• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Roe v. Wade for Men"

So she can't afford a baby right now and wants an abortion.

My sympathy is zero. (S)He got lazy and complacent and put trust where it shouldn't have been, and now (s)he's trying to get out of the consequences.
Click to expand...

Since we're dealing in hyperbole, then I shall characterize your position as desiring to defend everyone from all negative consequences of any of their actions, no matter how stupid.
Click to expand...

That sometimes people are stupid and deserve to reap the consequences of their actions, even if they were being deceived.

Physically, a (wo)man has complete control over (her) reproductive potential. (S)He can abstain, (s)he can have non-vaginal intercourse, (s)he can use (an IUD), (s)he can (do coitus interruptus), (s)he can use a spermicidal lubricant. If (s)he decides not to use one or more of these five methods to control (her) own reproduction, then (s)he is basically ceding control to chance and the goodwill of other people. (S)He is not taking responsibility, and therefore (s)he has little grounds for complaint when things don't turn out as he wishes they would. "Oh, but she lied to me!" doesn't cut it, because she was only in the position of power because (s)he put her there. (s)He had control and (s)he gave it up, willingly.
Click to expand...

It seems anyone can do as they please without taking responsibility for their actions, and yet still cry for assistance and sympathy when the predictable consequences ensue. You touch the stove, you get burned. You drink the poison, you get a stomachache. You **** someone of the opposite sex without protection, you get a baby. Wah wah wah. Who could have seen that coming? Everyone, that's who. It's pretty common knowledge where babies come from.
Click to expand...
 
I thought we were talking about the guy. This woman doesn't want an abortion Luke, she wants the guy to pay for maintaining the child.
 
bluess said:
I thought we were talking about the guy. This woman doesn't want an abortion Luke, she wants the guy to pay for maintaining the child.
Click to expand...

He is making the point that TragicMonkey's argument can be used just as easily against a woman trying to have an abortion as it can against a man trying to sever legal responsibility. I disagree, but I think it does a good job of pointing out the double standard here.
 
toddjh said:
He is making the point that TragicMonkey's argument can be used just as easily against a woman trying to have an abortion as it can against a man trying to sever legal responsibility. I disagree, but I think it does a good job of pointing out the double standard here.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, women can be just as foolish as men can. The difference is biological. His window of opportunity to prevent the birth of an unwanted child is shorter than hers.

That a woman who requires an abortion might need it because she was foolish is not the same thing as saying she shouldn't be allowed to get one. Abortion <> trying to get out of financial support, even if that's one of the side effects. The guy this thread is about is the one attempting to equate abortion to deadbeat daddery, and the contention is about whether that is valid or not. I don't think it is.

eta: I mean, I don't think there's a double standard.
 
TragicMonkey said:
On the contrary, women can be just as foolish as men can. The difference is biological. His window of opportunity to prevent the birth of an unwanted child is shorter than hers.

That a woman who requires an abortion might need it because she was foolish is not the same thing as saying she shouldn't be allowed to get one. Abortion <> trying to get out of financial support, even if that's one of the side effects. The guy this thread is about is the one attempting to equate abortion to deadbeat daddery, and the contention is about whether that is valid or not. I don't think it is.

eta: I mean, I don't think there's a double standard.
Click to expand...

You forgot dropping the baby off at a hospital with no question asked to get out of financial support.
 
Given some of the responses in this thread that simply can't see some of the inequities involved, I really don't see much point in continuing.

There are some obvious things to me:

1) The woman has control over her own body. Period.
2) The man (we're talking about inadvertant conception, remember) has to have some control over his part of the situation.
3) This all has to be formalized somehow, or the disputes will arise. Well, they'll arise anyhow.
4) The child, if one is born, has to have a home and a decent life.

The resulting problems are not simple, and are compounded by the present US official policy of discouraging both contraceptive methods and information about contraception, by the intrusion of religion into what ought to be a secular issue, by the confusion of this issue with the abortion issue (from more than one or two directions), and by what seems to be the unwillingness of people to understand that "evident" may be a result of their own internal belief systems.

I still see anti-abortion as slavery.

I still see vasectomy (as the only "safe" option) as self-mutiliation.

I admit that I am surprised to see the newer results on reversals of vasectomies, they are much better now than they used to be, it appears, but still quite risky in terms of certainty.
 
Well, TM, the argument that abortion is about a woman's body is mostly bunk. It is really about not wanting to have a kid. Just look at the reasons given for wanting an abortion. The number one reason is finances.

So there is a level of equality between why women want abortions (finances) and why the guy wants to avoid having a kid (finances).

Not that I agree with the guy, but your arguments really did sound like something a strident pro-lifer would say.
 
Luke T. said:
Well, TM, the argument that abortion is about a woman's body is mostly bunk. It is really about not wanting to have a kid. Just look at the reasons given for wanting an abortion. The number one reason is finances.
Click to expand...

This is a controversial statement, and I'm sure there are many who would contest it. Since I'm not interested in a debate about abortion, I won't be one of them.

Not that I agree with the guy, but your arguments really did sound like something a strident pro-lifer would say.
Click to expand...

So? They are either effective arguments or not. How they are used, and by whom, for what, doesn't change that.

We have, thanks to technology and medical science, an unprecedented control over our reproductive destinies. People can debate the ethics or this or that method forever. But the simple fact remains that with control comes responsibility, and failure to exercise control is either deliberate choice (I want a baby) or carelessness. Nobody has to have a child if they don't want to. Except in cases of rape or parthogenesis, nobody needs to get pregnant without wanting to. If they do, then they made a choice. Sympathy can be extended, but sympathy is not absolution of responsibility.
 
jj said:
And what else?
Click to expand...

It's easy to ramp up the rhetoric, jj. But you haven't shown how it is slavery.

Is being forced to submit a large portion of your pay to someone for the next 18 years because a single sex act slavery?

But let's ramp up the rhetoric. Let's talk about the 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. Let's talk about one tenth of those being second trimester or later. Let's talk about 70 percent of Americans feel that second trimester abortions are wrong.

A law making it illegal to perform an abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy, known as "partial-birth" abortion, except when necessary to save the mother's life. Favor-70%. Oppose-25%.
Click to expand...


5 million second trimester abortions.

Holocaust.

You say slavery, I say Holocaust.

Fair enough?
 
Meadmaker said:
A child is not a disease.

These discussions of STDs are interesting, and pregnancies resulting from females sexually assaulting males are useful thought experiments...
Click to expand...

Female on male sexual abuse is not a useful thought experiment, it's a grim reality.

Such women represent about 10 percent of all sexual offenses, and their abuse often involves their own child or children. Some have only one victim, many have several. Psychologist A. J. Cooper cites a study that 20 percent of these sex offenders even resort to force. He points out that the reasons why some women become recalcitrant sex offenders is incompletely understood, but he feels that it may result from a combination of hyper sexuality, associations with early sexual experiences, and imitation of abuse perpetrated on them. They even tend to use the same forms of abuse that they had once experienced. Most of them are immature, dependent, and sensitive to rejection, so they tend to gravitate toward younger people who are not their peers. The risk of rejection is less likely and they create situations in which they can be in control.
Click to expand...

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/female_offenders/6.html
 
Cleon said:
And I say, "Thanks Luke, now I know not to take anything you say on the subject remotely seriously ever again."
Click to expand...
I think that Luke was just trying to demonstrate that ramping up the rhetoric isn't useful, for either side. jj's "slavery" rhetoric is no more helpful than Luke's "holocaust" rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom