Paper Abortions

[3point14]

Boy howdy I'd love to see any evidence that is even a significantly common motivation for single women to carry unplanned pregnancies to term.

Emotional, conniving women trying to lock down a man with a baby smacks of MRA horse-****.

Only if that's what you're looking for so you can dismiss my argument without thought.

If you think that becoming pregnant is not massively traumatic to the newly gravid lady's mind and body you need to read a book on pregnancy.

If you think making massive, life altering decisions while in the early throws of the massive hormonal changes required for a lady to bring a pregnancy to term is going to produce the most reasonable decision for all concerned, you need to read a biology book.



Edit:
I'm being very careful to not invoke MRA talking points, but 'pregnancy is traumatic' is not open to that.

I'm being very careful not to invoke 'fairness' or any sort of faux equality. It's a minefield.

My argument is results based. What's the best result for the couple concerned and for society as a whole. The best results are had by having the best information. "He will stay and pay you monthly what he owes" is just a lie in a lot of cases, one perpetrated by the state.

 

[3point14]

Wait WHAT?

Do you think I’m talking about people in prison FOR not paying child support?

I was just looking at articles by people suggesting the arrears system be looked at because if you end up in jail for whatever reason you usually end up behind on child support and arrears can be brutal.

You're right, I misunderstood.

It does happen though. Although I have no idea how often.

 

[Lithrael]

I feel like, on the face of it, sending people to prison for nonpayment of court ordered ANYTHING is dumb as hell. Prison costs money. Don’t do that. Jeez.

But anyway, a little data for that part of the debate, from https://contemporaryfamilies.org/who-goes-to-jail-for-child-support-debt

Data come from four waves of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCW), a sample of nearly 5,000 families, when focal children were ages one, three, five, and nine years.

14% of fathers with child support debt – 1 in 7– were jailed for that debt

Two main factors increase the risk to go to jail for unpaid child support.

Amount of money owed: Dads owing more than $10,000 in child support debt are more than three times as likely to go to jail for unpaid child support, compared to those owing less than $500.

Children with other women: Dads who have children by more than one mother have 60% higher odds of going to jail for unpaid child support, compared to those with children by only one mother.

In addition, fathers are more likely to have a formal child support order and accrue child support debt if the moms have received public assistance and there is conflict in their relationship with the mom.

Policy Implications
The child support enforcement system is a civil entity which may refer noncustodial parents for nonpayment of child support to the courts. Most frequently, these are civil courts, which may not provide the same due process protections as criminal courts, such as the right to a court-appointed attorney. This study estimated that 14% of child support debtors were jailed for nonpayment of child support. Extrapolating this figure to the full population of child support debtors (11 million individuals in 2014), this means as many as 1.5 million parents could be getting sent to jail for unpaid child support. These incarcerations could constitute a huge financial cost to the state.

Parental incarceration could also have negative impacts on children. Child support policy aims to increase the wellbeing of children by ensuring that both parents contribute to their upbringing. However, incarcerating parents for nonpayment of child support could be triggering negative consequences for children—contrary to the child support system’s stated goal.

 

[3point14]

Boy howdy I'd love to see any evidence that is even a significantly common motivation for single women to carry unplanned pregnancies to term.

Can I just check: You think the presence or absence of a father and the financial assistance they provide is not something a newly pregnant lady considers when deciding if they're going to rais that child for the next 21 years?

Emotional, conniving women trying to lock down a man with a baby smacks of MRA horse-****.

Smearing pregnant women as hormonally driven, hysterical women is pretty gross.

I'm sorry. 'Smearing'??? You'll be presenting evidence that pregnancy has no effect whatsoever on those that are pregnant then? Just because you find it an awkward fact, it doesn't make it any less a fact.

If you think being pregnant isn't hard and doesn't affect every single aspect of your life, physical, mental and emotional, I suggest you pop of to a neonatal ward somewhere and voice those opinions loudly. Good luck with that.

Being pregnant is hard. The difficulty varies from pregnancy to pregnancy, not even from woman to woman, but to pretend it's a doddle and doesn't have an effect is just beyond me. Have you ever met any pregnant woman? Maybe those you have have been superwoman. It's pretty much wrecked every lady I've ever known taht's been through it.

Maybe my sampling is off and it's a ******* doddle. I really don't think so though. Do you?

I could see a world where paper abortions is an acceptable option, but many other elements would have to be in place. One big hurdle is the fact that the general morality of abortion is an undecided question. Roe v. Wade makes it legal in some cases, but a significant portion of the population, including many women, see abortion as akin to infanticide, so it's not really an option. Given that many state governments see it this way as well and make it deliberately difficult, if not impossible, to access abortion, it's often not a reasonable option for many women.

 

[3point14]

I feel like, on the face of it, sending people to prison for nonpayment of court ordered ANYTHING is dumb as hell. Prison costs money. Don’t do that. Jeez.

But anyway, a little data for that part of the debate, from https://contemporaryfamilies.org/who-goes-to-jail-for-child-support-debt

I agree. And thanks for the info.

I'll try to read a little more carefully in future.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Can I just check: You think the presence or absence of a father and the financial assistance they provide is not something a newly pregnant lady considers when deciding if they're going to rais that child for the next 21 years?

it is likely one of many factors they consider. I am just curious how frequently you think women are trying to trap unwilling men with pregnancy. You seem to think it happens enough to be worth mentioning as a key consideration for this topic, as opposed to a rare occurrence.

The scenario you describe, where a man is being explicitly clear, in a timely fashion, that he has no desire to be a father, and the women decides to proceed with the pregnancy anyway as a means to coerce the father into remaining in a relationship, seems very specific. I would also note that this scenario also necessitates that women are engaging in cynical gamesmanship, victimizing some hapless man. This strikes me as a very biased framing of the common problem of unplanned pregnancy.

I think that the fact we live in a country where abortion is stigmatized as murdering a child probably has much more to do with women choosing to carry children to term than a desire to ensnare a mate. This isn't an impartial decision about what is best for everyone's future for many people, and sometimes that moral and emotional reasoning weighs heavily in the minds of a pregnant woman.

I would argue that people would be able to make better decisions if such an extreme moralistic view of the rights of unborn children wasn't so prominent, but that is not the case at the moment.

 

[Belz...]

Really? I seem to be the only one aware that people have multiple orifices for sex.

Perhaps you're not aware that not everyone wants to use the alternative orifices.

It's entirely possible to be promiscuous and smart about it.

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

 

[3point14]

it is likely one of many factors they consider. I am just curious how frequently you think women are trying to trap unwilling men with pregnancy. You seem to think it happens enough to be worth mentioning as a key consideration for this topic, as opposed to a rare occurrence.

Who's talking about trapping? Only you. I'm talking about poor decision making.

Stop trying to turn this into an MRA discussion so you can revel in it. Stop using loaded language to try to paint my views as unpalatable, It's underhand and extremely obvious. You want to beat down some MRA activist in a thread then go find one and start your own.

The scenario you describe, where a man is being explicitly clear, in a timely fashion, that he has no desire to be a father, and the women decides to proceed with the pregnancy anyway as a means to coerce the father into remaining in a relationship, seems very specific.

Did you read the thread title? This is exactly what it's about. I mean you choose to use loaded language, but the above, without your dodgy editorialising, is literally what the thread is about.

I would also note that this scenario also necessitates that women are engaging in cynical gamesmanship.

No. Not that I'm saying they don't. I'm saying they make poor decisions.

 

[3point14]

it is likely one of many factors they consider. I am just curious how frequently you think women are trying to trap unwilling men

Rest of the post snipped. I stopped reading here.


I'm done.

If you insist on using loaded language, I've had enough of you.

Go find the MRA activist you want to beat about the head and do that. I have no wish to engage in a discussion where my every word is twisted.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

But babies born to absent fathers, who never wanted them, begged their partner to terminate and know that they are not emotionally or financially ready to be a father, they get a rough, rough ride. It's a **** way to start a life and it's something that happens far too often because hormone filled teenage ladies decide that they can force a teenage man to stay with them, force him to pay for the child and change him to being their perfect lover, partner and father.

Sounds like a trap to me.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps you're not aware that not everyone wants to use the alternative orifices.

There is an array of choices which mitigate the risk pf pregnancy. Reject all of them if you like, but it's unreasonable to reject all of them then complain there were no options except for abstinence or pregnancy.

Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Really? Why? Sex is just an activity. Like rock climbing, baking, or video games. It carries risks, just as you can fall or burn yourself or get carpal tunnel from those other activities. Sensible people take steps to mitigate risks in any activity, and decide whether it's worth doing. For me, I like the activity enough to pursue it while taking the steps I feel reasonable to reduce risk. You think that's stupid?

To me, stupid would be doing something risky while refusing to acknowledge that risk and take measures to reduce it. And then complaining afterwards that it was inevitable, there was nothing else that could have been done, and pleading for special help to get out of the consequences.

 

[Belz...]

There is an array of choices which mitigate the risk pf pregnancy. Reject all of them if you like, but it's unreasonable to reject all of them then complain there were no options except for abstinence or pregnancy.

I'm not rejecting anything, and you shouldn't conclude from that one comment that I disagree with you on the whole or that I agree with your critics. I'm just saying that you can't expect people to use alternative entrances.

Really? Why? Sex is just an activity. Like rock climbing, baking, or video games.

Leaving aside that, no, sex is not 'just' an activity, but a powerful drive hard-wired into our genes, that has no bearing on my comment, which was about a contradiction (not a logical one, but a pragmatic one): if you're being promiscuous, you're putting yourself at increased risk to begin with, which I'm not sure you could ever call smart.

Sensible people take steps to mitigate risks in any activity, and decide whether it's worth doing.

Yes, and here, having a single partner is part of that mitigation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I feel like, on the face of it, sending people to prison for nonpayment of court ordered ANYTHING is dumb as hell. Prison costs money. Don’t do that. Jeez.

It is intended to be coercive. By this westly snipes should never have gone to prison nor anyone ever for mere tax evasion.

 

[3point14]

There is an array of choices which mitigate the risk pf pregnancy. Reject all of them if you like, but it's unreasonable to reject all of them then complain there were no options except for abstinence or pregnancy.




Really? Why? Sex is just an activity. Like rock climbing, baking, or video games. It carries risks, just as you can fall or burn yourself or get carpal tunnel from those other activities. Sensible people take steps to mitigate risks in any activity, and decide whether it's worth doing. For me, I like the activity enough to pursue it while taking the steps I feel reasonable to reduce risk. You think that's stupid?

To me, stupid would be doing something risky while refusing to acknowledge that risk and take measures to reduce it. And then complaining afterwards that it was inevitable, there was nothing else that could have been done, and pleading for special help to get out of the consequences.

How do you feel about those that take all the precautions they should but still have an undesirable result? You don't mention them above.

Things like this happen:

"If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they're 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren't perfect, so in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year."

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms

 

[TragicMonkey]

How do you feel about those that take all the precautions they should but still have an undesirable result? You don't mention them above.

Things like this happen:

"If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they're 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren't perfect, so in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year."

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms

I feel that's bad luck they got an unfortunate outcome. They took steps to reduce the risk but still lost the gamble. I don't feel that justifies them a) claiming they had NO IDEA that could happen, or b) they deserve special dispensation to escape the outcome of their actions.

Do you think life is supposed to work out so everybody gets only what they "deserve"? Who would handle that? A loving god?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm not rejecting anything, and you shouldn't conclude from that one comment that I disagree with you on the whole or that I agree with your critics. I'm just saying that you can't expect people to use alternative entrances.

It's one option in a whole array of options. Use it or don't, but don't pretend it's not an option.

Leaving aside that, no, sex is not 'just' an activity, but a powerful drive hard-wired into our genes

Ah, it's a magical activity that exempts us from having to use our rational minds? Are there any other activities you think get a pass on using reason?

that has no bearing on my comment, which was about a contradiction (not a logical one, but a pragmatic one): if you're being promiscuous, you're putting yourself at increased risk to begin with, which I'm not sure you could ever call smart.

Nonsense. Risk exists in all things. If you define stupid as anything with risk then all activities (including refraining from all activities) is stupid. Take steps to reduce the risks and an activity can reach an individual's tolerance level for that risk and that activity. Few people would jump out of a plane without a parachute. Add a parachute and suddenly thousands of people are willing to jump out of a plane. Is their risk of death zero? No. Is their risk of death less than it was if jumping without a parachute? Yes. Is it worth the risk? Some think yes, some think no. Hence not everybody skydives, but plenty of people do.

Yes, and here, having a single partner is part of that mitigation.

Yes, that is one strategy to mitigate risk in that activity. It's not the only strategy, though. I employ other strategies and the resulting risk level is within my toleration.

 

[Hungry81]

For what Its worth I agree with T.M.

However if the male made it clear from the beginning of the relationship that if she ever got pregnant he would dump her and the child, and was willing to put that in writing and sign it like a pregnancy pre-nup, if she was still silly enough to sleep with him then maybe that would be acceptable.

I also find it interesting that those scared of child hungry seductresses who destroy mens lives do not not appear to be addressing men who sleep around getting different multiple different women pregnant (through accident or selfish design) and then dump them and move on to the next with little to no accountability, leaving the woman to pick up the pieces. This is something that "paper abortions" would facillitate.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Ah, it's a magical activity that exempts us from having to use our rational minds? Are there any other activities you think get a pass on using reason?

Voting?

 

[Puppycow]

I'm entirely getting you. You think that any man not prepared to be a father should not have sex. As you outline above. As you say, "sex is a gamble". (but only for the man).


I'm not whining. I'm pointing out what your position, logically, leads a young man to conclude. That he should be celibate if he does not want to be a father. You describe exactly that above, but you're not prepared to arrive at the conclusion of your argument because you know it makes you seem like a puritan.

Have the courage of your convictions and state, as you intimate above, that you believe that people who are not prepared to (or cannot afford to or by dint of other circumstances, really are poorly placed to) have a baby should not have any sort of sexual contact. (Sex is not a prerequisite for pregnancy)

That's not what he said. Don't be ridiculous.

That's like saying that the "only logical conclusion" to all the risks in life is to never get in a car, never ride a bicycle, never walk up or down stairs, never take a bath, because all those things involve a slight risk of a life-altering accident that could leave you a paraplegic.

There's an acceptable level of risk to take. Also, becoming a father is hardly like ending up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life, and we risk that every day.

 

[Lithrael]

It is intended to be coercive. By this westly snipes should never have gone to prison nor anyone ever for mere tax evasion.

Well, I didn’t mean it like literally never, just like, if they aren’t paying fines because they’re generally broke, destitute, living below the poverty line, that kind of thing. The proverbial guy in jail for not showing up for court for not paying parking tickets type stuff. There’s gotta be some other deterrent that can be levied besides everybody else paying more money into the prison system than that guy owed.