BSBD Tiller the Baby Killer

[wmw999 2,123]

Hey -- don't knock evil Who do you think put the "sin" in "sincere?"

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Until there is a male equivalent of pregnancy, with its financial, physical, and social impacts on women, it will never be even. That doesn't make it OK for a woman to terminate a pregnancy that the father really wanted, but the father's really wanting the pregnancy to go to completion WILL impact the mother, even if he wants sole custody and will sign the appropriate adoption papers. The mother's decision to go forward with the pregnancy and not to name the father will NOT impact the father. Obviously if one or the other starts collecting welfare, the rules change again.

The mother's decision to go forward with the pregnancy in light of the father's lack of desire to support the baby is unfair to the father.

But the inherent differences brought by biology make this an impossible argument to have a really clear-cut answer.

Wendy P.

That came almost out almost exactly like the point I was making.

The only difference comes in the denial of the equivalent autonomy of the father:

"The mother's decision to go forward with the pregnancy and not to name the father will NOT impact the father". It's here where the equal treatment breaks down - shouldn't the father get to choose if he's named. If not, you still take away his "choice" to declined the responsibilty by letting the mother call him out after "her" equivalent and sole choice to have the child.

Her forcing him to support the unwanted baby is the closest equivalent to him forcing her to bear the unwanted baby.

It's not equal, but it's the closest you get. But, I still find it misogynistic to downplay the man's role in raising a child vs the woman's sole role in bearing a child. It appeals to sexism and plays on the myth of the poor and weak woman. The heart of it still lies in a very sexist set of societal assumptions.

If you look at the 4 'choice' scenarios I lay out, it's pretty clear where:

biology drives the inequalities (can't be helped - the woman makes the sole choice to bear the child - too bad for the man, but she carries an additional burden due to biology - his only impact is his opinion and support which may be substantial and likely is in most 'normal' cases)

and where politics drive inequalities (though the woman has the option to not raise a baby by not having it, the man should also have the option to not raise a baby regardless of the woman's choice to bear it)

the counter argument to the 2nd point is simple, but not logical, only emotive - thus it's politics, thus is it's sexist, thus it's not just, thus the man loses any autonomy in both case - but we can only rectify one of them. (no matter if I find that option personally despicable)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,123]

The problem here is that we're arguing in the vacuum of men who always do the right thing (i.e. paying if they father a child), while giving women the choice of doing the wrong thing (i.e. aborting when the father wants, and naming when the father doesn't).

The man also has the choice to do the wrong thing, and walk away. It may or may not work, and there are potentially legal consequences, but don't think it doesn't happen.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Exactly.

But the 'legal' disconnect allows and celebrates the option to the let woman do the wrong thing. But fights tooth and nail against the option for the man to do the equivalent and also wrong thing.

If we are talking equal rights, the two wrongs do make a right.

and yes, it really does suck - but if you allow choice for women in this arena, I really can't think of any other option to give the man the most equivalent same rights under law

Now, we can think of exceptional reasons for a woman to abort (other than convenience). I suspect we could come up with parallels for the man also.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The problem here is that we're arguing in the vacuum of men who always do the right thing (i.e. paying if they father a child

don't you mean "paying if their partner chooses not to abort" ?

remember, the 'choice' to actually bear the child is 100% the woman's choice

that's the ground rules for this conversation


edit: I would like to remind the casual reader, that I am playing devil's advocate on this debate for my enjoyment only - since abortion topics in SC tend to stop at the right to abort, and not the rights when the choice to not abort occur -

I have not put forth my personal opinion on the topic since I do not have a 10 foot pole handy

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Do you honestly not understand how you are denying the man's autonomy? The woman has the choice on whether to have an abortion which determines whether the man has to pay child support.

That's a rather disingenuous way of explaining things.

As has been pointed out, responsibility for a child is a necessarily different topic of discussion.

Whether or not the the pregnancy is terminated prematurely is a choice that the female has a right to make, as it is her body.

Responsibility for children should be shared jointly by the parents. The kids have certain rights that should not be abrogated simply because the biological father feels like he should be absolved of responsibility because he didn't really feel like being a father.

It's simple, really. If a guy doesn't trust a particular female to make the right decisions regarding her body and any sperm she may be given, then that guy should refrain from donating his sperm to that particular female.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

But that's not the part I'm discussing. I'm talking about the next 20 years after.

I understand your argument now. You want men to have the legal right to be deadbeat dads.

I wholeheartedly disagree. If a guy deposits his sperm inside a female, he accepts legal responsibility for any children who may be born as a result of that action. That the female might have the ability to make an explicit choice for no children to be born of the encounter does not and should not mitigate the responsibilities of either parent if there are children born as a result of the encounter.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,400]

Both of you - enough.

[billvon 2,400]

> You want men to have the legal right to be deadbeat dads.

Just as women have the right to be "deadbeat moms" and give their children away, and just as women have the right to terminate their pregnancies so they don't even have to be bothered with the birth.

I agree with Rehmwa 100% in principle - both sides should be able to decide what level of participation they want. A woman can decide it can be 0% through abortion (or close to 0% through adoption) or 100%. Or she can decide it can be 50% through getting the 'deadbeat dad' to pay for half (or more.) Men currently get no choice, even if they go to extraordinary lengths to ensure no pregnancy (i.e. verify she's on the pill and then use a condom as well.) Sorry, it doesn't matter. Pay up.

How to implement it is the issue. If you could get everyone to sign a paper saying "we're having sex, and the woman can do whatever she wants afterward and so can the man" great. (Or "we're having sex and we'll both raise the child if it comes to that.") That won't happen.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

But that's not the part I'm discussing. I'm talking about the next 20 years after.

I understand your argument now. You want men to have the legal right to be deadbeat dads.

{{standard fluff rhetoric deleted}}

1 - This is discussion only - it's not what "I want" stay on topic - that tactic is a loser tactic, you're better than that

2 - Now, the "mom" has the right to decline her responsibility to raise a child - via abortion.

3 - The equivalent of that is the dad gets the option to do the same - since he can't abort the pregnancy, his only equivalent is to be the "deadbeat"

the closest legal equivalent, the closest moral equivalent, etc

edit: my personal view?

1 - women shouldn't have to abort - it's a bad decision that they should get to make. But I don't respect it. (when their own life is in danger or the fetus is severely damaged/deformed is a totally different topic here, ok? I have no issue terminating that kind of situation)

2 - men should help raise their children no matter what - if they ditch that duty - it's a bad decision that they should get to make. But I don't respect it.

In a perfect world, people would have sex only if they had a commitment to each other, and things like children is something they jointly have an understanding on. But that world is rare.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> You want men to have the legal right to be deadbeat dads.

Just as women have the right to be "deadbeat moms" and give their children away, and just as women have the right to be

I agree with Rehmwa 100% in principle - both sides should be able to decide what level of participation they want. A woman can decide it can be 0% through abortion (or close to 0% through adoption) or 100%. Or she can decide it can be 50% through getting the 'deadbeat dad' to pay for half (or more.) Men currently get no choice, even if they go to extraordinary lengths to ensure no pregnancy (i.e. verify she's on the pill and then use a condom as well.) Sorry, it doesn't matter. Pay up.

How to implement it is the issue. If you could get everyone to sign a paper saying "we're having sex, and the woman can do whatever she wants afterward and so can the man" great. (Or "we're having sex and we'll both raise the child if it comes to that.") That won't happen.

Somebody understands the argument - thanks

I didn't think it was so tough, but first you have to break down the bias mantra that's embedded in some people's minds. Then you have to break the PC basis also indoctrinated. The short is, today's 'legal' situation is not equal, and it's based on a male primacy assumption. That does a disservice to females ("the poor female can ditch the responsibility because she can't handle it, but the big strong capable male sure can't"). Politics is full of self contradiction, because it's all sales.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,123]

Bill worded it well. There are two discontinuities (physical for women, and legal for men).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Bill worded it well. There are two discontinuities (physical for women, and legal for men).

Wendy P.

he (BV) sure did, I wish I could be more pithy like that

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>both sides should be able to decide what level of participation they want.

I'm not to that point. I only say that 'both side should be able to decide up to an equivalent level of participation.

In this case the range is (abortion) 0 - (raise the kid) 100%, so it's kind of moot. The man should also get the options to select 0%-100% as well.

But if (hypothetically) the woman was allowed a range of 50% - 100%, then the man should also get the 50%-100% options.

At this time, the woman gets 0% - 100% choice.

For the man, the woman gets to choose (legally) for him

for the abortion - he gets 0%, get over it

for no abortion - She gets to select his contribution level for 0-50%, he only gets to select if he goes over the legal requirement

parity = no

male = landmine (with a wallet)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,400]

> I only say that 'both side should be able to decide up to an equivalent
> level of participation.'

OK. I guess I don't think that's as important. If a woman wants to go to a bar, pick up a guy, have sex with him, get pregnant, and raise the kid herself - that's OK with me.

Well, it's not OK to the guy if he wants to be a dad, but that's less of a problem I think. To me, the real problem is when either side is legally compelled to do something they did not agree to.

[Butters 0]

Wow ... did hell freeze over? I can't believe people are actually beginning to discuss what I've posted over and over and over again in various threads regarding abortion.

PS: Thanks Bill (rehmwa) for explaining it in a much better way than I obviously have.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

> You want men to have the legal right to be deadbeat dads.

Just as women have the right to be "deadbeat moms" and give their children away, and just as women have the right to terminate their pregnancies so they don't even have to be bothered with the birth.

I agree with Rehmwa 100% in principle - both sides should be able to decide what level of participation they want. A woman can decide it can be 0% through abortion (or close to 0% through adoption) or 100%. Or she can decide it can be 50% through getting the 'deadbeat dad' to pay for half (or more.)

Clearly, you've misunderstood my use of "deadbeat dad." If a father is providing for his biological children, he isn't a deadbeat dad.

Quote

Men currently get no choice, even if they go to extraordinary lengths to ensure no pregnancy (i.e. verify she's on the pill and then use a condom as well.) Sorry, it doesn't matter. Pay up.

Perhaps I have unusual dexterity, but I can effectively control where I leave my bodily fluids. If I'm not comfortable with a partner mothering my children, I don't leave a lasting deposit. I have a choice, and it isn't simply to have sex or not have sex.

Again, the issue of responsibilities to the child as parents are separate from a female's right to choose. The rights and wellness of the child are (ideally) the primary concerns, not the parental convenience. In the eyes of the law, the child had no legal rights until birth. Once born, abortion is no longer an option or issue. The father does not get treated unfairly compared to the mother.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,400]

> If a father is providing for his biological children, he isn't a deadbeat dad.

Right. But if he's not providing for them - and they both agreed that that's the way they want it to be - then he should be able to be a 'deadbeat dad' just as a woman is able to "abort away" her responsibilities.

>but I can effectively control where I leave my bodily fluids.

So can anyone. Not having sex with anyone except the person you want to get pregnant works 100% of the time. History has shown that that doesn't work as a solution to this problem.

>The father does not get treated unfairly compared to the mother.

If the father could choose to abort the child as well, I would agree with you.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

2 - Now, the "mom" has the right to decline her responsibility to raise a child - via abortion.

Incorrect. The mother has a right to abort the pregnancy. She does not have a right to decline her responsibility to raise a child. If she does not give birth to a child, then there is no child for which to be responsible. There's no responsibility to decline.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

> If a father is providing for his biological children, he isn't a deadbeat dad.

Right. But if he's not providing for them - and they both agreed that that's the way they want it to be - then he should be able to be a 'deadbeat dad' just as a woman is able to "abort away" her responsibilities.

No, because that ability would put the father's (or mother's, if the situation were reversed) convenience ahead of the child's needs. The child's needs understandably come first.

If a child's parents come to an agreement that one of them need not be involved at all, financially or otherwise, that's perfectly okay, as long as the parent that chooses to take responsibility has the resources do do so. If that ever becomes an issue, the other parent should be required to step up.

Quote

>but I can effectively control where I leave my bodily fluids.

So can anyone. Not having sex with anyone except the person you want to get pregnant works 100% of the time. History has shown that that doesn't work as a solution to this problem.

Who said anything about not having sex. Who I have sex with and where I leave my sperm are two separate issues. With some partners, precautions to make it unlikely that a pregnancy occurs is sufficient. With others, I take steps to make it virtually impossible for a pregnancy to result.

Quote

>The father does not get treated unfairly compared to the mother.

If the father could choose to abort the child as well, I would agree with you.

The father has a different choice at a different time, but he does indeed have a choice.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

Right. But if he's not providing for them - and they both agreed that that's the way they want it to be - then he should be able to be a 'deadbeat dad' just as a woman is able to "abort away" her responsibilities.

No, because that ability would put the father's (or mother's, if the situation were reversed) convenience ahead of the child's needs. The child's needs understandably come first.

What is the difference between a father choosing not to support a potential child while it's a fetus and a mother choosing to abort a potential child while it's a fetus?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

What is the difference between a father choosing not to support a potential child while it's a fetus and a mother choosing to abort a potential child while it's a fetus?

Only the mother's choice irreversibly prevents the birth of a live human being.

[billvon 2,400]

>No, because that ability would put the father's (or mother's, if the situation
>were reversed) convenience ahead of the child's needs.

Correct. That's what abortion (or adoption) is.

>If a child's parents come to an agreement that one of them need not be involved
>at all, financially or otherwise, that's perfectly okay, as long as the parent that
>chooses to take responsibility has the resources do do so.

Agreed. And if there were a legal framework to support and enforce such decisions, there would be many, many fewer problems.

>With some partners, precautions to make it unlikely that a pregnancy occurs
>is sufficient.

Which means there is a chance the woman could become pregnant - which is the issue we're discussing.

>The father has a different choice at a different time, but he does indeed have a
>choice.

Of course. And if you got a credit card, and after a month you were given a choice as to whether to pay 5000% interest on your purchases for that month or 8000% interest, you'd also have a choice. That does not mean that everything is OK with such an arrangement.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

What is the difference between a father choosing not to support a potential child while it's a fetus

The father already made his choice. By giving his sperm to the mother, he accepted responsibility for any children that may result. Sex does not require that particular gift be given.

There is no choice by either parent to decline the responsibility of a child.

Quote

… and a mother choosing to abort a potential child while it's a fetus?

The mother has a right to abort her pregnancy, just as the father had a right to ensure there was not a pregnancy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Bill worded it well. There are two discontinuities (physical for women, and legal for men).

Wendy P.

And at times, the emotional for both.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln