Paper Abortions

[Butter!]

Don't men (and women) already have the right to have no involvement beyond paying child support?

 

[3point14]

I feel that if someone choose a not to wear their seatbelt they should have to pay their own medical costs for their face going through the windshield. Likewise if a person doesn't want a child they can avail themselves of a whole array of methods not to. That the available methods vary by sex hardly justifies one sex from failing to use the methods it does have available.

Given that there is no such thing as infallible birth control, you're suggesting abstinence?

Hell, you don't even need to actually have sex for the lady to end up pregnant.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Given that there is no such thing as infallible birth control, you're suggesting abstinence?

No. I suggested using one or more of the many available methods and technologies that mitigate risk. As nothing in life is certain there is the possibility they will fail, but that is not an excuse to not try. As in all things, do your best, but if you fail accept it, do the right thing, learn from mistakes, and move on.

 

[3point14]

I don't like the way "Making sensible life decisions" is being painted as "Running away from one's responsibilities."


Within a teenage couple, entirely unsuitable for parenthood, she wants to keep it, he knows it will wreck both their lives going forward. She has the child and he's the one 'running away from his responsibilities'? and who should 'pay for failing to control his biological urges'


To those who believe that it is appropriate to press a baby and all that responsibility onto a young man as a form of punishment or compensation for not being able to keep it in his pants, I say **** you. In the strongest possible terms, **** you. A young baby, a whole life is not something to be used to punish a man because he had sex and his contraception didn't work. What a ****** way to start a life, what a ****** thing to do to use a baby as a form of punishment or as a teachable moment. **** you.



In a number of cases of which I'm aware it's nothing to do with him running away from anything. He has an understanding of the situation. In this instance it's often the lady concerned who is failing to properly control her biological urges by unwisely choosing to have a baby in circumstances that are not appropriate.

 

[Darat]

Given that there is no such thing as infallible birth control, you're suggesting abstinence?

Hell, you don't even need to actually have sex for the lady to end up pregnant.

Some acts carry risks, heterosexual sex between fertile people is one of those acts. It is your choice whether to accept that risk or not.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't like the way "Making sensible life decisions" is being painted as "Running away from one's responsibilities."


Within a teenage couple, entirely unsuitable for parenthood, she wants to keep it, he knows it will wreck both their lives going forward. She has the child and he's the one 'running away from his responsibilities'? and who should 'pay for failing to control his biological urges'


To those who believe that it is appropriate to press a baby and all that responsibility onto a young man as a form of punishment or compensation for not being able to keep it in his pants, I say **** you. In the strongest possible terms, **** you. A young baby, a whole life is not something to be used to punish a man because he had sex and his contraception didn't work. What a ****** way to start a life, what a ****** thing to do to use a baby as a form of punishment or as a teachable moment. **** you.



In a number of cases of which I'm aware it's nothing to do with him running away from anything. He has an understanding of the situation. In this instance it's often the lady concerned who is failing to properly control her biological urges by unwisely choosing to have a baby in circumstances that are not appropriate.

It's up the individual to determine what is or isn't appropriate for the lives. Hence we let them make their own choices, even if we think they're wrong.

 

[3point14]

No. I suggested using one or more of the many available methods and technologies that mitigate risk. As nothing in life is certain there is the possibility they will fail, but that is not an excuse to not try. As in all things, do your best, but if you fail accept it, do the right thing, learn from mistakes, and move on.

The logical conclusion of this is that young men - well, all men - should not have sex with any lady with whom they are not prepared to have a child.


Good luck with that. I can't see it working out for you at all. You can try to change the fundamental nature of human beings into what you think they should be, but you won't succeed. Maye we should talk about what actually happens in the real world?

 

[3point14]

It's up the individual to determine what is or isn't appropriate for the lives. Hence we let them make their own choices, even if we think they're wrong.

But we don't let them make their own choices. We're very specifically talking about someone having a choice forced upon them. This thread is literally about some people not getting to make a choice.

 

[3point14]

Some acts carry risks, heterosexual sex between fertile people is one of those acts. It is your choice whether to accept that risk or not.

You don't need to have sex for someone to get pregnant

You don't need to fail to use contraception for someone to get pregnant.


Let's talk about the real world, shall we, not yours and Monkey's mental one where contraception always works and accidents don't happen and where teenage men and women are in perfect control of their biological instincts all the time.



Good god, you're both living in fantasyland.

If you want people, men in particular, to be punished for having sex just say so, eh?

 

[3point14]

It's up the individual to determine what is or isn't appropriate for the lives.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Can you see the issue with what you've said above in the context of this thread?

 

[TragicMonkey]

The logical conclusion of this is that young men - well, all men - should not have sex with any lady with whom they are not prepared to have a child.


Good luck with that. I can't see it working out for you at all. You can try to change the fundamental nature of human beings into what you think they should be, but you won't succeed. Maye we should talk about what actually happens in the real world?

No, that is not the logical conclusion. You could get into a car wreck and be killed. We mitigate that risk with traffic laws, technology, tests, inspections, licensing, and safety devices. Those things are not 100% effective, the possibility of death in car wrecks always remains. Do you therefore never get into a car? Is the "logical conclusion" to anything ever "if an activity isn't guaranteed 100% perfect outcome it's not worth doing"?

 

[TragicMonkey]

But we don't let them make their own choices. We're very specifically talking about someone having a choice forced upon them. This thread is literally about some people not getting to make a choice.

They did have a choice. Several, in fact. That they played the odds and lost doesn't mean they didn't choose to gamble. Such is life.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You don't need to have sex for someone to get pregnant

You don't need to fail to use contraception for someone to get pregnant.


Let's talk about the real world, shall we, not yours and Monkey's mental one where contraception always works and accidents don't happen and where teenage men and women are in perfect control of their biological instincts all the time.



Good god, you're both living in fantasyland.

If you want people, men in particular, to be punished for having sex just say so, eh?

What a collection of strawmen! I never said contraception always works. I said it mitigates the risk. That it's not 100% perfect is not a reason not to use it. And pregnancy is certainly not a "punishment" for anyone. It may be an undesired outcome of multiple choices made by two people. Which is why they should take steps to reduce the probability of that outcome.

If anything I think people should have more sex, but they should be smart about it.

 

[3point14]

No, that is not the logical conclusion. You could get into a car wreck and be killed. We mitigate that risk with traffic laws, technology, tests, inspections, licensing, and safety devices. Those things are not 100% effective, the possibility of death in car wrecks always remains. Do you therefore never get into a car? Is the "logical conclusion" to anything ever "if an activity isn't guaranteed 100% perfect outcome it's not worth doing"?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that if a young man has a plan, he wtans to go to college or start a business or travel the world and write a book, then he had better not have sex, ever, with anyone because if he does, and the lady falls pregnant, he now has a financial burden that will affect him for the rest of his life, he probably can't go to college, start a business or travel the world as x% of his income now garnished and he can't borrow or save the money he needs to get started.

And your attitude is "It serves him right for having sex"


You are literally advocating delivering a massive responsibility onto a young man who knows he cannot handle it. You're using a whole human life to punish him. That's horrific.

He's done everything right, used contraception, possibly not even actually had sex but you think he deserves it because he had sex.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I wholeheartedly agree.

Can you see the issue with what you've said above in the context of this thread?

I see that if someone wants X outcome and not Y outcome they should take what steps they deem appropriate to shift the probabilities toward X happening and reduce the probability of Y. The worse they consider Y outcome to be the more effort they should put into avoiding it. Isn't that the rational course?

 

[TragicMonkey]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that if a young man has a plan, he wtans to go to college or start a business or travel the world and write a book, then he had better not have sex, ever, with anyone because if he does, and the lady falls pregnant, he now has a financial burden that will affect him for the rest of his life, he probably can't go to college, start a business or travel the world as x% of his income now garnished and he can't borrow or save the money he needs to get started.

And your attitude is "It serves him right for having sex"


You are literally advocating delivering a massive responsibility onto a young man who knows he cannot handle it. You're using a whole human life to punish him. That's horrific.

He's done everything right, used contraception, possibly not even actually had sex but you think he deserves it because he had sex.

It's "horrific" to say that people should use their reason to assess risk, take action to mitigate those risks, and accept the consequences of their actions?

 

[3point14]

They did have a choice. Several, in fact. That they played the odds and lost doesn't mean they didn't choose to gamble. Such is life.

Gambling = having completely consensual sex while using appropriate contraception.

Or even not even actually having sex at all.

I don't accept that. This just seems like gleeful delivery of punishment using a human life to do so. I think that's horrific.

What you're actually saying is 'Don't have sex'. You view having to fund umpteen years of a baby's life, along with all that brings as just punishment for the act of sex during which a condom splits.


It's like I'm talking to the catholic church here.




Perhaps, not playing this game, your perception is awry?

 

[3point14]

I see that if someone wants X outcome and not Y outcome they should take what steps they deem appropriate to shift the probabilities toward X happening and reduce the probability of Y. The worse they consider Y outcome to be the more effort they should put into avoiding it. Isn't that the rational course?

The rational choice, according to how you have it is not to have sex.

No matter the contraception, pregnancy may arise.

According to you that's just bad luck, take your lumps, pay for this fatherless child for 20 years, wreck your life, you had sex, you deserve it.

Therefore, the rational choice is abstinence. It's the only way to avoid entirely the possibility of you standing there with a smug look on your face saying "Serves you right, should have made better choices"

Anything other than abstinence runs this risk.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Gambling = having completely consensual sex while using appropriate contraception.

Or even not even actually having sex at all.

I don't accept that. This just seems like gleeful delivery of punishment using a human life to do so. I think that's horrific.

What you're actually saying is 'Don't have sex'. You view having to fund umpteen years of a baby's life, along with all that brings as just punishment for the act of sex during which a condom splits.


It's like I'm talking to the catholic church here.




Perhaps, not playing this game, your perception is awry?

You really don't get me at all. Yes, having sex is gambling. The possible outcomes are: nothing, an STD, a pregnancy, or both an STD and a pregnancy. There exist methods of reducing changing the odds: condoms, the pill, IUDs, vasectomy, using a different orifice. Those methods possess differing rates of probable success. They are not guaranteed perfect success because nothing in life is guaranteed perfect success. Whether employing any/some/none of these methods to mitigate the risk is up to the two individuals involved. Whether the resulting odds of an unfavorable outcome make the activity worth doing is, again, up to the two individuals. Whether they realize it or not it will always be a gamble. Every action possible is a gamble, the pursuit of one possible outcome gambled against the probability of other outcomes. That has nothing to do with fairness, or deserving, or punishment. It's an inexorable reality of existence. Whining about that won't help.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The rational choice, according to how you have it is not to have sex.

No matter the contraception, pregnancy may arise.

According to you that's just bad luck, take your lumps, pay for this fatherless child for 20 years, wreck your life, you had sex, you deserve it.

Therefore, the rational choice is abstinence. It's the only way to avoid entirely the possibility of you standing there with a smug look on your face saying "Serves you right, should have made better choices"

Anything other than abstinence runs this risk.

For the third or fourth time, no. That is not what I'm saying, it's not what I said. You are the one interpreting "a risk exists with that activity" to mean "never do that activity". That is not a rational way to approach risk. There is risk in every activity, it can be mitigated but not eliminated. If you only do activities with zero possible risk you will do nothing at all. You can't even lay in bed unmoving because there's a risk of bedsores!