But you said you were okay with abortion...

[Me Myself]

No, not to me. We would both have to pay to the flooded person downstairs who didn't have anything to do with our decision to turn those taps on in the first place.

Both? even though it was your apartment? and your bath tub? and you willingly decided not to turn off the bathtub being the only one able to?

Edit: even when after I left it took 8 months since you knew and 9 months since it had been on to flood the person downstairs? Are you sure? Just because I opened the thing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Both? even though it was your apartment? and your bath tub? and you willingly decided not to turn off the bathtub being the only one able to?

Yes.

Even though I could have curtailed what happened but didn't, both of us committed the act that eventually led to the damage.

Edit: even when after I left it took 8 months since you knew and 9 months since it had been on to flood the person downstairs? Are you sure? Just because I opened the thing?

Well, I don't know that the timescale for abortion really works with the analogy, and I don't know if it's reasonable to suggest that abortion is a practical option for the woman through all 9 months of a routine pregnancy.

Regardless, maybe I had good reasons for this. Maybe I would've been somehow at risk if I returned home... violent neighbours, perhaps. I'm the only one with the key to the apartment, but I'm the only one that would have risked being beaten up if I went back home.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes.

Even though I could have curtailed what happened but didn't, both of us committed the act that eventually led to the damage.


Well, I don't know that the timescale for abortion really works with the analogy, and I don't know if it's reasonable to suggest that abortion is a practical option for the woman through all 9 months of a routine pregnancy.

Regardless, maybe I had good reasons for this. Maybe I would've been somehow at risk if I returned home... violent neighbours, perhaps. I'm the only one with the key to the apartment, but I'm the only one that would have risked being beaten up if I went back home.

Yes even with such timescale?

Lets for now argue the fairly risk-less case. You can have the abortion risk-less I believe that for the first 2 months or so by simply taking a pill that will practically cause a "natural" miscarriage.

So if you could have done it with no problem for 2 months and didn't turn it off and you could see the whole of YOUR apartment flooding because of it and you didn't turn it off even though you were steps to be there, etc and YOU didn't turn it off with me even being completely oblivious to all this happening you say we would both be made to share the burden in court? Even in this scenario?

 

[Magic Man]

She gets pregnant. She has the option to have the abortion like she agreed to. If she does, everything stays the same. If she doesn't, the father has no responsibility, since that's not what he signed up for.

If there is no agreement concerning abortion beforehand, then they share the responsibility.

 

[Falvlun]

She gets pregnant. She has the option to have the abortion like she agreed to. If she does, everything stays the same. If she doesn't, the father has no responsibility, since that's not what he signed up for.

If there is no agreement concerning abortion beforehand, then they share the responsibility.

The problem with your argument is that it is just as valid to claim that the father bears no responsibility to the child should a woman ever choose not to abort, not just in cases of an agreement before hand.

After all, the woman always has the option to abort, right? Why should the man ever have to pay child support if the woman could always prevent a child from occurring, when he never "signed up for" a child?

 

[idav]

She gets pregnant. She has the option to have the abortion like she agreed to. If she does, everything stays the same. If she doesn't, the father has no responsibility, since that's not what he signed up for.

If there is no agreement concerning abortion beforehand, then they share the responsibility.

Is that some sort of verbal contractual agreement. People can always change there minds unless some to-be father is gonna have a woman sign a contract guaranteeing an abortion. If a woman changes her mind the father is still obligated.

 

[Alceste]

She gets pregnant. She has the option to have the abortion like she agreed to. If she does, everything stays the same. If she doesn't, the father has no responsibility, since that's not what he signed up for.

If there is no agreement concerning abortion beforehand, then they share the responsibility.

You still need to be able to prove this agreement was the only deciding factor in him having sex with her. If the outcome would have been exactly the same if this verbal agreement had never been made, he had no basis for his argument.

 

[idav]

You still need to be able to prove this agreement was the only deciding factor in him having sex with her. If the outcome would have been exactly the same if this verbal agreement had never been made, he had no basis for his argument.

I think the right thing to do would be for men to have women sign waivers of obligation just in case. Though for some reason I can't really see that conversation going very well or leading to any sexual contact.

 

[Alceste]

I think the right thing to do would be for men to have women sign waivers of obligation just in case. Though for some reason I can't really see that conversation going very well or leading to any sexual contact.

No, but if it's so important to avoid child support that a woman's verbal statement is going to be taken as a lifelong legal obligation, the guy had better get it in writing. I don't even do concerts without getting the compensation agreement in writing.

 

[Falvlun]

he had something to do with the zygote existing, not the baby.

If I leave my mechanical engineering kit at your house and you use it to make a robot and the robot explodes and kills 6 people, that's your fault. I only gave you the parts.

Or in this case, I would have contributed for part of the intelligence or AI of the robot, say I let it in your house. You boost it up with your AI machinations and make this new AI and now use it and the robot kills someone.

I am not going to jail! I didn't tell you to use my AI for that! I merely left it at your house!

This analogy only works if the parts you leave are programmed to self-assemble into killer robots. The parts-- the zygote-- were left in the house -- the woman's womb-- but the woman is not actively building anything. The parts are building themselves inside her house. Thus, you leaving self-assembling killer robot parts in someone's house certainly does implicate you in the final result of a fully functioning killer robot.

Of course, the analogy also leaves out crucial pieces of information, like that is is not as easy as simply dumping those parts in the garbage; she must get a special exterminator, experience physical discomfort and bodily risk, as well as endure the emotional distress of the cultural and biological and moral conditioning she has likely recieved all her life towards this thing growing inside her house.

 

[Falvlun]

Its not about crying, its about justice. I am talking about a law I wouldn't even use myself, but from the perspective of choice and to eliminate sexism, it makes no sense that the woman has the choice to give up all her mother responsibilities while the man doesn't.

Plain sexism.

Justice? Responsibility? I think your heart's in a good place, but I don't think you fully understand what is going on here, so maybe this can put it into perspective.

You want complete equity in the reproductive abilities of men and women?

All right then.

Once a month, since about the age of 13, you will be given something to cause you to bleed for about a week, as well as pills to give you a stomach ache and nausea. This will only be halted if you impregnate a woman.

Every time you get a woman pregnant, you will be given pills in the morning to make you nauseous. You will then be given a suit (or better yet, some more hormonal pills) to wear that mimics the amount of weight a woman is gaining, and where, complete with the back strain, the need to buy new clothes, and the inability to sleep comfortably at night. You also may be given pills to become constipated. You will also be given hormones to make you more emotional. You will not be allowed to drink or smoke or eat lunchmeat or ride roller coasters or do anything risky while the woman is pregnant.

When the time comes for the woman to deliver, you will be given shock therapy to mimic the pain of contractions. When it is time for the baby to come out... ugh, I don't even want to type the things I'm imagining. Imagine something thick being inserted into the tip of something you don't want it inserted into. There might be some tearing, but don't worry, you'll be stictched up. The skin of your stomach will be stretched, so that you have permanent stretch marks. If the woman requires a C-section, your abdominal muscles will be cut into, and stapled back shut.

After birth, you will have pouches attached to your chest. They will leak whenever the baby cries. If they become too full, electrical shocks or clamps will be applied to your nipples.

If the woman you impregnate decides to abort, you will have to also undergo a similar procedure as the woman, which will differ depending upon the time scale of the pregnancy. I am not familiar with the effects, but I imagine pain, nausea, bleeding, the risk of future infertility, and emotional tolls will be incurred.

Around the age of 50, you will undergo menopause. This is another thing I'm not really sure what the symptoms are, but I'm sure you've heard of hot flashes. A decrease in estrogen is seen in women, causing some to develop more masculine features. I'm sure we can tweak your testosterone to a equitable level. The good news is, that you won't have to bleed once a month any more. You will also be infertile.

"Mother responsibilities" are inextricably linked with female biology. If you would like the same exact right to decide when and how a woman decides to bear a child, then you need to incur the same experiences, risk, and responsibilities a woman has in that process.

Until you do, you must accept that the rights of the genders in regards to procreation are unfair... and it is certainly not the men who are getting the short end of the stick here.

On another note, it is incredibly insulting to imply that a woman who chooses to abort is somehow relinquished of any responsibility or consequence. The choice to abort is taking responsibility for her actions-- this is not some easy decision, it is not "walking away" from a problem. It is also not a decision that, once made, *poof* just happens. The woman must plan for, pay, and undergo the physical, cultural, and emotional effects of such a decision.

The only person in your desired scenario that is allowed to completely wipe his hands clean, as if nothing ever happened, is the man. The woman never, ever has that option. How exactly, then, does your desired scenario produce a perfectly equitable division?

Again, there's sexism all right. But it's not the women who are benefitting, and while some of it is man-made, most is just the unfortunate result of biology.

 

[Mathematician]

Comparing natural discrepancies to legal ones is a logical fallacy. Legal mandates are social constructs: they are upheld by the threat of force. Justice pertains to legal procedures, otherwise everyone would be reduced to the lowest common denominator for the sake of being 'fair.' Should we kill old women en masse since men die at an earlier age? Should we refuse to prescribe women who just ended a relationship anti-depressants because men are more likely to feel depressed due to a break-up?

Furthermore the idea women 'suffer' more than men is an ethos feminism has being promoted for the last 30 years to make women scorn men. One could just as easily say that men are missing out on a very beautiful aspect of life by not being able to carry a child, and in fact a lot of men do feel 'hurt' or 'removed' from their own children even in otherwise perfect relationships. "Male breast-feeding" has become a gag of late, but in fact it actually occurs more frequently than a lot of people suspect.

Feminism in general is led by a lot of women who have no clue how men actually operate or think, but are all too willing speak out on what they think men experience or should do.

The woman must plan for, pay, and undergo the physical, cultural, and emotional effects of such a decision.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that a man should be able to opt out of paying for at least an abortion - or that abortions should be covered by taxes. The suggestion is that perhaps one person making the most expensive life-altering decision for someone else without their consent is unjust.

 

[Alceste]

Comparing natural discrepancies to legal ones is a logical fallacy. Legal mandates are social constructs: they are upheld by the threat of force. Justice pertains to legal procedures, otherwise everyone would be reduced to the lowest common denominator for the sake of being 'fair.'

Furthermore the idea women 'suffer' more than men is an ethos feminism has being promoted for the last 30 years to make women scorn men. One could just as easily say that men are missing out on a very beautiful aspect of life by not being able to carry a child, and in fact a lot of men do feel 'hurt' or 'removed' from their own children even in otherwise perfect relationships. "Male breast-feeding" has become a gag on some cartoons, but in fact it actually occurs more frequently than a lot of people suspect.

Feminism in general is led by a lot of women who have no clue how men actually operate or think, but are all too willing speak out on what they think men experience.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that a man should be able to opt out of paying for at least an abortion - or that abortions should be covered by taxes. The suggestion is that perhaps one person making a life-altering decision for someone else without their consent is unjust.

The sex is the consent. Both parties know that sex goes hand-in-hand with a risk of unintended pregnancy, and they agree to accept that risk by having sex. The only way you could argue that the man is a "victim" here is to be certain that the man in question would not have had the sex that resulted in the child being born without the abortion agreement. And if he's ever had sex with anyone without such an agreement, that argument goes out the window.

And women do suffer. I am awfully sorry to tell you it has nothing to do with you, or men in general. PMS, pregnancy, menopause, cramps, vigorous bleeding from the genitals, childbirth, etc. are not some kind of conspiracy to turn women against men. They're a fact of life, and have always been a fact of life, even before feminism.

 

[Mathematician]

The sex is the consent. Both parties know that sex goes hand-in-hand with a risk of unintended pregnancy, and they agree to accept that risk by having sex. The only way you could argue that the man is a "victim" here is to be certain that the man in question would not have had the sex that resulted in the child being born without the abortion agreement. And if he's ever had sex with anyone without such an agreement, that argument goes out the window.

Unintended pregnancy does not correlate to parenthood. Suggesting that at the point of intercourse the man forgoes all rights to the woman's will is pushing it on the concept of 'consent.'

PMS, pregnancy, menopause, cramps, vigorous bleeding from the genitals, childbirth, etc. are not some kind of conspiracy to turn women against men. They're a fact of life, and have always been a fact of life, even before feminism.

Men experience decreased lifespans, more vigorous depression, erectile dysfunction, prostate issues, "leaking faucets," etc. Trying to say one gender suffers more than the other is dishonest.

 

[Me Myself]

The sex is the consent. Both parties know that sex goes hand-in-hand with a risk of unintended pregnancy, and they agree to accept that risk by having sex. The only way you could argue that the man is a "victim" here is to be certain that the man in question would not have had the sex that resulted in the child being born without the abortion agreement. And if he's ever had sex with anyone without such an agreement, that argument goes out the window.

And women do suffer. I am awfully sorry to tell you it has nothing to do with you, or men in general. PMS, pregnancy, menopause, cramps, vigorous bleeding from the genitals, childbirth, etc. are not some kind of conspiracy to turn women against men. They're a fact of life, and have always been a fact of life, even before feminism.

They chose all that when they chose not to abort.

 

[Me Myself]

Justice? Responsibility? I think your heart's in a good place, but I don't think you fully understand what is going on here, so maybe this can put it into perspective.

You want complete equity in the reproductive abilities of men and women?

All right then.


Every time you get a woman pregnant, you will be given pills in the morning to make you nauseous. You will then be given a suit (or better yet, some more hormonal pills) to wear that mimics the amount of weight a woman is gaining, and where, complete with the back strain, the need to buy new clothes, and the inability to sleep comfortably at night. You also may be given pills to become constipated. You will also be given hormones to make you more emotional. You will not be allowed to drink or smoke or eat lunchmeat or ride roller coasters or do anything risky while the woman is pregnant.

When the time comes for the woman to deliver, you will be given shock therapy to mimic the pain of contractions. When it is time for the baby to come out... ugh, I don't even want to type the things I'm imagining. Imagine something thick being inserted into the tip of something you don't want it inserted into. There might be some tearing, but don't worry, you'll be stictched up. The skin of your stomach will be stretched, so that you have permanent stretch marks. If the woman requires a C-section, your abdominal muscles will be cut into, and stapled back shut.

After birth, you will have pouches attached to your chest. They will leak whenever the baby cries. If they become too full, electrical shocks or clamps will be applied to your nipples.

If the woman you impregnate decides to abort, you will have to also undergo a similar procedure as the woman, which will differ depending upon the time scale of the pregnancy. I am not familiar with the effects, but I imagine pain, nausea, bleeding, the risk of future infertility, and emotional tolls will be incurred.

I find all of this ridiculous, but I ll play ball.

If I do all this AND cut my left leg, am I entitled to not only not pay for the child, but also get some money from the woman because I cut my leg?

Getting more rights because biology gave you more pain doesnt make sense.

Men do not need to pay with their rights what biology did to women.

 

[Alceste]

Unintended pregnancy does not correlate to parenthood. Suggesting that at the point of intercourse the man forgoes all rights to the woman's will is pushing it on the concept of 'consent.'

It's just a fact of life that women have more options for birth control than men do. That doesn't mean men can't still use every option available to them. Get the snip or use a condom. Once you've knocked a woman up, it's out of your hands. She still has one birth control option left, and it just so happens that it's a very controversial one many women are not comfortable with, and the pregnancy itself will be screwing with her hormones, quite possibly impeding her judgment. Controlling her is simply not one of your regrettably limited birth control options, as a man. The fact that you portray her physical autonomy as an unfair imposition on your "rights" is, frankly, repulsive.

 

[Alceste]

Men experience decreased lifespans, more vigorous depression, erectile dysfunction, prostate issues, "leaking faucets," etc. Trying to say one gender suffers more than the other is dishonest.

Please, don't embarrass yourself. Everybody knows certain aspects of womanhood are awfully uncomfortable for ALL women. Trying to draw an equivalence between those facts of life for all women and things some men may experience - things that aren't even painful! - is silly. It's not a contest.

 

[ChristineES]

Men "didn't sign up" for a woman having his baby? Do they think she signed up for it? I don't really care if men "didn't sign up" for it; men really ought to know by now that babies can result from sex (I am repeating myself and others again, but oh, well). There are solutions: Don't sleep with someone you don't know very well, keep in mind that no contraception is 100%, the woman could very well change her mind about having an abortion if she becomes pregnant for many different reasons. In other words, use some common sense (again a repeat, but...).

 

[Alceste]

Men "didn't sign up" for a woman having his baby? Do they think she signed up for it? I don't really care if men "didn't sign up" for it; men really ought to know by now that babies can result from sex (I am repeating myself and others again, but oh, well). There are solutions: Don't sleep with someone you don't know very well, keep in mind that no contraception is 100%, the woman could very well change her mind about having an abortion if she becomes pregnant for many different reasons. In other words, use some common sense (again a repeat, but...).

You make perfect sense to me. If you can't handle the risks, don't engage in the behavior. Unplanned pregnancy just isn't something women do to men. It's something men and women do together. I'm really surprised so many men seem to feel like it isn't fair that she "gets to" decide whether or not to have an abortion. Who the hell do they think should be making a decision like that that for her, and how does that make them somehow not responsible for getting her pregnant in the first place?