To make it FAIR maybe abortion should just be banned then women won't have that UNFAIR "advantage" over poor little weak helpless "men". Is THAT your REAL goal????? a little wolfing in sheep's underwear?
If your argument that men have zero responsibility for their children you're making an very different argument to the one you're trying to make. Are you saying they should have a whole load of rights but no responsibility or simply zero legal or moral connected at all? They have a responsibility be default which is why there needs to be formal legal agreements between all concerned to remove them. Without that, the man retains some legal and moral rights and responsibilities, facts which have come up in some cases. In a perfect world the two would discuss the issue together. It isn't a perfect world though and neither men nor women, especially when young, are often as foresighted. That doesn't happen though. The fundamental issue I have with your claimed position when a woman is pregnant, she makes a simple binary decisions at that point whether to have the child or not. The reality is that abortion isn't a simple swith and isn't an equal option to carrying to term in any sense of the word and that's without considering all the possible complications that could be involved. Abortion is simply about the pregnant woman and the unborn child.
What argument ? my claim is as stated: You have not shown that a man is responsible for his genetic progeny. You asking me a bunch of question does show that your claim is true. You have not given any argument for some kind of default responsibility. Just because you make a naked claim does not make that claim true. Your second point about legalities is mute. The law states what the law states. There are no legal contracts that can be drawn up between a man and a woman prior to having sex that would remove legal responsibility of the man. There is a contract that a sperm donor can sign such that he is not responsible for his genetic progeny. The obligation to support then is not based on genetic progeny in law. It is based on the act of having sex. You spout out platitudes like they mean something. "In a perfect world" So your argument is that the world is not perfect ? What does this have to do with assigning responsibility ? I did not claim that the decision was simple. My claim is that regardless of what decision a woman makes, she is responsible for the consequences of that decision.
It is not "their own children". Red herring. People do not "own" other people. You have not shown that a woman is justified in forcing ownership of a child on a man so you can not claim that genetic progeny are "His own Children". You have not made an argument that genetic relation entails ownership or responsibility. Your claim that somehow this man has an obligation to some child via genetic similarity has not been proven true. Your "assumed premise" is then fallacy. Second. Assuming your claim was true (which I do not) Not being able to come up with a reason for why something "should not be done" is not a reason for doing it. We do not make laws in the basis of "We do not know that this is not true". Claiming "you can not prove the moon is not made of green cheese" is not proof that it is made of green cheese. Your claim "he is responsible for His Children" is fallacy as you have not shown that these are "his children". This statement is just defaulting to colloquial language usage. For example: the term "with child" refers to a pregnant woman in colloquial language usage. This does not mean that an actual child exists at all stages of pregnancy. You have not shown that a genetic relation entails a responsibility. This is an assumed premise. It is not up to me to show that this claim "isn't true" nor does lack of an argument showing that this claim "isn't true" make that claim true. You are the one making the claim that a man should be responsible for the consequences of a unilateral decision of a woman. It is up to you to support that claim.
Both are assaults. Now you are just nit picking. The main idea here is that laws allowing some pretty crazy stuff (IMO) "assault on a woman's sovereignty" are possible. Secondly, I beg to differ with you on the claim that forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy does not constitute a physical assault on her body. I think if you think for a moment on this you will agree. He's consenting to the possibility there will be a child. The odds of that happening can be reduced significantly. He is consenting to the possibility that there will be a pregnancy. Pregnancy is not the intent of the action. It is yet another thing to go from pregnancy to child and this is not the intent of the action either. The question here is not one of possibility but one of responsibility. You are suggesting that someone should be made responsible for the consequences of all the possible outcomes of a given action and I do not buy into this argument as a rational principle of law. You know that the law is based on president and these presidents do not just apply to one form of action. We can make this principle ridiculous by giving all kinds of examples ... driving a car, boat is just one of many thousands of examples where this principle could apply. This "rubbish" is about playing fast and loose with individual rights and freedoms, legal president and the rule of law. I agree that men have fewer birth control choices. No argument there. My claim is that one person should not be made responsible for the consequences of a unilateral decision taken by someone else. My claim is that consent to sex is not consent to having a child (implied or otherwise).
Unfortunately for you, that's the way human reproduction works. Men cannot take any physical action that will end a pregnancy. Women can. Men should be aware that any choices they have with regard to birth control have to be taken before they have sex. Nature hasn't given them any choices after.
If nothing else you're persistent.... I don't know how many ways I can say, "he isn't responsible for their decision, he's responsible for his CHILDREN but you are incapable of understanding that) . Now print out your post here and send it to those responsible for making laws. Ask them to excuse men AND women from being responsible for their children ....let it be legal for people to just drop their kids off anywhere and drive away.... and ask how much the care of those kids will cost everyone in taxes, that should be interesting. OR , your hidden agenda, make abortion illegal so it's all "equal" for men and women... Now here's another thing, in simple English , that you can't grasp... I DON'T CARE if you BELIEVE men are discriminated against because they have children. Have someone else explain to you what "" I DON'T CARE" means since you have such trouble with it.
Just out of curiosity FoxHastings and diamond lil, I've been watching you guys go back and forth with Giftedone on the issue of forcing men to be responsible for their genetic children even if they did not consent to it. So I just want to ask for the hell of it, why do you guys want to force men, or why are you ok with the law as it currently stands, forcing men to become financially obligated to their genetic offspring when under any other circumstance they would have chosen an abortion (or even put the baby up for adoption) if they could have?
They can't, though, can they? They don't have those other circumstances. Having a surgical instrument inserted into an intimate orifice and having the contents of an internal organ sucked out is not an option for men. On the other hand, they don't risk their health or even their life to become a parent. It would be ridiculous to attempt to force fathers-to-be to endure the discomforts and indignities of pregnancy and childbirth. To endure hours and hours of the most godawful pain imaginable. Men and women have totally different roles to play when it comes to reproduction. There's no doing anything about it.
Oh well, if it's equality he wants, then I'm sure he'll volunteer to experience an internal ultrasound examination.
Your answer is to a question I never asked. =/ Or perhaps you didn't understand my question so I can rephrase if you'd like.
No, it went beyond it. Quite simply, men don't have the ability to abort and never will, so there's no point in considering whether they would terminate if they could.
Alright, so if they could have given up their parental rights as in an adoption setting without the mother's permission or consent, why would you oppose this?
Really? So if a pregnant woman wants to give her baby up for adoption without the father's knowledge then that should be illegal? Because it currently is not.
It's not legal for a mother to put up her child for adoption without the father's consent, but it's easy for the mother to circumvent the law by claiming the father is untraceable or refuses to have any contact with the child. Its difficult to prove that isn't the case. It's up to men to ensure they know the outcome of their sexual encounters. That will avoid them having their children adopted without their knowledge or consent.
Because I think that PARENTS should be responsible for supporting their children, LIVE ACTUAL BREATHING-AIR CHILDREN. YOU DON'T. THEY caused them to BE, therefore THEY should pay for them. Those that want to absolve men from all responsibility for supporting their own children should be taxed DOUBLE to help pay for those ABANDONED children. A law should be passed making it perfectly legal to have kids and leave them on the side of the road and drive away....PLEASE DO contact YOUR lawmaker and propose it!!!! Why whine about how life is so unfair to poor little "men" and NOT DO something about it....,????????? NO GUTS!????
Funny how much in common some alleged "Pro-Choicers" have with Anti-Choicers in their complete and total disregard for children once they're born. I bet they'd ALL back a law making abortion illegal....then both MEN AND women would be treated equally ...NOBODY could get an abortion...problem solved But while you're wailing and moaning for life's terrible unfairness to men would you please take YOUR kids out of schools I pay for ??? It's not fairrrrrrrrrrrr.... I have no kids and am sick of supporting men's kids, men who are so weak they can't support their kid's schooling they actually might want(few of them I know bit one or two men might want their kids)
Sure, I think people should support their actual living breathing children, however I don't think they should be forced to do so. Thus why we have adoption, abortion and other outlets to free people from the financial burden of raising kids they cannot support or don't want. I am not against putting children up for adoption, are you? I thought you were pro-choice? Sounds like nonsense to me. Or perhaps I should take a leaf from your book and shout ridiculously, "WHY NOT TALK TO YOUR LAWMAKERS AND MAKE THEM PROPOSE THIS!!!!?!?!?!?! WHY NOT DO IT!??!?!?! NO GUTS!!!!??!?!? BWAAAAAAAHHHHHH" Why the angry and aggressive hyperbole? If this discussion frustrates you so much perhaps you should just bow out of it? I don't understand why you continue to discuss it ifit's just going to (*)(*)(*)(*) you off so much and lead you to shouting that we all contact our local lawmakers and take the debate to them. If you don't want to partake in the debate or discussion just say so. Why is that so hard to do? Ah yes, more ridiculous hyperbole on your part. Do you have nothing else to add aside from belittling men as a whole? What exactly is your issue with men anyways that leads you to spout pointless vitriol against them as an entire group of people?
Funny how much some alleged pro-choicers have in common with anti-choicers in their complete disregard for adults and their rights to self-determination of their lives. I bet you'd be completely lying and making things up on that one. Go ahead and talk to some of the other choicers here. I have been here a lot longer than you have and I have always been pro-choice and always argued in favor of women's rights to bodily autonomy and rights to self-determination. I just also happen to believe in equality and feel that men deserve the same rights to self-determination over their own lives. Feel free to start posting the proof where we have been 'moaning about life's terrible unfairness to men'. Put up or shut up as the saying goes. More lies on your part and I won't tolerate it any more. I tried to be civil with you before but I am quite DONE with your vitriol and ridiculous hyperbolic comments. It's completely ludicrous everything you are trying to claim here, saying we're not pro-choice all because some of us believe that men deserve an out to parenting too. That is total BS on your part. You really have no tact do you? Do you always whine like this when you lose a debate? Or try to shove it off onto local lawmakers laps when you have nothing to say? Either back up your claims or simply step down from the discussion. I have no kids either, but I support plenty of people's kids all the time and have no issue with it. My taxes go to their welfare, to their public education to the food stamps that feed them. I have no issue with this at all. I care about children after they are born. If their parents cannot afford them for some reason or other then the state will, my taxes go into this. I have no problem with that. Were you not claiming earlier that some of us choicers don't care about children because we don't want to force men to pay for kids they never planned for? Yet here you are whining about your taxes going to care for children. Your true colors are finally showing it seems. Perhaps some men won't be paying directly out of pocket for the children they sire, but through taxes their money will still go to protect and care for many kids. I am ok with this.
Kind of hard to do if she moves and changes her phone number with absolutely no intention of telling him whether she's pregnant or not.
LOL! So when you have to face the FACTS of men being able to abandon their children you call it hyperbole...gee, that proves you win the argument
It's hyperbole every single time you take what could be a rational argument and instead insert language such as; "Whiny men! Oh poor men! Wah wah wah!" Instead of actually refuting what is put before you or even backing up your claims on anything you use hyperbole instead, for what purpose I am unsure of but it is an extremely dishonest form of debate. I can only conclude based on your hyperbolic responses that you are in fact not interested in any form of intelligent or thought provoking debate and instead only wish to play childish games and perhaps troll the forums. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt of course but every time I try to have a civilized discussion with you, you instead throw a tantrum of sorts and demand I take my Internet debate to the local lawmakers.
