)

Your statement is false, at least in NY.  In cases in which the man attempts custody, on average, he gets it.  The majority of cases however never go to court, it is a decision made by both parties sometimes with a mediator.  And there have been many a case where a woman wanted to have the child adopted out and the father said no and his wishes were honored even though he did not take custody (and did not want it). 
Explain to me what needs to be reformed, except assuming the idea of forcing another person to bare your child, against their will, is not on the table.

[Jack]

Your statement is false, at least in NY.  In cases in which the man attempts custody, on average, he gets it.  The majority of cases however never go to court, it is a decision made by both parties sometimes with a mediator.  And there have been many a case where a woman wanted to have the child adopted out and the father said no and his wishes were honored even though he did not take custody (and did not want it). 
Explain to me what needs to be reformed, except assuming the idea of forcing another person to bare your child, against their will, is not on the table.

• [Citation needed]
• TheNick posted an anecdote illustrating part of the problem upthread.
• Custody is only half the issue; child support is the other half. I highly doubt you'll be able to truthfully claim that the father's wishes were honored on average re:child support.

[Gin1984]

Your statement is false, at least in NY.  In cases in which the man attempts custody, on average, he gets it.  The majority of cases however never go to court, it is a decision made by both parties sometimes with a mediator.  And there have been many a case where a woman wanted to have the child adopted out and the father said no and his wishes were honored even though he did not take custody (and did not want it). 
Explain to me what needs to be reformed, except assuming the idea of forcing another person to bare your child, against their will, is not on the table.

• [Citation needed]
• TheNick posted an anecdote illustrating part of the problem upthread.
• Custody is only half the issue; child support is the other half. I highly doubt you'll be able to truthfully claim that the father's wishes were honored on average re:child support.

http://amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm   I don't have my laptop on me so don't have the NYS one but here is a Mass study that says the same thing.  Overall I believe only about 10% of cases are contested.
Given that the majority of states now have formulas for how child support is granted, can you show me one set of laws that is unfair to men.  Not that some men don't think they should support their children, according to the law, but that the law itself is wrong AND how you think it should be.  What is fair?  TheNick has basically said he should be able to use women as incubators.  No.  Nothing that he has said gives him the right to use women as incubators, period. 

[Cressida]

Exactly. Honestly, TheNick, if you're that worked up about this, why don't you start lobbying for the above? Brave New World-style universal birth control and factory-grown babies. It's more likely to happen than your forced-birth utopia, since it doesn't infringe on anyone's bodily autonomy.

Why would I lobby for that when I could just vote pro life? 

I just explained that. "It's more likely to happen than your forced-birth utopia."

A majority of men identify as pro-life, I'm not alone in the issue.  If women want to continue to be so radical in their views and give men zero reproductive rights, we just vote pro life as its our only means of obtaining reproductive equality.  You should be more concerned that in the last 20 years the amount of people who identify as pro choice declined by 9% while the number of pro lifers increased by 13% than the fact that I think a father should have some legal power to protect his unborn child from extermination.

Keep in mind, over the last 20 years American's have also been shifting towards becoming a less religious people as well.  Pro life becoming more popular in an era where the influence of the church is declining should make it quite obvious to you that people are taking issue with abortion on more than religious grounds.  The days of reproductive equality are right around the corner whether you like it or not, the question is will the pro-lifers win or will women be willing to compromise and stop demanding men have zero reproductive rights?

No, they're not.

[Cathy]

The fact that you might be forced to support a child that you helped create is not an example of oppression or of being treated as a second class citizen. It is merely a risk you take by engaging in potentially procreative sexual activities. If you don't think the risk is worth it, there is an easy solution: don't have sex.

You know what? Fuck you. ... Damn hypocrites!

I'm not sure what is hypocritical about what I said. The term "hypocrisy" usually refers to cases where there is a dissonance between a person's stated views and the person's behaviour. My own behaviour is irrelevant to this discussion, so any allegations of hypocrisy are also irrelevant.

I imagine you intended to allege that my post was sexist, but that is not the case, as I explained in another post in this thread.

[TheNick]

Oh how ironic it is when the day has arrived when men are now treated as second class citizens and the idea that men want reproductive equality is "disturbing."

The fact that you might be forced to support a child that you helped create is not an example of oppression or of being treated as a second class citizen. It is merely a risk you take by engaging in potentially procreative sexual activities. If you don't think the risk is worth it, there is an easy solution: don't have sex.

You know what? Fuck you. We hear all the goddamn time about how things like "well if that slut didn't want to get pregnant then she should just close their legs" are offensive and anyone who says such things is a horrible person -- and it's true. But if that's the case, then SO IS WHAT YOU JUST SAID!

Damn hypocrites!

Exactly Jack.  They are so radicalized in their sexist views they can't even see the hypocrisy in this.

I've already told them multiple times my issue isn't that men are forced to pay child support...its that men are forced to claim responsibility(and rightfully so) while women are given a free pass.  I'm not even advocating men should be able to abandon their responsibilities as a father just because they don't want the kid and the mother does...I'm advocating that when roles are reversed fathers shouldn't have no legal recourse while the woman murders the unborn child.

I just explained that. "It's more likely to happen than your forced-birth utopia."

I'd have to be arguing for forced insemination to be arguing for a forced birth utopia, and that is definitely not the case.

A majority of men identify as pro-life, I'm not alone in the issue.  If women want to continue to be so radical in their views and give men zero reproductive rights, we just vote pro life as its our only means of obtaining reproductive equality.  You should be more concerned that in the last 20 years the amount of people who identify as pro choice declined by 9% while the number of pro lifers increased by 13% than the fact that I think a father should have some legal power to protect his unborn child from extermination.

Keep in mind, over the last 20 years American's have also been shifting towards becoming a less religious people as well.  Pro life becoming more popular in an era where the influence of the church is declining should make it quite obvious to you that people are taking issue with abortion on more than religious grounds.  The days of reproductive equality are right around the corner whether you like it or not, the question is will the pro-lifers win or will women be willing to compromise and stop demanding men have zero reproductive rights?

No, they're not.

So how else do you explain a shift towards pro life beliefs during an era where organized religion has been losing influence?

I'm not sure what is hypocritical about what I said. The term "hypocrisy" usually refers to cases where there is a dissonance between a person's stated views and the person's behaviour. My own behaviour is irrelevant to this discussion, so any allegations of hypocrisy are also irrelevant.

Men should either abstain or be prepared to be a father.

Women shouldn't have to abstain if they aren't prepared to be a mother, they should have access to abortions.

You want women to have all the reproductive rights while denying men any...that is what makes you a hypocrite, and holding men and women to a different standard on the issue is what makes you sexist.

[arebelspy]

MOD NOTE: If you all can't present your point of view using facts, but have to resort to attacking other members, the thread will be locked.

[Jack]

The fact that you might be forced to support a child that you helped create is not an example of oppression or of being treated as a second class citizen. It is merely a risk you take by engaging in potentially procreative sexual activities. If you don't think the risk is worth it, there is an easy solution: don't have sex.

You know what? Fuck you. ... Damn hypocrites!

I'm not sure what is hypocritical about what I said. The term "hypocrisy" usually refers to cases where there is a dissonance between a person's stated views and the person's behaviour. My own behaviour is irrelevant to this discussion, so any allegations of hypocrisy are also irrelevant.

I imagine you intended to allege that my post was sexist, but that is not the case, as I explained in another post in this thread.

Sorry, what actually happened was that I got to that point, lost my temper, and posted without reading the rest. It turns out that you went on to say that the "if you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex" argument applied to women too, so my accusation was completely uncalled-for. Worse, the remainder of your post was actually similar to the point I was making anyway, so that made me look doubly idiotic.

However, I'd like to point out that while hypocrisy can be dissonance between stated views and behavior, it can also be dissonance between stated views in one context and (opposite) stated views in another context. For example, you can say "if you don't want a baby, don't have sex" applies to both men and women or you can say it applies to neither men nor women and that's fine, but saying that it applies to only men or only women is hypocritical (regardless of what your personal behavior actually is).

That statement, if said by a stereotypical radical feminist (as opposed to an egalitarian feminist) would indeed remain hypocritical and offensive.

[Gin1984]

I was thinking about this thread last night.  And how we moved from women being upset at being told they should not be treated as autonomous human beings who get to decide who uses their body to child support.  And that underscores the issue here.  Many men seem to think this is about the fetus who will then be a child.  Why do I have to support the child and she gets to decide to abort.  You seem to be missing a key point here.  It is not about the child at that point.  It is about the woman.  Is she an autonomous human being or is she an incubator who has no rights to her womb?  I can't decide my husband's medical care even if it means no future child without his consent.  Nor can he decide mine.  Except, that is what you are saying here.  We want to control her medical decision because she may have my child.  That is ownership and you don't own a child.  The idea that some people (majority men) want to bring back the times when women were property (because controlling my reproductive system is controlling part of me) is horendous.  I keep reading hypocritical, sexist and offensive.  No.  What is hypocritical, sexist and offensive is the idea that men, even a corpse of a man has more rights to his body than I do when pregnant.  It is offensive that now that my daughter is born I do not need my husband's consent for her treatment (unless decided via the courts) but when she was a fetus I needed my husband's consent if the procedure was non-standard.  This was done for the same reason all you guys are arguing here:  What about men?  But men, you have the right to your body.  No one is going to strap you down and force a medical procedure on you, for any reason (if you are in your right mind), but that has happened to women:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/9/1343580/-Shocking-Examples-Of-What-Women-Have-Lost-Pre-Post-Midterms-And-How-We-ll-Fight-Back
You are not asking for equal rights, you are asking for control of other people.  If you really wanted equal rights there would be a push, in research for portable wombs.  Given our horrid maternal death rate, that actually might be very useful.  But that is not what is happening.  What is happening is you are showing what you really are going for.  TheNick mentioned more pro-life people while religion is going down.  That is true.  But what is also true is that prolife was never about religion, but about controlling women.  Perhaps we should be grateful you are being less dishonest now? 
There are a ton of good men on here, is that really what you want to be saying?

[Jack]

I was thinking about this thread last night.  And how we moved from women being upset at being told they should not be treated as autonomous human beings who get to decide who uses their body to child support.  And that underscores the issue here.  Many men seem to think this is about the fetus who will then be a child.  Why do I have to support the child and she gets to decide to abort.  You seem to be missing a key point here.  It is not about the child at that point.  It is about the woman.  Is she an autonomous human being or is she an incubator who has no rights to her womb?  I can't decide my husband's medical care even if it means no future child without his consent.  Nor can he decide mine.  Except, that is what you are saying here.  We want to control her medical decision because she may have my child.  That is ownership and you don't own a child.  The idea that some people (majority men) want to bring back the times when women were property (because controlling my reproductive system is controlling part of me) is horendous.  I keep reading hypocritical, sexist and offensive.  No.  What is hypocritical, sexist and offensive is the idea that men, even a corpse of a man has more rights to his body than I do when pregnant.  It is offensive that now that my daughter is born I do not need my husband's consent for her treatment (unless decided via the courts) but when she was a fetus I needed my husband's consent if the procedure was non-standard.  This was done for the same reason all you guys are arguing here:  What about men?  But men, you have the right to your body.  No one is going to strap you down and force a medical procedure on you, for any reason (if you are in your right mind), but that has happened to women:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/9/1343580/-Shocking-Examples-Of-What-Women-Have-Lost-Pre-Post-Midterms-And-How-We-ll-Fight-Back
You are not asking for equal rights, you are asking for control of other people.  If you really wanted equal rights there would be a push, in research for portable wombs.  Given our horrid maternal death rate, that actually might be very useful.  But that is not what is happening.  What is happening is you are showing what you really are going for.  TheNick mentioned more pro-life people while religion is going down.  That is true.  But what is also true is that prolife was never about religion, but about controlling women.  Perhaps we should be grateful you are being less dishonest now? 
There are a ton of good men on here, is that really what you want to be saying?

NO. Only TheNick was arguing for any of that. I never argued any such thing. My complaint is that when an unintended pregnancy occurs, women have the power to choose whether to keep it (not the problem), but men are held hostage (financially and otherwise) by that choice (the problem).

In other words, it seems like women only want to be autonomous when it suits their purpose -- I say if you want to be autonomous, then you get to be completely autonomous: for example, if the father wants an abortion and you refuse, then you should not be entitled to child support.

Equal rights for women are great -- but they need to be equal, not superior. And not just regarding children, either! For example, I see lots of feminists celebrating the fact that women are now (correctly!) recognized as being just as capable of military service as men (including in combat roles), but I notice a suspicious lack of feminists calling for women to be required to register for Selective Service like men are.

[2Cent]

I was thinking about this thread last night.  And how we moved from women being upset at being told they should not be treated as autonomous human beings who get to decide who uses their body to child support.  And that underscores the issue here.  Many men seem to think this is about the fetus who will then be a child.  Why do I have to support the child and she gets to decide to abort.  You seem to be missing a key point here.  It is not about the child at that point.  It is about the woman.  Is she an autonomous human being or is she an incubator who has no rights to her womb? ....

This is exactly why this issue is so confused. One side is arguing about the child, the other about the mother. Actually they are two separate issues. The core argument IS about the question of whether the child/fetus is a life and has rights, though. If it does, it is to be treated as a child. That does not make her an incubator, just a parent. You are as a parent responsible for the well being of your children. If you don't take care of your kids, it is a crime. That doesn't mean you're not in charge of your life. Your freedom is just less important that your responsibility.

[dramaman]

I started reading this thread not realizing where it was going ;)

It seems both TheNick and Jack are upset with the status quo for different reasons. TheNick doesn't like it that the man can't force the pregnant woman to give birth, while Jack doesn't like it that the man can't force the pregnant woman to terminate the pregnancy.

I really don't think any more needs to be said.

[onlykelsey]

Wow, I left this thread when it was pretty civil.  Things have certainly changed.

A perspective on custody/child support issues that hasn't been raised, I don't think, is that it's essentially a form of cost-shifting for children from the child to (generally) the most capable provider.  Of course things have changed in the last hundred years and women are more likely to be employed and capable providers, but I think historically it's essentially a way to make sure the government has to deal with millions of orphans.  The government has an interest in keeping roaming hordes of orphans off the street and, instead of pushing contraception or state care of children, has chosen to push child support instead.

[Jack]

while Jack doesn't like it that the man can't force the pregnant woman to terminate the pregnancy.

No, that's not even slightly what I said.

I don't like that a woman can refuse to terminate the pregnancy and then hold the man responsible for supporting the child. If it was her decision (alone) to have the child, then she (alone) should be responsible for it.

[onlykelsey]

If it was her decision (alone) to have the child, then she (alone) should be responsible for it.

I think one response from government or the rest of society is: we don't care whose choice it was, we want the parents to pay for it so we don't have to.  I think a lot of the debate has been cast in terms of father v. mother's rights, and I don't think that's really the relevant lens for most people.  I'm not saying that's the perfect system, but I think that this system comes out of a recognition that SOMEONE has to pay for the kids, and society would prefer it not be them.

[Gin1984]

while Jack doesn't like it that the man can't force the pregnant woman to terminate the pregnancy.

No, that's not even slightly what I said.

I don't like that a woman can refuse to terminate the pregnancy and then hold the man responsible for supporting the child. If it was her decision (alone) to have the child, then she (alone) should be responsible for it.

If a child is born, it is up to both parents to then decide if they plan to raise it.  If they do not, they pay, unless they give up parental rights (aka adoption).  Both adults have equal responsibilities here.

[Gin1984]

I was thinking about this thread last night.  And how we moved from women being upset at being told they should not be treated as autonomous human beings who get to decide who uses their body to child support.  And that underscores the issue here.  Many men seem to think this is about the fetus who will then be a child.  Why do I have to support the child and she gets to decide to abort.  You seem to be missing a key point here.  It is not about the child at that point.  It is about the woman.  Is she an autonomous human being or is she an incubator who has no rights to her womb? ....

This is exactly why this issue is so confused. One side is arguing about the child, the other about the mother. Actually they are two separate issues. The core argument IS about the question of whether the child/fetus is a life and has rights, though. If it does, it is to be treated as a child. That does not make her an incubator, just a parent. You are as a parent responsible for the well being of your children. If you don't take care of your kids, it is a crime. That doesn't mean you're not in charge of your life. Your freedom is just less important that your responsibility.

You are not correct here.  Neither parent must give organs, blood or any other body parent for the child, even if the living child would die.  Only when a mother is being treated as an incubator is this where she is forced.  That is the core ideal of bodily autonomy.  Your body is considered sacrosanct even if it would cause another's death, even if you yourself are a corpse.  Do you really want the law changed that you may be forced to give up an organ, blood, marrow etc, to save your child's life?  What if it would not save it, just prolong the life?  Would you like to be forced then?

[Jack]

If it was her decision (alone) to have the child, then she (alone) should be responsible for it.

I think one response from government or the rest of society is: we don't care whose choice it was, we want the parents to pay for it so we don't have to.  I think a lot of the debate has been cast in terms of father v. mother's rights, and I don't think that's really the relevant lens for most people.  I'm not saying that's the perfect system, but I think that this system comes out of a recognition that SOMEONE has to pay for the kids, and society would prefer it not be them.

If you believe that, then you must necessarily believe that either (a) it's somehow fair to screw over men, or (b) whether to have the child should be a joint decision (in which case you start to agree with TheNick).

while Jack doesn't like it that the man can't force the pregnant woman to terminate the pregnancy.

No, that's not even slightly what I said.

I don't like that a woman can refuse to terminate the pregnancy and then hold the man responsible for supporting the child. If it was her decision (alone) to have the child, then she (alone) should be responsible for it.

If a child is born, it is up to both parents to then decide if they plan to raise it.  If they do not, they pay, unless they give up parental rights (aka adoption).  Both adults have equal responsibilities here.

False. Fathers cannot give up parental rights without the mother's consent. In contrast, mothers can impose parental responsibilities without the father's consent. Can't you see how that's inequitable?

[dramaman]

while Jack doesn't like it that the man can't force the pregnant woman to terminate the pregnancy.

No, that's not even slightly what I said.

I don't like that a woman can refuse to terminate the pregnancy and then hold the man responsible for supporting the child. If it was her decision (alone) to have the child, then she (alone) should be responsible for it.

I think your position is closer to my observation than what you'd like to admit.

So what is your preferred solution? That the man has no responsibility at all? That the man's responsibility can be signed away in the first few months of pregnancy? What if the man missed the window and claimed he had never been informed? Would a woman have to hire someone to serve notice to the man? What if the window is missed because the man cannot be found?

As much as you might think the current system is unfair, I just have a hard time believing that coming up with a 'fair' alternative would not be a bureaucratic and legal nightmare that would almost certainly end up being a burden on the woman. Given that biology has already allowed guys to knock up women with almost infinite impunity, whereas women have to face the physical penalties in terms of either 9 months pregnancy, surgical or pharmaceutical abortion, and recovery, I can't say that I am overcome by the notion that in the overall scheme of things guys are getting the worst of the situation.

[Gin1984]

If it was her decision (alone) to have the child, then she (alone) should be responsible for it.

I think one response from government or the rest of society is: we don't care whose choice it was, we want the parents to pay for it so we don't have to.  I think a lot of the debate has been cast in terms of father v. mother's rights, and I don't think that's really the relevant lens for most people.  I'm not saying that's the perfect system, but I think that this system comes out of a recognition that SOMEONE has to pay for the kids, and society would prefer it not be them.

If you believe that, then you must necessarily believe that either (a) it's somehow fair to screw over men, or (b) whether to have the child should be a joint decision (in which case you start to agree with TheNick).

while Jack doesn't like it that the man can't force the pregnant woman to terminate the pregnancy.

No, that's not even slightly what I said.

I don't like that a woman can refuse to terminate the pregnancy and then hold the man responsible for supporting the child. If it was her decision (alone) to have the child, then she (alone) should be responsible for it.

If a child is born, it is up to both parents to then decide if they plan to raise it.  If they do not, they pay, unless they give up parental rights (aka adoption).  Both adults have equal responsibilities here.

False. Fathers cannot give up parental rights without the mother's consent. In contrast, mothers can impose parental responsibilities without the father's consent. Can't you see how that's inequitable?

And mothers, once the child is born cannot give up parental rights without the father's consent (assuming the court agrees which normally means adoption or risk to the child).  They are very much equal.  Parental responsibilities start when the child is born. 

[Jack]

I don't like that a woman can refuse to terminate the pregnancy and then hold the man responsible for supporting the child. If it was her decision (alone) to have the child, then she (alone) should be responsible for it.

I think your position is closer to my observation than what you'd like to admit.

No, it's not, damnit! You can't go ignoring the important part of the sentence and then claiming I meant something different from what I said. The bold part (which I changed) is the important part.

So what is your preferred solution? ... That the man's responsibility can be signed away in the first few months of pregnancy?

Yes, exactly.

What if the man missed the window and claimed he had never been informed? Would a woman have to hire someone to serve notice to the man? What if the window is missed because the man cannot be found?

It would indeed be the same as serving notice of a lawsuit -- something which is already routinely recognized is legally valid and fair, and which therefore is categorically excluded from being a "burden" on anyone.

By the way, your "what ifs" left out an important scenario: "what if the woman refuses to inform the father until much later?"

In general, the answer is simple: if the failure to inform is the man's fault (e.g. by avoiding service) then there's a default judgement that he's held responsible. If the failure to inform is the woman's fault then the three-month (or whatever) clock on the decision doesn't start until he is informed, even if the child already exists by then.

As much as you might think the current system is unfair, I just have a hard time believing that coming up with a 'fair' alternative would not be a bureaucratic and legal nightmare

You mean like how family court already is for men?

[Jack]

If a child is born, it is up to both parents to then decide if they plan to raise it.  If they do not, they pay, unless they give up parental rights (aka adoption).  Both adults have equal responsibilities here.

False. Fathers cannot give up parental rights without the mother's consent. In contrast, mothers can impose parental responsibilities without the father's consent. Can't you see how that's inequitable?

And mothers, once the child is born cannot give up parental rights without the father's consent (assuming the court agrees which normally means adoption or risk to the child).  They are very much equal.  Parental responsibilities start when the child is born.

So until the child is born, the woman has 100% of the power to make the decision of whether to have the child, then after the child is born, each parent has 50% of the power to make the decision of whether to care for the child, and you call that equal?

What you're actually arguing is that parental responsibilities start when the child is born for the mother, but that they effectively start at conception for the father because that's his last chance to decide whether birth occurs. That's hypocritical and sexist.

[dramaman]

I don't like that a woman can refuse to terminate the pregnancy and then hold the man responsible for supporting the child. If it was her decision (alone) to have the child, then she (alone) should be responsible for it.

I think your position is closer to my observation than what you'd like to admit.

No, it's not, damnit! You can't go ignoring the important part of the sentence and then claiming I meant something different from what I said.

And you keep ignoring that women, unlike men, are stuck with the physical impact of pregnancy. That women, unlike men, cannot just skip town when they want to escape the consequences of their actions. That women, unlike men, cannot impregnate three different men in the same night. That your idea of 'fairness' would require women to not only have to bear the physical, psychological and medical burden of pregnancy but also the logistical and financial burden of hiring a lawyer to make sure the guy's feet are held to the fire DURING THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF THE PREGNANCY and which even if done can still be fought over in court by some sleazebag who later wants avoid being responsible. You are essentially laying out a situation in which a poor and/or young woman is incentivized to get an abortion rather than deal with all the hassles that you seem to think needed for the 'poor' guy to be 'fair'.

So yeah, I do think you basically want to force women to terminate pregnancies.

[Gin1984]

If a child is born, it is up to both parents to then decide if they plan to raise it.  If they do not, they pay, unless they give up parental rights (aka adoption).  Both adults have equal responsibilities here.

False. Fathers cannot give up parental rights without the mother's consent. In contrast, mothers can impose parental responsibilities without the father's consent. Can't you see how that's inequitable?

And mothers, once the child is born cannot give up parental rights without the father's consent (assuming the court agrees which normally means adoption or risk to the child).  They are very much equal.  Parental responsibilities start when the child is born.

So until the child is born, the woman has 100% of the power to make the decision of whether to have the child, then after the child is born, each parent has 50% of the power to make the decision of whether to care for the child, and you call that equal?

What you're actually arguing is that parental responsibilities start when the child is born for the mother, but that they effectively start at conception for the father because that's his last chance to decide whether birth occurs. That's hypocritical and sexist.

No, it is not.  No matter how many times you say it, it is not.  Parental responsibility start at birth for both.  The legal ability to be treated as an autonomous human stops for the woman at 20-24 weeks in most states but she is still an autonomous human being.  The only reason the timing is different is because we believe in bodily autonomy.  As I said before "You are not correct here.  Neither parent must give organs, blood or any other body parent for the child, even if the living child would die.  Only when a mother is being treated as an incubator is this where she is forced.  That is the core ideal of bodily autonomy.  Your body is considered sacrosanct even if it would cause another's death, even if you yourself are a corpse.  Do you really want the law changed that you may be forced to give up an organ, blood, marrow etc, to save your child's life?  What if it would not save it, just prolong the life?  Would you like to be forced then?"  Until you are willing to agree that all people lose their bodily autonomy because of having a child, a woman does not.  To say otherwise, is the sexist comment. 
And side note, as I have posted prior family court is not sexist against men.  Men who fight for their child get custody.  It truly seems you just don't want to pay for a child and want to find away not to do so.  Then get a vasectomy and your problem would be solved.

[mm1970]

Its no more illogical than saying a fetus is alive at 20 weeks, but at 19 weeks and 6 days abort away!

That depends.

At the center of the abortion debate, for me, is "when does life begin".  The pro-life side believes that is at conception.  The severe left believes at birth.

Most other people "don't know", and honestly, does the medical community really know?

So, at what developmental "age" can a fetus reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb, without major disabilities?  I'm sure the medical community can come up with a number - I'm sure there are statistics on miscarriages, premature labor, survival rates, disability rates.  Is it arbitrary?  To some degree, but there is actual science behind it.

I do not now, nor have I ever, believed that life begins at conception.  But what do other people believe?  Conception, implantation, quickening, what?  What does the medical community say?  From statistics (and personal experience), the % of embryos that are conceived that never implant, or never make it past 6 weeks - it's pretty staggering.  Do I think that taking a morning after pill is murder?  No.

So "life" is dictated by viability?

Well, what else would it be dictated by?

The fact of the matter is, *your* belief on when life begins does not and CAN NOT affect *my* rights to my body.

When a fetus is able to survive WITHOUT ME (aka, viable), then it has rights.

You are entitled to define when you think life begins.  But you cannot project your own beliefs on me or my body.  *I* don't believe that a 2-day embryo, a 6-week old or 12 week old fetus, is a person.

[Jack]

And you keep ignoring that women, unlike men, are stuck with the physical impact of pregnancy.

Yes, I am, because THAT'S WHAT FEMINISM MEANS! You don't want women to be treated differently because of their biology? Then don't treat them differently!

That women, unlike men, cannot just skip town when they want to escape the consequences of their actions. That women, unlike men, cannot impregnate three different men in the same night. That your idea of 'fairness' would require women to not only have to bear the physical, psychological and medical burden of pregnancy but also the logistical and financial burden of hiring a lawyer to make sure the guy's feet are held to the fire DURING THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF THE PREGNANCY and which even if done can still be fought over in court by some sleazebag who later wants avoid being responsible. You are essentially laying out a situation in which a poor and/or young woman is incentivized to get an abortion rather than deal with all the hassles that you seem to think needed for the 'poor' guy to be 'fair'.

Sexist, all of it!

Apparently you think men are unfeeling beasts who never face the "psychological burden" of wanting to care for their child but not having the means to do so. Apparently only men can be "sleazebags," while all women are angels of unimpeachable character simply by virtue of their genitalia. Apparently you think women are so helpless that it's unreasonable for one to handle the tiniest responsibility of simply telling the father that the baby exists. Apparently you think it's impossible for men to be young and poor too.

The only reason the timing is different is because we believe in bodily autonomy.  As I said before "You are not correct here.  Neither parent must give organs, blood or any other body parent for the child, even if the living child would die.  Only when a mother is being treated as an incubator is this where she is forced.  That is the core ideal of bodily autonomy.  Your body is considered sacrosanct even if it would cause another's death, even if you yourself are a corpse.  Do you really want the law changed that you may be forced to give up an organ, blood, marrow etc, to save your child's life?  What if it would not save it, just prolong the life?  Would you like to be forced then?"  Until you are willing to agree that all people lose their bodily autonomy because of having a child, a woman does not.  To say otherwise, is the sexist comment.

"Body autonomy" is a total non-sequitur. I am not, and never have been, objecting to that. Your attempt to imply my disagreement on that point is dishonest on your part and I will thank you to desist from lying about me.

What we're discussing here is that you think women should have the right to hold men financially hostage as a consequence of a decision they have no control over (i.e., whether to keep an unwanted pregnancy). To be clear: we are NOT discussing whether men should have control over that decision. We are discussing whether women should have the superior right to impose the consequences unilaterally.

And side note, as I have posted prior family court is not sexist against men.  Men who fight for their child get custody.

Again, you are disingenuously cherry-picking one aspect of the system that (allegedly) works, and pretending that somehow proves that all of it works, but that does not follow. I again that you have pointedly avoided mentioning child support and only addressed custody.

And even if you're right that it works well (as a whole) in NY and Massachusetts, you have failed to prove that it works well in all (or even a majority of) jurisdictions. Until then, I can continue disprove your argument by counterexample.

It truly seems you just don't want to pay for a child and want to find away not to do so.  Then get a vasectomy and your problem would be solved.

That is a personal attack, and a libelous lie to boot! (I have no children, and would support them -- namely, by being married and cohabiting with their mother in a traditional two-parent household, not by merely paying child support -- if I did.) I was discussing public policy in general, and you have now turned it into a personal attack: it is the equivalent of if I were to accuse you of only supporting abortion because you want to have one yourself. I demand an apology!

[Cressida]

good grief. Next these guys are going to demand equality in breastfeeding. I hope they ask for equality in diaper-changing while they're at it.

[onlykelsey]

good grief. Next these guys are going to demand equality in breastfeeding. I hope they ask for equality in diaper-changing while they're at it.

Equality in saggy breast and stomach skin! equality in decreased earning potential after having children!

[GuitarStv]

Many married men I've seen tend to develop saggy breasts and extra stomach.