Abortion debate

[DeadPoolX 9]

It doesn't matter whose responsibility it is - it happens, and if the woman has crappy self esteem or isn't good at asserting herself arguing responsibility isn't going to help.

Nothing "just happens." People make choices. Sometimes they make the right ones and other times they make the wrong ones. Men are hardly the sole decision makers when it comes to sex.

Okay... so let me get this straight: The responsibility doesn't matter so long as the woman has either "low self-esteem" or "isn't good at arguing her point." However, the responsibility is solely on the man if he's "too horny to keep himself from sticking it in."

Wow. I cannot even begin to fathom that incredibly perverse logic.

What I love about your posts is that you start out by stating what's obvious to everybody and then go off into increasingly bizarre tangents with the aid of mundane relativisms (see bolded) or circular logic, quite apart from what was obviously intended.

I'm simply saying that arguing about "responsibility" is irrelevant when the outcome is already decided. In other words trotting out the equivalent of "I told you so" as such amounts to useless advice.

Everything in life is relativistic. There are no "hard and fast" rules since every situation is different. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

No, arguing about responsibility is not irrelevant. Many here -- including yourself -- point to the man and shout, "It's his responsibility! He should've kept his horny urges to himself!" But if we place any responsibility on the woman, suddenly the issue of responsibility no longer matters.

That's a very one-sided argument. I'm arguing for equality, something women have supposedly been working towards for years.

Many people take things as a given - that doesn't mean the obvious needs to be stated as if its some sort of massive, profound revelation. It isn't - It's a given.

And yes - arguing responsiblity is irrelevant if we're talking about pregnancy because all it comes down to is a trite after the fact "I told you so", or "you should have thought about that before".

There's plenty of sex education available (a good or bad thing depending on your ideological bent), but to a large extent we have to accept that things like this are bound to happen - and pointing fingers is just useless.

Most people are morons. If they believe something is a "given", then that's their mistake.

I'm hardly talking about saying "I told you so" and you know that. I'm discussing pre-sex responsibility, which belongs to both the man and the woman.

Pointing fingers is usless? Okay, good. Then the responsibility and fault does not land squarely on the man's shoulders. I'm glad we can agree on something.

[Caladan 19]

The support comes from duties owed to the *child*. Not the woman. The woman, once the kid is born, is in exactly the same position as the father. Support the child, provide for the child's support, or (jointly) terminate parental rights. Support for the child starts at birth (not before.)

Being able to terminate child support based on the idea that the woman didn't have an abortion is a conceptually confused claim. (Not to mention, likely quite bad practically.)

If the father gets the same parental rights as the mother, then there's some logic to your idea. Unfortunately, the man rarely gets any parental rights or even gets to see the child he's paying to help support.

They do, under the law. If the dad was primary caregiver and the woman the wage-earner, he'd get child support, too. In practice, in divorces, this isn't always the case.

But that's what I mean when I say that if you want to fix child support, we should undertake laws to make that more fair, not try to solve the problem by punishing the child, or create a situation where a guy could force a woman to terminate a pregnancy.

[DeadPoolX 9]

The support comes from duties owed to the *child*. Not the woman. The woman, once the kid is born, is in exactly the same position as the father. Support the child, provide for the child's support, or (jointly) terminate parental rights. Support for the child starts at birth (not before.)

Being able to terminate child support based on the idea that the woman didn't have an abortion is a conceptually confused claim. (Not to mention, likely quite bad practically.)

If the father gets the same parental rights as the mother, then there's some logic to your idea. Unfortunately, the man rarely gets any parental rights or even gets to see the child he's paying to help support.

They do, under the law. If the dad was primary caregiver and the woman the wage-earner, he'd get child support, too. In practice, in divorces, this isn't always the case.

But that's what I mean when I say that if you want to fix child support, we should undertake laws to make that more fair, not try to solve the problem by punishing the child, or create a situation where a guy could force a woman to terminate a pregnancy.

I agree with that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It doesn't matter whose responsibility it is - it happens, and if the woman has crappy self esteem or isn't good at asserting herself arguing responsibility isn't going to help.

Nothing "just happens." People make choices. Sometimes they make the right ones and other times they make the wrong ones. Men are hardly the sole decision makers when it comes to sex.

Okay... so let me get this straight: The responsibility doesn't matter so long as the woman has either "low self-esteem" or "isn't good at arguing her point." However, the responsibility is solely on the man if he's "too horny to keep himself from sticking it in."

Wow. I cannot even begin to fathom that incredibly perverse logic.

What I love about your posts is that you start out by stating what's obvious to everybody and then go off into increasingly bizarre tangents with the aid of mundane relativisms (see bolded) or circular logic, quite apart from what was obviously intended.

I'm simply saying that arguing about "responsibility" is irrelevant when the outcome is already decided. In other words trotting out the equivalent of "I told you so" as such amounts to useless advice.

Everything in life is relativistic. There are no "hard and fast" rules since every situation is different. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

No, arguing about responsibility is not irrelevant. Many here -- including yourself -- point to the man and shout, "It's his responsibility! He should've kept his horny urges to himself!" But if we place any responsibility on the woman, suddenly the issue of responsibility no longer matters.

That's a very one-sided argument. I'm arguing for equality, something women have supposedly been working towards for years.

Many people take things as a given - that doesn't mean the obvious needs to be stated as if its some sort of massive, profound revelation. It isn't - It's a given.

And yes - arguing responsiblity is irrelevant if we're talking about pregnancy because all it comes down to is a trite after the fact "I told you so", or "you should have thought about that before".

There's plenty of sex education available (a good or bad thing depending on your ideological bent), but to a large extent we have to accept that things like this are bound to happen - and pointing fingers is just useless.

Most people are morons. If they believe something is a "given", then that's their mistake.

I'm hardly talking about saying "I told you so" and you know that. I'm discussing pre-sex responsibility, which belongs to both the man and the woman.

Pointing fingers is usless? Okay, good. Then the responsibility and fault does not land squarely on the man's shoulders. I'm glad we can agree on something.

"Most people are morons" Hmmm... that's a classic.

No it isn't solely the man's fault, but there is some evidence (which I linked to previously) to the effect that women are often the ones to be pressured into sex at one time or another.

Of course if we extend the argument to cover rape (extreme example time) - its perhaps no coincidence that its women and not men who are overwhelmingly the victims of it.

[DeadPoolX 9]

"Most people are morons" Hmmm... that's a classic.

No it isn't solely the man's fault, but there is some evidence (which I linked to previously) to the effect that women are often the ones to be pressured into sex at one time or another.

Of course if we extend the argument to cover rape (extreme example time) - its perhaps no coincidence that its women and not men who are overwhelmingly the victims of it.

Here's my point: The woman shouldn't allow herself to get pressured. I realize that may be difficult in some cases, but sex can be -- and often is -- the decision of the woman (unless we count rape).

Men like to have sex. Nobody can deny that. Women like it too, but it's their decision to let a man penetrate her. It's therefore up to her to "put the brakes" on an impending sexual encounter before it goes too far.

Sex-Ed classes teach people that condoms should always be used. In fact, they often suggest two methods of birth control (such as both a condom and the pill) to help prevent pregnancy.

If the man wants to have sex without a condom (and the woman isn't on birth control), then she should tell him "NO." It makes sense in more than one way, too. Unless you know your partner very well, one of them may have an STD. Considering the fact that many STDs show no signs of infection (especially in the man), I'd like to think that women would be more cautious and demand a condom to not only prevent pregnancy but an STD, as well.

Edited February 9, 2009 by DeadPoolX

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

*Should* yes.

The reality is different, hence this topic and this thread.

[DeadPoolX 9]

*Should* yes.

The reality is different, hence this topic and this thread.

Reality is the outcome of your actions. If a man and a woman are irresponsible in their decisions, the result is often negative and sometimes traumatic.

Schools need better sexual education programs and laws regarding child support need to be modified.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

*Should* yes.

The reality is different, hence this topic and this thread.

Reality is the outcome of your actions. If a man and a woman are irresponsible in their decisions, the result is often negative and sometimes traumatic.

Schools need better sexual education programs and laws regarding child support need to be modified.

Edited February 9, 2009 by Paul Daniels

[Amby 490]

The people who have to give lifelong 24/7 care to a child with massive birth defects should surely have something to say about whether they or their child should have to go through that.

The decision to abort is (and should be) up to the parents.

We had to give lifelong 24/7 care to my brother who was severely physically and mentally handicapped. He lived through a lot of pain. My mom would have aborted if she knew he would have those problems. No one should have to live through that pain if you know about it in advance. Keeping a child from having to endure extreme pain is focusing on their needs more than yours. I think it's selfish to not abort if you know they're going to live only a short time in pain.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

The people who have to give lifelong 24/7 care to a child with massive birth defects should surely have something to say about whether they or their child should have to go through that.

The decision to abort is (and should be) up to the parents.

We had to give lifelong 24/7 care to my brother who was severely physically and mentally handicapped. He lived through a lot of pain. My mom would have aborted if she knew he would have those problems. No one should have to live through that pain if you know about it in advance. Keeping a child from having to endure extreme pain is focusing on their needs more than yours. I think it's selfish to not abort if you know they're going to live only a short time in pain.

Your mom is amazing Amby '' and I agree with you.

[HAL 9000 96]

It doesn't matter whose responsibility it is - it happens, and if the woman has crappy self esteem or isn't good at asserting herself arguing responsibility isn't going to help.

Nothing "just happens." People make choices. Sometimes they make the right ones and other times they make the wrong ones. Men are hardly the sole decision makers when it comes to sex.

Okay... so let me get this straight: The responsibility doesn't matter so long as the woman has either "low self-esteem" or "isn't good at arguing her point." However, the responsibility is solely on the man if he's "too horny to keep himself from sticking it in."

Wow. I cannot even begin to fathom that incredibly perverse logic.

Of course women feel the pressure to have sex. It's then their responsibility to stop it before it goes too far. If the woman is "too horny" to reject a man's urge to "stick it in," then that's her fault. If it's all about the woman's body, then she should take better care of it.

Yeah, but then she won't love us enough to show it...

Hardly a good reason and you know it.

Your argument is primitive and goes back to men telling us what we can and can not do with our bodies.

You know that's not the case at all. Not at least with my argument.

I'm saying that the man and the woman have an equal responsibility to ensure pregnancy does not occur. If it does happen, then the woman may choose to have the baby or terminate it. However, if the woman's wishes run contrary to the man's, then he should have the option of choosing to help support the woman or not.

My basic reasoning comes down to that you can't expect to have all the rights and all the choices and then expect someone else to pay for you. It's all very fair, especially since BOTH partners made the choice to have sex.

Me want sandwich. I go tell wo-man down in cafeteria to make me one.

Now you're being juvenile. Your comment has nothing to do with abortion or children.

Um DUH...

[HAL 9000 96]

The support comes from duties owed to the *child*. Not the woman. The woman, once the kid is born, is in exactly the same position as the father. Support the child, provide for the child's support, or (jointly) terminate parental rights. Support for the child starts at birth (not before.)

Being able to terminate child support based on the idea that the woman didn't have an abortion is a conceptually confused claim. (Not to mention, likely quite bad practically.)

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess, in the interest of fairness between not gestating and wanting to have equal access to the fetal gene combination, we can still try to impose an anti-choice platform and try to equalize its reasonable failure by just negating children their due parental support because after two tangoed, one didn't want to pay the piper.

The support comes from duties owed to the *child*. Not the woman. The woman, once the kid is born, is in exactly the same position as the father. Support the child, provide for the child's support, or (jointly) terminate parental rights. Support for the child starts at birth (not before.)

Being able to terminate child support based on the idea that the woman didn't have an abortion is a conceptually confused claim. (Not to mention, likely quite bad practically.)

If the father gets the same parental rights as the mother, then there's some logic to your idea. Unfortunately, the man rarely gets any parental rights or even gets to see the child he's paying to help support.

Current laws in most states allow the father to seek custody based on established norms of parental fitness.

[Boorai 0]

The support comes from duties owed to the *child*. Not the woman. The woman, once the kid is born, is in exactly the same position as the father. Support the child, provide for the child's support, or (jointly) terminate parental rights. Support for the child starts at birth (not before.)

Being able to terminate child support based on the idea that the woman didn't have an abortion is a conceptually confused claim. (Not to mention, likely quite bad practically.)

If the father gets the same parental rights as the mother, then there's some logic to your idea. Unfortunately, the man rarely gets any parental rights or even gets to see the child he's paying to help support.

They do, under the law. If the dad was primary caregiver and the woman the wage-earner, he'd get child support, too. In practice, in divorces, this isn't always the case.

But that's what I mean when I say that if you want to fix child support, we should undertake laws to make that more fair, not try to solve the problem by punishing the child, or create a situation where a guy could force a woman to terminate a pregnancy.

no one has even come close to suggesting that a man have the authority to force a woman into an abortion. That was suggested by the Pro-Choicers actually; to further support their opinion.

[HAL 9000 96]

It doesn't matter whose responsibility it is - it happens, and if the woman has crappy self esteem or isn't good at asserting herself arguing responsibility isn't going to help.

Nothing "just happens." People make choices. Sometimes they make the right ones and other times they make the wrong ones. Men are hardly the sole decision makers when it comes to sex.

Okay... so let me get this straight: The responsibility doesn't matter so long as the woman has either "low self-esteem" or "isn't good at arguing her point." However, the responsibility is solely on the man if he's "too horny to keep himself from sticking it in."

Wow. I cannot even begin to fathom that incredibly perverse logic.

What I love about your posts is that you start out by stating what's obvious to everybody and then go off into increasingly bizarre tangents with the aid of mundane relativisms (see bolded) or circular logic, quite apart from what was obviously intended.

I'm simply saying that arguing about "responsibility" is irrelevant when the outcome is already decided. In other words trotting out the equivalent of "I told you so" as such amounts to useless advice.

Everything in life is relativistic. There are no "hard and fast" rules since every situation is different. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

No, arguing about responsibility is not irrelevant. Many here -- including yourself -- point to the man and shout, "It's his responsibility! He should've kept his horny urges to himself!" But if we place any responsibility on the woman, suddenly the issue of responsibility no longer matters.

That's a very one-sided argument. I'm arguing for equality, something women have supposedly been working towards for years. I suppose equality is only beneficial so long as it helps the woman.

Like I said... in this very exact issue... equality will come when fathers can bear children.

*Should* yes.

The reality is different, hence this topic and this thread.

Reality is the outcome of your actions. If a man and a woman are irresponsible in their decisions, the result is often negative and sometimes traumatic.

Schools need better sexual education programs and laws regarding child support need to be modified.

Sadly... many in the anti-choice crowd are also against that.

The people who have to give lifelong 24/7 care to a child with massive birth defects should surely have something to say about whether they or their child should have to go through that.

The decision to abort is (and should be) up to the parents.

We had to give lifelong 24/7 care to my brother who was severely physically and mentally handicapped. He lived through a lot of pain. My mom would have aborted if she knew he would have those problems. No one should have to live through that pain if you know about it in advance. Keeping a child from having to endure extreme pain is focusing on their needs more than yours. I think it's selfish to not abort if you know they're going to live only a short time in pain.

Your mom is amazing Amby '' and I agree with you.

Absolutely... sister Amby's mom rocks.

no one has even come close to suggesting that a man have the authority to force a woman into an abortion. That was suggested by the Pro-Choicers actually; to further support their opinion.

Which ones? I certainly would like to know what pro-choice folks are interested in playing the imposition game. Usually, that's a slot allotted to those that want to force their will upon others.

[Boorai 0]

Re-read this very thread and I believe you actually were the first to sugget that. I could be mistaken and forgive me it I am. But on this thread there have been numerous comments to the sort. With neither myself NOR DPX suggesting or supporting that notion.