Paper Abortions

[3point14]

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.

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)

 

[3point14]

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.

If the risk is "The end of all my plans for life", then jesus christ yes it is.

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!

The risks of other activities are not fundamentally life changing with the possibility of ruining all you've been working for or planned.

When the risk is literally your whole suite of hopes and dreams for life, then yes, the logical course is not to undertake the activity.

Especially when, after our young man does everything he should to mitigate that risk and it still occurs, there's people like you standing there with that smug expression with "Well, I know you wanted to go to college, get an education, make your mom and dad proud and do all the things you're supposed to as a young man but you had sex and got unlucky, so you can't. Serves you right"

 

[TragicMonkey]

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)

Jesus Christ, how are you not getting this? Use a condom and do anal, or bareback in her mouth! That's pretty damn good mitigation of the risk of pregnancy. And if that's a Puritan stance then history is being taught really wrongly.

And where are you getting pregnancy without sex? Are you postulating human parthogenesis happens frequently? Or are you fantasizing a scenario where a scheming babycrazy lady with a turkey baster steals the dude's semen?

Risk exists. Everything is a gamble. Take whatever steps you seem desirable to sway the odds. If you're so paranoid about potential pregnancy you abstain entirely, that's fine, that's a valid choice. It's not the only choice, and many people are perfectly comfortable playing slightly worse odds using aforementioned methods to mitigate risk.

 

[JoeMorgue]

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Peter wants to make it about fairness, Paul wants to make it about rightness.

When you rob Paul to pay Peter, Paul is gonna want to make it about fairness, Peter is going to want to make it about rightness.

And since in no argument does anyone want to argue against fairness or rightness, we go nowhere.

Yes men should have the same obligation to children they didn't want to have and the same options to not have them as women.

 

[3point14]

Jesus Christ, how are you not getting this? Use a condom and do anal, or bareback in her mouth! That's pretty damn good mitigation of the risk of pregnancy. And if that's a Puritan stance then history is being taught really wrongly.

All of these things can lead to accidental pregnancy.

And where are you getting pregnancy without sex? Are you postulating human parthogenesis happens frequently? Or are you fantasizing a scenario where a scheming babycrazy lady with a turkey baster steals the dude's semen?

https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-qu...t-pregnant-if-i-have-sex-without-penetration/

"Can I get pregnant if I have sex without penetration?

Yes, although the risk of getting pregnant in this way is very low. If you want to avoid getting pregnant, you should use contraception."

Risk exists. Everything is a gamble. Take whatever steps you seem desirable to sway the odds. If you're so paranoid about potential pregnancy you abstain entirely, that's fine, that's a valid choice. It's not the only choice,

It is the only choice if you want to be sure. How effective do you think condoms are anyway?

and many people are perfectly comfortable playing slightly worse odds using aforementioned methods to mitigate risk.

And lots of young men end up being fathers when they don't want to be.

 

[TragicMonkey]

All of these things can lead to accidental pregnancy.




https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-qu...t-pregnant-if-i-have-sex-without-penetration/

"Can I get pregnant if I have sex without penetration?

Yes, although the risk of getting pregnant in this way is very low. If you want to avoid getting pregnant, you should use contraception."





It is the only choice if you want to be sure. How effective do you think condoms are anyway?




And lots of young men end up being fathers when they don't want to be.

Risk exists. Take steps to mitigate those risks. Perfect guarantees of success do not exist. Make informed choices. Accept the consequences and handle them appropriately.

If you're not mature enough to understand how reality works and deal with it then maybe you're not ready to be having sex?

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you're not mature enough to understand how reality works and deal with it then maybe you're not ready to be having sex?

Okay. Put that on a placard and march around outside an abortion clinic, you'll fit right in.

We're almost at a male version of the slut argument at this point.

 

[3point14]

Risk exists. Take steps to mitigate those risks. Perfect guarantees of success do not exist. Make informed choices. Accept the consequences and handle them appropriately.

If you're not mature enough to understand how reality works and deal with it then maybe you're not ready to be having sex?

I can see that that's going to work.

Teenagers are famously analytical at times of high horniness.

I'm sure they can absolutely stop being human because you think they should.


Bottom line is this

The lack of ability for a man to check out completely of a baby's life leads many young women who shouldn't to choose to have babies. Those babies, particularly in countries with abysmal social safety nets (and even in those countries with good ones) then grow up poor, underprivileged and without a father. Or with a resentful father. Or an abusive one.


People are quite good at knowing if they're going to be good parents. And when they're not.

Young ladies are terrible at controlling their biological urges. They also have grossly unrealistic expectations about how they can change a man. Young men then have their entire lives ruined.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Okay. Put that on a placard and march around outside an abortion clinic, you'll fit right in.

We're almost at a male version of the slut argument at this point.

Really? I seem to be the only one aware that people have multiple orifices for sex. And that sounds like anti abortion slut shaming to you?

It's entirely possible to be promiscuous and smart about it. I can personally attest to it. I've had more than the average number of sex partners and have contracted zero STDs to date. How is this possible? By mitigating the risks.

 

[3point14]

Okay. Put that on a placard and march around outside an abortion clinic, you'll fit right in.

We're almost at a male version of the slut argument at this point.

Yeah, with the same 'Well, they deserved it for being so slutty' bit tacked on.

I do note that the most vocal advocate of "they get what they deserve, the condom split, deal with it, your life is wrecked but that's allowed because you had sex" is one for whom the discussion actually doesn't apply.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yeah, with the same 'Well, they deserved it for being so slutty' bit tacked on.

I do note that the most vocal advocate of "they get what they deserve, the condom split, deal with it, your life is wrecked but that's allowed because you had sex" is one for whom the discussion actually doesn't apply.

Yeah, the worst that can happen to me is a painful humiliating death. So I clearly know nothing of risk mitigation and safe sex.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I like this thread simply for the fact that TM is having to stake out the reality based argument. Luckily he is flexible enough to pull it off.

 

[Lithrael]

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.

If the risk is "The end of all my plans for life", then jesus christ yes it is.

The risks of other activities are not fundamentally life changing with the possibility of ruining all you've been working for or planned.

When the risk is literally your whole suite of hopes and dreams for life, then yes, the logical course is not to undertake the activity.

Oh, cool, I’m glad to find out that life altering (or fatal) car accidents aren’t a thing.

So do you never travel at all then? Mennonite maybe?

 

[3point14]

Yeah, the worst that can happen to me is a painful humiliating death. So I clearly know nothing of risk mitigation and safe sex.

I have all the sympathy in the world with the plight of those who are and have been systematically ****** by the establishment and by segments of society, but that's just not relevant to the topic in hand.


What is, perhaps, relevant is that you're countenancing risks and consequences that you yourself never have to undertake.


My logic is outcome based. I'm not really looking for fairness or equality. What I'm looking for is the best possible outcome in less than perfect circumstances. I don't care about "Oh, he shouldn't have had sex, he should live with the consequences", I care about the quality of the lives of those people that have found themselves in those circumstances.

Nobody wants a reluctant father. No mother, no child, no partner.

Some ladies want to raise babies on their own, and that's fine, they can make a logical, sensible decision and then do what they need to do.

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.

Fewer ladies would follow their base biological urges and have babies that they are ill suited to look after if they weren't in a position to literally force a teenage boy into fatherhood.

 

[3point14]

Oh, cool, I’m glad to find out that life altering (or fatal) car accidents aren’t a thing.

So do you never travel at all then? Mennonite maybe?

Whatever you think this slam dunk is isn't making sense to me at all.

Sorry.


My point is that accidents are going to happen and we should legislate for the best possible outcome thereafter. The opposing point seems to be 'Accidents happen, live with it, sucks to be you, you had sex, I'm therefore happy the rest of your life is ruined'.

 

[Lithrael]

Are people’s entire lives really ruined by paying child support for one child? I know a couple guys who pay it and they complain occasionally but their lives don’t look ruined.

ETA looks like the main people who get really screwed are people in prison going into ridiculous arrears. That ought to be changed a bit, yikes.

 

[3point14]

Are people’s entire lives really ruined by paying child support for one child?

Yes

I know a couple guys who pay it and they complain occasionally but their lives don’t look ruined.

I'm not saying it does for everyone, but for those right at the bottom, for those who are on a knife edge, yes, yes it does.

ETA looks like the main people who get really screwed are people in prison going into ridiculous arrears. That ought to be changed a bit, yikes.

So, locked up, making no money, costing the state a fortune, small baby with 'father in prison' stigma and the child sill has only one parent and one income. And for a fair proportion of those there's a young mother sat at home gobsmacked that he left because, although he said he would, she never believed it (because she was eight weeks pregnant and not thinking straight)

These people would literally rather go to prison than have anything to do with their unwanted child. I'm thinking paper abortions might be worth considering.

 

[Lithrael]

Whatever you think this slam dunk is isn't making sense to me at all.

You seemed to be saying that any activity that carries the risk of fundamentally altering your life in a bad way should just not be done. So no sex, to make sure you are never saddled with child support payments, and also no use of any transportation, to make sure you are never seriously injured or killed in a transportation accident. Better not walk near any roads either really.

My point is that accidents are going to happen and we should legislate for the best possible outcome thereafter.

Well, you really can’t legislate that she be required to terminate her pregnancy, that’s just too far into heebie-jeebies land. So there’s a kid that needs taken care of. General wisdom is that the hierarchy for best results for the kid are: 2 willing bio parents > 1 willing bio parent > 2 willing parents > 1 willing parent > foster, so, if the mother wants the job (and isn’t wildly awful) she should get it. So there’s a single mother with a kid that needs taken care of. Personally I’d be totally fine with the state picking up that tab rather than the dad, but I don’t run things. Plus you do want to encourage the dad to be involved if possible, which as far as I gather is the point of the way child support is calculated partly on how much time the kid is spending with each parent. Whether the state should be trying to reward a father for spending time with a kid (or whether this is an effective way to do that) is another debate.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And for a fair proportion of those there's a young mother sat at home gobsmacked that he left because, although he said he would, she never believed it (because she was eight weeks pregnant and not thinking straight)

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-****.

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

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.

 

[Lithrael]

So, locked up, making no money, costing the state a fortune, small baby with 'father in prison' stigma and the child sill has only one parent and one income. And for a fair proportion of those there's a young mother sat at home gobsmacked that he left because, although he said he would, she never believed it (because she was eight weeks pregnant and not thinking straight)

These people would literally rather go to prison than have anything to do with their unwanted child. I'm thinking paper abortions might be worth considering.

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.