This about sums it up.

[–]Streamwave 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SweetJeebus 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 162 points163 points164 points 14 years ago* (187 children) | Copy Link

[–]surfnsound 50 points51 points52 points 14 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 14 years ago* (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]Valendr0s 69 points70 points71 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]misnamed 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]PsychicChinchilla 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PsychicChinchilla -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chandon 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Because it's their choice, they must be - by default - solely responsible for any resulting liability.

Read RvW and pay close attention to the fact that they are attempting to absolve the mother from the responsibility of taking care of the child.

Look at abandonment laws, which were passed after mothers (with full rights to have an abortion or give their child up for adoption) were dumping their children into dumpsters so our government gave them even yet more ways to escape responsibility.

But when it comes to men and sex, the government will nail his ass to the wall and demand he take responsibility. It doesn't matter if he was unconscious, if she stole sperm from a condom, or even if he was 13 and she was 39.

That's a terrible way to frame it.

No, I've framed it exactly as it is... or government attempting to buy women's votes by giving them more and more ways to escape responsibility for their actions and choices.

[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]barbadosslim-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]banksnld 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ragnrok 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ragnrok 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]saucisse-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]saucisse-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]huntwhales2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]saucisse0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]saucisse1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ack. I should have thought that one through. Old women have had kids via IVF plenty of times. It's selfish in the extreme, given that even early-onset menapause starts in the 40's. If you're 40 when you have a kid, you'll be 58 by the time they're legally an adult here in Australia, or 61 if you're in the USA.

As for the women who're having kids in their 60's... they're absolutely the single most selfish women I know. There's no consideration that your TEENAGED kid could be burying their parent.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2009/02/04/cgy-twins-60yearold-mother.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16417066/ns/health-pregnancy/t/-year-old-mother-gives-birth-twins/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1290178/Britains-oldest-time-mother-Elizabeth-Adeney-takes-1-year-old-walk.html

[–]saucisse2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Coziestpigeon2 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. It is the role of parents to financially support their children (and the role of society to fill in the gaps when insufficient parental support is available). If we (as a society) have the right to demand payment from a single man to the single woman he had sex with, then we're saying "you're the dad, just as though you were her husband and you two had planned to have a baby together." To ask for that, and THEN deny single men a role in the lives of their biological offspring, is possibly the most unfair scenario humankind is capable of devising.

Biology isn't fair. No way around that. I don't think any man has a claim on the children I bear unless we come to mutually agreeable terms as coparents - marriage is the obvious example, though there are other ways. In strictly biological terms, men's contribution to the human reproductive process is not very significant. But we can at least not ADD to that inherent imbalance with our social policy, by enabling single women to get money out of men that they don't wish to have acting as a father to their children.

[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't mean pay for the whole life of the child, just the time leading up to, and maybe shortly after, the birth. Because the fact is that the baby, whether intentional or not, is 50 per cent the fault of the man. Just saying "I don't want that, good luck" is a dick move. The woman is every bit as unprepared as the father, only she's STUCK with this kid (if we assume she has moral leanings against abortion or adoption). It's not fair that a problem, caused equally by both parties, can be entirely dumped onto one party, especially such an expensive problem. I only think the man should own up to his mistake and take some responsibility, just for long enough that the mother is not entirely f*cked. Diapers are expensive. Financially help her prepare for roughly nine months. By that time, she should have been able to work out an alternate solution, such as getting help from her family or a new man.

[–]chavelah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Kids aren't "problems." A biodad who regards an expected baby as a problem is somebody to get rid of fast, not somebody to ask for money! And a pregnant women who feels that she'll be STUCK with a kid needs to not have a kid. Abort, adopt, whatever. Don't raise kids you don't want - it's not fair to the kid.
It's unreasonable to say that men and women, casually screwing, are equally responsible for the creation of children. Men make a two-second contribution and have no say thereafter in whether or not a pregnancy is carried to term. Women make that call. And that's the way it should be. We do the work and take the risk. But in insisting on our right to decide when and how and with whom we have babies, we end up being fully responsible for the babies we give birth to. Some of us front-load a portion of that responsibility by partnering up with a man and making formal, legally binding decisions about coparenting before we get pregnant.

[–]Coziestpigeon21 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Unexpected, unwanted kids ARE problems. You're missing the entire point I'm trying to make. I specifically said if the woman will not abort or adopt, due to personal/moral reasons that are not for anyone else to try and change.
Sex between a MAN and WOMAN makes a baby. Therefore, both are equally responsible. Both took part in it's creation, both (possibly, likely in the case of accidental baby) fucked up by not using protection.

The discussion is not about planned children, or children in a relationship. It is about a one-night stand that resulted in a pregnancy. In the case of 'oops, a baby is coming,' both parents are responsible. And while it is unfair to bind the man to that child for it's lifetime just because the mother would not abort/adopt, it was partially his mistake and I believe he should help her get on solid footing by (at least) financially contributing for roughly a year, until she has found other means.

That is just how I view the issue.

[–]chavelah1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Coziestpigeon21 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xcydal-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Coziestpigeon24 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rockidol 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]surfnsound 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]surfnsound 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Legal forms that falsifying would be punishable as purjury. It's not perfect, but neither are looks on your front door. Think of it as keeping the honest people honest. Some women will indeed still flaunt the law, and in many cases they'll get caught and hopefully punished. I'd like to see something like the following:

1) Woman gets pregnant. The doctor gives her state mandated forms that require her to file within 5 business days.

2) The paperwork includes an affidavit listing all possible fathers (if known).

3) State notifies the men they are potentially the father of a child and have 30 days to acknowledge or disavow paternity.

4) If they acknowledge it then they have to submit a DNA sample for paternity testing upon birth. If positive they they go on the birth certificate and get 50% custody or whatever other arrangement is made with the mother.

5) Penalties & disincentives: If the mother does not file the requisite forms with the state then she's ineligible for certain state assistance or state and/or federal jobs. Think of it as a female analog to registering for the draft. And even then the possible fathers will get the 30 days to opt in or out upon notification should she ever file for child support.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jahonay 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saracuda 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_The_Rich 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]saracuda 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_The_Rich 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AlyoshaV3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]saracuda 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]saracuda 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SweetJeebus 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]CoonTown 14 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

There is pretty much no way to make this equal without violating the bodily integrity of the woman.

[–]saracuda 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]CoonTown 14 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

That very clearly isn't what saracuda is talking about.

What the hell does "financial abortion" have to do with a situation where "A man wants a child, and a woman wants an abortion"?

[–]Celda -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think abortion is an incredibly complicated issue. Since the rise of liberal thought a century or so ago most controversial political issues have been about a conflict between who's rights are more important. This individual or that individual, the individual or society, ect. I see abortion as a genuine and unavoidable conflict between the mother's rights and the baby's rights. I dismiss the argument that a fetus isn't really a human, I think that's silly. So that leaves me in a position without a solution. Both the mother and the child are entitled to their rights but we can't grant both at once. In leu of a solution to this unavoidable conflict I err on the side of non-prohibition. Making abortion illegal would cause unwanted births, encourage a black market for medical procedures, and other social ills. Thus, I am pro-abortion (not pro-choice because I don't want to associate with the feminist argument that fetuses don't have rights). So, even if childbearing involves very little risk of life to the mother it still requires a painful and disruptive experience, taking time away from other activities, and likely some sickness. Any law which prevents the mother from mitigating these conditions is a violation of her right to autonomy. The child's rights are also being violated for obvious reasons. But someone who's rights are not represented here at all is the father. While it is indeed a sad experience for a man hoping to be a father to see the mother of his child get an abortion, his right to autonomy is not at risk. Only his right to a family, and, if such a thing even exists, that certainly does not trump the individual's right to autonomy. Hope that clears up my perspective for you :)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]effarve 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DJWhamo 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]waspinator 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]waspinator 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]utterdamnnonsense 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]xcydal 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (62 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Wow, loaded questions and only tangentially related to the issue at hand, but since I love nothing so much as the sound of my own voice, I'll engage:

1) Sperm banks should not be banned, but see #3 below

2) Yes I do think that women who opt to have children without a partner of either sex are depriving their child (cue angry emails from people happily and successfully raised by single parents).

3) No, with the caveat that there are lawsuits already out there and the beginnings of established -- and wildly-contradictory -- case law on the rights of biological parents who get that way via non-traditional methods (i.e. egg and sperm donations, surrogate mothers, etc.) I'm not sure how I feel about it all, to be honest. Its very thorny and concept of the rights of the children seem to get lost in the all the screaming and flag-waving over the rights of the mother and father.

[–]boomguy 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh man, this is quite the can of worms, isn't it? I don't have a magic number, and I'm not sure there is one. Indeed, the idea of a "nuclear family" of two parents going it alone is very new, emerging only within the last 60 or so years and is largely a product of post WWII economic expansion that allowed married couples to purchase their own homes, and more importantly cars -- which allowed them to live greater than walking distance/public transit from their extended family and support system. Prior to that, most people lived in the same house as or walking distance to extended family and by default a build-in multi-generational support system that included aunts, uncles, grandparents, nieces, and nephews to assist in child-raising duties.

On a purely practical level, 2 > 1 simply because parents can take a tag-team approach to rearing up children. Its exhausting work, and having someone there to take over when you're at the end of your rope is HUGE. Having n+1 perspectives on a child's development and behavior (important with child of the opposite sex of the parent, particularly), also important.

Three may indeed be better than two, I simply don't know. At some point you're going to hit the delta, where some value of n actually creates more problems than it solves, but I don't know what that value is. Maybe ask that question of people who were raised in a commune-type situation, or in a multi-generation household? They'd probably have a better answer for you than I, since my take on that type of upbringing is pure conjecture.

[–]Alanna 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Life isn't equitable all the time, sometimes biology trumps philosophy.

Right, which is why the woman has 100% control over whether or not she has the baby.

Financial obligations are not biology.

At what point do the child's rights and best-interests engage?

Before the child is born, which is why the woman can choose to have the baby or not. Maybe she won't have the baby if she can't take the man's money without his consent.

Perhaps the gentleman should consider whether he is willing to risk fatherhood before he has unprotected sex.

But not the woman? When a woman has sex, she isn't signing a contract that if she gets pregnant, she must carry it to term and financially provide for it. And yet, you're saying that the man is signing away is rights when he has sex. Completely lopsided.

A woman gets to decide what she does with her body, but every individual should be able to decide what to do with their own money.

[–]raimondious 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

He signs away those rights because of the way our bodies are. He inherently loses control over what happens in the pregnancy once his sperm is out of his body. He can either have sex and risk the creation of a child, or he can not have sex. This is his right and also the fact he needs to consider before having sex with someone. Nobody is stopping him from making that consideration, just as they shouldn't stop the woman from her options once she's pregnant. It's not a lopsided injustice, it's just the lopsided way of nature.

Financial obligations are not biology, but if there is a child in the world that's yours, you're morally responsible for it. If you sign away your financial obligations, you're just putting your irresponsibility in writing. The child you don't care for will still be in the world, whether you think the woman who brought it to term was irresponsible for doing so or not. It's easy to say "I don't want to be financially responsible for a child," "you can just get an abortion," and "you can carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption." It's a lot harder for the woman to actually do those things.

[–]bluthru 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]raimondious 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Adoption is a morally responsible choice. I was saying it's morally irresponsible for the man to sign away his financial responsibility to the child and leaving it at that.

I really don't see how they're different in this case.

You accept the risk of being responsible for a child when you have sex with a woman who will keep the child if she gets pregnant.

Right, and this is wrong because the woman doesn't accept any risk of being responsible for a child when having sex. If you think this inequality is fine, then I guess we really don't have much to say to each other.

That was my point. The differences in our bodies justify the apparent lopsidedness in our rights and available choices.

I agree, but I think biology should dictate biology and not financial and legal matters. Intertwining the two isn't right.

[–]raimondious1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DownSoFar1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Life isn't equitable all the time, sometimes biology trumps philosophy.

Right, which is why the woman has 100% control over whether or not she has the baby.

Correct.

Financial obligations are not biology.

But they are inextricably linked to biology, and they are supported by law as well as social convention, in every society on this planet.

Before the child is born, which is why the woman can choose to have the baby or not. Maybe she won't have the baby if she can't take the man's money without his consent.

She's not taking his money, his money goes towards support of the child he has had a 50% share in producing.

Perhaps the gentleman should consider whether he is willing to risk fatherhood before he has unprotected sex.

But not the woman? When a woman has sex, she isn't signing a contract that if she gets pregnant, she must carry it to term and financially provide for it. And yet, you're saying that the man is signing away is rights when he has sex. Completely lopsided.

Do men have uteruses? No, then you're right it is completely lopsided, and that's the breaks. You might want to consider entering into sexual relationships with that understanding.

A woman gets to decide what she does with her body, but every individual should be able to decide what to do with their own money.

Really? Can I stop paying taxes without any legal repercussions, then?

[–]bluthru 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But they are inextricably linked to biology

What does this mean? A child dies when it only has the income of one parent? This statement makes no sense. Until you can understand how they aren't "inextricably linked", this discussion is pointless.

and they are supported by law as well as social convention, in every society on this planet.

Just because it's law doesn't make it right. Think pre Roe v. Wade or pre women's suffrage. We're talking about what should be the law. Convention != justice.

She's not taking his money, his money goes towards support of the child he has had a 50% share in producing.

If there was no such thing as abortion, I would agree with you. However, there is abortion and it gives the woman a choice.

For all intents and purposes (if you're pro choice), there is no child until it is born. Having the child is not inevitable, determined by the woman. It's not "for the child" if the woman has 100% say. The man has 0% say and the child has a 0% say as well. The woman is the actor, not the child.

Can you explain the differences between "50% share in producing" and "it's 100% my body and my choice"? The financial freedom of the man balances this.

Do men have uteruses? No, then you're right it is completely lopsided, and that's the breaks. You might want to consider entering into sexual relationships with that understanding.

The uterus's biological function is to take money from someone else? No? Then you can't use the biology argument here.

Here's an example of the biological argument working: Men have no say in a woman's pregnancy because 100% of the baby is in the woman.

Here's an example of the biological argument failing: Women have a uterus so men are required to provide for the child.

Really? Can I stop paying taxes without any legal repercussions, then?

Apart from taxes, then. Strawmen are annoying.

The difference is that one chooses to be part of society. You're free to live off the grid in the middle of nowhere undetected if you want to evade taxes.

[–]saucisse -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

What does this mean? A child dies when it only has the income of one parent? This statement makes no sense. Until you can understand how they aren't "inextricably linked", this discussion is pointless.

The definitely suffer a strong financial disadvantage. They also suffer an emotional disadvantage (again: cue angry replies from happy adults raised by single parents) of not having both parents available to support them as individuals, and to take the stress off each other during the exhausting business of raising up children.

Just because it's law doesn't make it right. Think pre Roe v. Wade or pre women's suffrage. We're talking about what should be the law. Convention != justice.

There is universal convention around parental rights and responsibilities. The boundaries and definitions vary from society to society, but there is not one society on earth that does not hold people responsible for their own heirs.

You are talking about introducing new law to allow person A to unilaterally terminate rights belonging to person B.

If there was no such thing as abortion, I would agree with you. However, there is abortion and it gives the woman a choice.

Agreed. But it does not give a child a choice whether or not to be born.

For all intents and purposes (if you're pro choice), there is no child until it is born. Having the child is not inevitable, determined by the woman. It's not "for the child" if the woman has 100% say. The man has 0% say and the child has a 0% say as well. The woman is the actor, not the child.

I am both pro-choice and a realist. If a woman has a baby, then lets say the baby is instantiated at birth. All rights to parental support are attached to the child at that instant. You are still suggesting that Parent A be able to unilaterally terminate that child's rights to parental support at the moment of instantiation.

Can you explain the differences between "50% share in producing" and "it's 100% my body and my choice"? The financial freedom of the man balances this.

False. There is no child without a father, it is physically impossible. The rights to parental support belong to the child. Nobody's desire for "financial freedom" trumps that.

Do men have uteruses? No, then you're right it is completely lopsided, and that's the breaks. You might want to consider entering into sexual relationships with that understanding.

The uterus's biological function is to take money from someone else? No? Then you can't use the biology argument here.

Of course I can.

Here's an example of the biological argument working: Men have no say in a woman's pregnancy because 100% of the baby is in the woman.

True.

Here's an example of the biological argument failing: Women have a uterus so men are required to provide for the child.

False. Child emerges from the womb. Man is required to support child.

Really? Can I stop paying taxes without any legal repercussions, then?

Apart from taxes, then. Strawmen are annoying.

Haha, so I have total freedom of choice in financial matters except for those matters I have no choice in?

The difference is that one chooses to be part of society. You're free to live off the grid in the middle of nowhere undetected if you want to evade taxes.

I suppose. Do babies have the choice of whether or not to be born?

[–]bluthru1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The definitely suffer a strong financial disadvantage. They also suffer an emotional disadvantage (again: cue angry replies from happy adults raised by single parents) of not having both parents available to support them as individuals, and to take the stress off each other during the exhausting business of raising up children.

Why do women and the system think taking part of the man's paycheck is sufficient, then? Why would a mother choose to bring up a child like that in a less-than-ideal environment? There is no child until it is born, so it could only be selfish motivations of the mother.

You are still suggesting that Parent A be able to unilaterally terminate that child's rights to parental support at the moment of instantiation.

Or Parent B by having the child to one parent. It's a choice, remember? You must be consistent. Again, you're speaking as if child birth is inevitable.

False. There is no child without a father, it is physically impossible. The rights to parental support belong to the child. Nobody's desire for "financial freedom" trumps that.

"The right to parent support belong to the child. Nobody's desire for 'not being a mother' trumps that."

There is no child until the mother decides to have it. We exist in a society where birthing a child is a choice.

If you think it's a child's right to have two parents, then why do you think it's ok for a mother to have a child without a father? The point is that if two people aren't on board, the women should think long and hard before being a single mother. It's a selfish choice by the mother, not some sort of benevolence for a child that doesn't exist yet. The decision to keep the child is being made before there is a child. The child would be better off not existing rather than a woman keeping the kid for her own pleasure and part of the father's paycheck.

Of course I can.

Good one... Where is it in our genetic makeup that the male is held accountable for the woman's decision? It's no more present in our DNA than a woman being forced to have a baby and not abort it.

False. Child emerges from the womb. Man is required to support child.

Hello? Biology says so? No.

Do babies have the choice of whether or not to be born?

This question is nonsensical. Non-living things don't have choice.

[–]Celda1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkamir 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]darkamir 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DownSoFar1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did you even read it?

Who May Leave a Baby at a Safe Haven

In most States with safe haven laws, either parent may surrender his or her baby to a safe haven. In four States, only the mother may relinquish her infant. Idaho specifies that only a custodial parent may surrender an infant. In approximately 11 States, an agent of the parent (someone who has the parent’s approval) may take a baby to a safe haven for a parent. In California and Kansas, if the person relinquishing the infant is someone other than a parent, he or she must have legal custody of the child. Seven States do not specify the person who may relinquish an infant.

I'd love to see a father absolved of Child Support and NOT put in jail when he drops the baby off at one of these things. The likelihood of them not going after the father in some way, shape, or form is functionally nil when the mother runs around screaming WHERE'S MY BABY?!

[–]DownSoFar1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

MEN cannot use safe haven unless they have sole legal custody.

...

Did you even read it?

Who May Leave a Baby at a Safe Haven

In most States with safe haven laws, either parent may surrender his or her baby to a safe haven.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

I'd love to see a father absolved of Child Support and NOT put in jail when he drops the baby off at one of these things.

Can you even provide me an instance of a father using safe haven provisions and going to jail? No? Just throwing out a bit of hysteria, then?

You've already demonstrated that you're willing to make shit up in order to fuel your outrage, and you won't even admit that you're wrong when presented with evidence. You actually quoted the evidence that you are wrong as proof that you're right. The thought process behind that mystifies me. I'd be ashamed, if I were you. Come back when you've acquired some intellectual honesty.

[–]Celda 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]numb3rb0y 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]numb3rb0y -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But we're not talking about mandatory shared custody, we're talking about purely financial arrangements. In that context, society (through the government) is entirely capable of paying the same amount of money to the custodial parent as the non-custodial parent would be forced to pay under the present system. It may not be desirable to many and it would certainly result in either significantly increased taxation or major budgetary changes, but it would be entirely possible.

Of course, the normal response to this is that it would be unfair to force people to pay for children they weren't responsible for, but this is almost hilarious in its irony considering that the present system happily holds parents responsible for children when they had significantly less agency in the creation of the child than the other partner, or none at all in the case of male rape and statutory rape victims.

[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

But we're not talking about mandatory shared custody, we're talking about purely financial arrangements. In that context, society (through the government) is entirely capable of paying the same amount of money to the custodial parent as the non-custodial parent would be forced to pay under the present system. It may not be desirable to many and it would certainly result in either significantly increased taxation or major budgetary changes, but it would be entirely possible.

It is theoretically possible, but only through increased taxation of the general population. How well do you think that's going to fly, these days? I don't particularly relish the idea of paying for other people's kids simply because they don't feel like it. Why should I expect them to pay for mine?

On a practical level I think it has the consequence (unintended? not so sure) of encouraging capricious abandonment. "I don't feel like being a parent so I'm just going to dump all responsibility on Parent B and make "society" pay with their payroll taxes". Its an easy way out of a very complex and complicated relationship, and I don't believe that child-support should be easily written off by anyone.

Of course, the normal response to this is that it would be unfair to force people to pay for children they weren't responsible for, but this is almost hilarious in its irony considering that the present system happily holds parents responsible for children when they had significantly less agency in the creation of the child than the other partner, or none at all in the case of male rape and statutory rape victims.

I agree with you that the legality around this is poorly defined and even more poorly executed in practice. I would also add in the conflicting legal opinions on support of children who are the product of extra-marital affairs. I am not sure how I feel about that, especially when dad has a strong parental relationship with a child that turns out not to be his, biologically. What then?

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NiceGuysSTFU-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Torger0833 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NiceGuysSTFU1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Torger0831 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NiceGuysSTFU1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aldraek-4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru6 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]aldraek-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xcydal1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]canijoinin 80 points81 points82 points 14 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ragnrok 64 points65 points66 points 14 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]canijoinin 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]IlliniJeeper 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SystemOutPrintln -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]om_nom_nom 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]IlliniJeeper 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]om_nom_nom 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Patti234 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ragnrok 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Patti234 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sp0radic 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Patti234 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DownSoFar 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Patti is saying that his/her anecdote that the government isn't collecting child support from a man who it thinks is verifiably 'insane' is equivalent to

No, that's not what Patti is saying at all, Patti has told you that already. There's nothing in there about equivalence.

A man has to be verifiably insane before the government decides not to collect child support; a woman just has to be... a woman.

You're full of shit. Look! A presumably legally sane man that got away with not paying child support. Patti uses scare quotes around legally insane for a reason. Want to guess what that reason is? I'm betting it has to do with the clause following it. People who put wealth ahead of providing for their own children will find any reason available to avoid supporting their children. Patti's providing her (?) father's reason does not in any way imply an equivalency with other cases. You're completely wrong in your previous statement. Especially seeing as though (despite your stupid as fuck assertions) being a woman is not used as a reason to avoid paying child support.

[–]rockidol 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChipWhip 17 points18 points19 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]canijoinin 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't want to get into a debate about if abortion is murder.

Neither do I. I didn't use the word murder anywhere in my post. However, when I encounter a wrong statement like the one I replied to, that there is no actual human growing in the womb - and see that it's getting upvotes, too - I can't just let it slide. It's false (I can't say that without thinking of Dwight K. Shrute, ha ha!), and is completely contradicted by science. Every one of us begins as the fusion of a human egg cell, with 23 human genes, and a human sperm cell, with 23 genes. How can such a being not be human at any stage of development?

This thread is about how society regards men vs. women about their involvement as parents.

It's also about the double standard with which we view children: disposable and unimportant before birth, particularly if the mother doesn't want them, but then important and deserving of protection and provision after birth. You can clearly see it, reading through the comments.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atlas440 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Alanna2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So much is wrong with that silly picture (seen it before). For one thing, comparing an acorn or an egg to a fetus is ridiculous - a better analogy would be to compare them to a sperm or an egg cell. An acorn left to its own devices won't turn into an oak tree; it has to somehow be planted. An egg won't turn into a chicken if it's not fertilized. An embryo is not the same as an egg or an acorn - it's comparable to a seedling or an embryonic chicken.

The other problem I have with your reply is that last line. I'll explain why.

Stages of pregnancy go something like this (I've left out a bunch of them but you can easily find this information yourself if you want to)

*zygote, days 1 - 4 after conception (you're not pregnant at this point, as implantation has not yet occurred)

*blastocyst, day 5 - the blastocyst divides, then implants around day 7, and then begins to differentiate into germination layers, at which point it is considered an

*embryo, until the 9th week - during the embryonic stage it begins to develops the spinal column, brain, heart, limbs (by the end of this stage it has arms, legs, hands, and feet), bones, a blood supply, organs, eyes, hair, and facial features. A challenge: look at a picture of an 8-week-old embryo and see for yourself. At that point, it looks human....because it is human.

*fetus, from 9 weeks until the end of the pregnancy - all organs and bodily systems appear and mature.

So that's why I have a problem with the last line of your post - a zygote of any species will contain the full set of genetic information required to develop it into a mature creature of that species. Humans included. So for you to say "it's not a human it's a zygote", you'd have to ignore a lot of science. At any stage of human pregnancy, the being growing inside the uterus of the woman is human, by virtue of its human DNA. This is a demonstrable fact. There is no point during pregnancy where it isn't human or where it somehow becomes a human - it's human right from the start.

Also, zygotes don't have anything to do with abortion; at that point, the woman is not aware that the egg has been fertilized, and technically she's not yet pregnant, so zygotes never get aborted. The most common stage for abortions to occur is between weeks 7 and 9, when it becomes a fetus. At that stage it has a beating heart, brain waves, limbs, some organs, and is capable of movement. It's alive.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ViP_Suite 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 25 points26 points27 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ViP_Suite 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]saucisse 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]saucisse0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Amnesty abandonment is crazy, I'd rather not talk about it here (unless you want me to go on a rant about moral hazard, which maybe you do!)

I'm not sure how to answer the issue about can't find/don't know: if she can't find him, what is the solution to an unwanted child? Abortion by default? That seems like the opposite of the "solution" being argued in this thread, no?

Looking for the source for consent requirements. I have in my head some news stories from years ago about women being required to publish general announcements of intention to give up for adoption in order to look for the father, and how controversial it was due to the shame angle. I was (until I started googling) sure that this was something passed into law, and now I'm wondering if it was a bill under vote since I can't find anything. I"ll keep trying though, I'm nothing if not a) stubborn and b) totally in love with the feeling of being right. :D

[–]Bobsutan2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think a simple disincentive for paternity fraud or birth theft (similar to divorce theft) would be to allow men 30 days upon notification they are a father to opt-out. If women knew men had the option to opt-out as they do, I strongly supsect women trying to dupe men into indentured servitude via child support would be drastically reduced. Then again the same effect could be accomplished by reducing child support to the actual needs of the child, provided for by both parents contributing to a child support fund similar to an HSA that is only usable by legally authorized purposes. Mom going on vacation or having elective cosmetic surgery and the like using what's suppose to be money for the kid would be a thing of the past. Hell, just introducing a means of auditing where CS funds go would be a great step in the right direction. Currently nobody cares what mom actually uses the funds on, which is flat out wrong. You're taking money from one person and giving it to another person with zero accountability. That's entirely indefensible.

[–]saucisse0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Chandon -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chandon 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]DownSoFar -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chandon 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DownSoFar -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You mean they're duties

Duty and responsibility are synonyms. One is used in a more formal setting ("duty of care", "sworn duty"), but they both mean the same thing: an obligation to perform (or refrain from) certain acts.

Responsibilities must be accepted willingly.

So if I don't want to maintain the ecosystem I'm a part of, I don't have that responsibility? Do employers not have a responsibility to provide a safe work environment for their employees (granted that they don't want that responsibility)? Do I even have a responsibility to follow the law? When did I agree to that?

Regarding your edit:

if you just think in terms of the rights of your neighbors, there's no problem here.

When did I agree to a duty (a.k.a. responsibility) to respect the rights of my neighbors? =P

This is not even an ethics issue. The definition of "responsibility" is

A thing that one is required to do as part of a job, role, or legal obligation.

Or if you prefer:

something for which one is responsible (i.e. liable to be called on to answer)

It doesn't matter if you've willingly accepted the responsibility. If you have an obligation to do something, you have a responsibility to do it, by definition. For example, children have a responsibility to complete whatever chores their parents assign to them. Children who don't do their chores are irresponsible.

So, yeah. You're just wrong in your statement that a responsibility must be chosen. It's actually sort of embarrassing for you to argue the point, to be honest.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SweetJeebus 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]canijoinin -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ishmael999 39 points40 points41 points 14 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]NickRausch 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]SweetJeebus 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TicTokCroc -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]xcydal 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc-5 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xcydal3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc-6 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bobsutan2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xcydal 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ishmael999 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]communicatrix 34 points35 points36 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kleptofridge 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oligobop 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]communicatrix 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]solidwhetstone -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TicTokCroc -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]troikaman 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IronWolve 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]numb3rb0y 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spagma 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]lovedrunk 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]RedAnarchist -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]rockidol 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedAnarchist 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LoveCurves 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. (1)Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. (2) Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. (3) Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. (4) There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it."[Enumeration mine]

Notice that the right to abortion is more focused on freedom from motherhood rather than control over one's body. Where is a man's right to be free of fatherhood?

If we do not give men the same rights to be free of fatherhood (meaning without the partner's consent), then we must ban abortion under all situations other than as a medical procedure to save the life of the mother.

[–]PsychicChinchilla 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I suppose I always thought that the "freedom of motherhood" was paid from the price of the mother always being seen as the responsible party. She didn't keep her legs closed, she didn't push him to wear a condom, she didn't have a backup method in place. She didn't protect herself and it is mostly her fault that she got pregnant. Some even stretch this responsibility to rape victims but this is not about that. Sorry for even bringing that up. Now that she has this society induced pressure some freedoms are put in to relieve it I suppose. It's rather difficult to justify I must admit.

THIS ONLY GOES FOR BEFORE THE BABY IS BORN NOT AFTER JUST THOUGHT I'D MAKE THAT CLEAR NOW

But it may not be as simple as that either. We have to accept that when it comes to fetuses, and the pregnancy part of this issue, men and women will never be equal. Biology is a powerful thing. It's been said a thousand times that pregnancy is not an easy process, and child birth can permanently alter the women's body (vagina mostly) or leave a rather large scar. The only fair way I can see a man taking his right to fatherhood (ie. stopping an abortion) when the woman does not want to carry the baby, would be to carry it himself. But he can't. That is why it will always be an unequal time, and that's sad but I don't know anyway to get around that.

[–]Demonspawn 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]PsychicChinchilla 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Here is what you do.

Now, I'd like to live in an ideal world where every woman would be okay with getting an abortion. Really, really would. But see, I'm well aware this isn't the case. You can't force a medical procedure on someone, and there are some women, for whatever reasons, that cannot get an abortion. Some are religious, some are ethical (such as not being aware of a pregnancy until a few months in, where she feels it is a human being), and some are medical (if she has an abortion, she dies/suffers infertility).

I would simply not abide by a system that would fuck over so very many people, burdening them with the choice of giving them up for adoption, or raising them in financial destituion. There are men who would say "Well Suzy, sure sucks your ovaries will be destroyed if you get an abortion, but, well, I'm not paying for your fucking kid. TOODLE OO!" Simply put, no one should be a victim of circumstance.

1) Give people the OPTION of signing a contract on financial abortion, and bind them to it if it is signed. Should the woman go ahead with the pregnancy, it is now her problem, WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS:

There is evidence of physical coercion/physical violence associated with the signatures. If this is the case, and it is proven in the court of law within reasonable measures, the contract is null
The woman has an obligation to inform the man of the pregnancy. This is to be done by a third party agency. Should the man not be informed of the pregnancy within a reasonable timeframe, the contract is considered signed
The woman becomes financially destitute for whatever reason and simply cannot afford the child rearing duties financially. If so, section 2) applies
A man has no right to infringe upon the bodily rights of a woman. He cannot force her to keep a child she does not wish to carry

2) A child is not entitled to his or her father's wallet any more than the father is entitled to his children's. A child's status in life should NOT be predicated upon who the mother had sex with, especially as any man who would abide by these minimums most likely (and regrettably) does not wish to be in that child's life. Anyone who suggests that a loving father would not, as a rule or even guideline, go above and beyond these minimums if it is in his capability is clearly a bigot. Suzy is not entitled to getting a sports vehicle for her sixteenth because her estranged father happened to be loaded, and Johnny should not be left destitute and wearing potato sacks because his biological father makes $300 a week.

Children are, however, entitled to food, shelter, emotional and physical security. This is why I propose the following guidelines:

Children residing in the sole custody of one parent are obligated to a bare minimum stipend to help cover the cost of food, clothing, shelter, and costs associated with the basic needs of education such as school supplies, and if the publicly-funded school requires it, uniforms. The amount will be determined based on review of the speculated costs of these things in the area the child resides.
Children in joint custody will be awarded this stipend only if they spend a measurable amount more at one parent's vs the other's. Should it be reasonably equal, unless proven that the child's needs are not being met fairly or if one parent is in a significantly more economically strained than the other, little or no stipend will be awarded
All or some of this stipend will come for the non-custodial parent, depending on his economic status. Should he fall below the poverty line within his geographical area, some or all of this stipend will be provided via the government.
Should the system find the man fully capable of providing this stipend without falling into financial strait, he will be obligated to pay it in full
Should the non-custodial parent providing the stipend in some or full amount feel's that it is not going toward his or her needs, he reserves the right to request any and all proofs of purchases. These disputes will be handled with a case-worker

[–]PsychicChinchilla 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Really liked you post, but I felt I needed to reply to your points as well. Possibly shake out a few other details

1) I believe this was covered in other reply's, but I did have some small problems with your caveats.

Having a physical violence clause seems like a great idea in a world where women (and men) do not lie about being physically violent. And I always have issue when the courts decide intent (since it's nearly impossible to prove intent even when you have a tape of the encounter in question), ie we can see he hit you, but was it because he wanted you to sign the paper? Or was it some other reason self defense or something unjustified but that's not covered under these terms? I just wouldn't want this to be another "they'll just cry violence forcing me to pay" things.

Also the last one may be redundant since most men wouldn't feel the need to force an abortion if they can gain a financial one. That just seems a bit weird but then I could be reading everything incorrectly

I may just be being nit picky

2)See I always thought that this WAS what child support is. You may want to re-write that for people who don't understand the in's an outs of child support payments. I just looked it up and now your point makes sense. Child support being a percentage of the fathers income as opposed to a set number based on basic food, shelter and necessities costs. Which seems unfair until you really think about how many fathers are paying child support and how diverse this group of estranged parents is. Since when has the government been any good at that kind of organization?

Food, water and to an extent clothing is pretty easy to find an average for, but shelters pretty damn tricky. This depends on what the mother by herself could afford vs how much more she pays to be in a larger place (a one bedroom up from a studio lets say) in order to have enough room for two people. Then you have to wonder how much space do two people need? What if you had many children and support 2 or more? What if the father makes very little money and it would take his whole paycheck to pay for his "share" of little billy's food shelter clothes and schooling. How much should the government help out exactly? More case to case stuff gumming up the process.

Schooling! It's possible the mother could have come away like a thief and sends their son to a fancy school, how much of that should the father pay?

It would be the largest logistical nightmare ever thought of to work out how much each individual father would have to pay based on both his income and what the mother may need or not need. And then classifying and putting a value on the food the child needs thus assessing what his stipend is and then it has to be re-evaluated every year or less to compensate for his/her growth and the changing amount of money the father can or cannot provide.

It just seems like a big idea that is outrageously impractical because of the amount of variables involved. It's interesting but I was looking for something that could actually be something, especially just small changes.

The biggest obstacle in fairness, especially in this issue, is efficiency. Case to case decision making, based on all the evidence for this set of parents, and nothing else is possibly the fairest way to rule. But we just don't have the time an resources. So we must be efficient.

The simpler the better, KISS and all that. When it's simple people can't twist rules or abuse the system as easily. Hence why I believe most child support is a % of income. That way it will always be "within the means" of the father to pay it in theory. And if even that is being mishandled or abused, well all I can say is we better not make it any more complicated

[+]elebrin -13 points-12 points-11 points 14 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]SenorSpicyBeans 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]banksnld 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]elebrin -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lulfas-2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]navychica 14 years ago* [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

A fetus has 23 pairs of chromosomes, which makes it classified as a human. The DNA is different from the mother's, making it a separate human being. Honestly though, the fetal homicide laws seem to contradict legalized abortion.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

A fetus has 23 pairs of chromosomes, which makes it classified as a human.

So people with an extra chromosome aren't human? Furthermore, these animals also have 23 pairs of chromosomes, so I guess they are human now

Humans (Homo sapiens) - Muntjacs (Muntiacus reevesi) - Black rat (Rattus rattus) , but not all of them have 46 - European hare (Lepus europeus) - Merriam’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus canus) - Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis) - Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa) - Beach vole (Microtus breweri) - Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus) - Kirk’s dik-dik (Rhynchotragus kirki) - Grey vole (Microtus arvalis) - Large bentwing bat (miniopterus schreibersi) - Bolivian Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys boliviensis) - Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi) - Crowned Lemur (Lemur mongoz coronatus) - Red Titi (Callicebus cupreus)

[+]navychica 14 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

All right, what makes us human? What's your definition, that manages to exclude human fetuses so you can justify abortion?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]boomguy 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DownSoFar 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]navychica 14 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

So would a fetus past, say the 25 week mark when it's possible that they could survive outside the mother's body, be considered human?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]elebrin -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]cooj -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cooj 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]cooj 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I was helping him with his definition, not stating my own. I evidently wasn't precise enough. If you want to get into this, we can. I've been around this block a few times before...

What really matters is personhood. Personhood requires humanity, a unique genetic code for individuality, and inhabitation (complex moral term that basically means the thing carves out space for itself). All three are required on my definition, but some people like to say that chimps/dolphins/crows can have personhood, which I can live with.

A thing is conferred rights at the moment it gains personhood. If a thing has no personhood, then it may as well be a rock morally speaking. I like to use the "fetal death ray" argument here. If the fetus is a worthless lump of cells akin to a rock, then it's not only true that the mother can destroy the lump of cells, it's true that anyone can destroy the cells using a hypothetical fetal death ray. Suppose a death ray could be constructed such that, when aimed at a fetus by any passerby on the street, would make one small tweak to the genetic code of the fetus so that when it was born it could never breathe air. The mother's body would be completely unchanged and unharmed, the fetus would just be altered in such a way that it died upon delivery. This would be morally neutral behavior if the fetus was just a lump of cells akin to a rock, but our intuitions tell us that something is wrong there.

I own a gun, and I have the right to clean out the chambers of my gun. However if I use the trigger and point the gun at my child's head, I'm infringing upon the rights of another person (the most important right, in fact: life). A woman has a uterus, and has the right to clean out her uterus. That being said, her right to have a clean uterus does not supersede the right to life of the child.

[–]abk0100 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cooj 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]elebrin -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Alanna 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rockidol 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]elebrin 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rockidol 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thatusernameisal 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]therealbarackobama 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]CoonTown 14 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Why having sufficient access to the emotional resources of the father isn't also an absolute right of the child is beyond me.

How do you propose you would compel a parent (mother or father) to be emotionally available to the child?

[–]rantgrrl 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]venomous_harridan -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rantgrrl 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]snkscore 22 points23 points24 points 14 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]snkscore 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shitposter2 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]snkscore -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Torger083 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deus_Imperator 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kleptofridge 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SweetJeebus 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]boomguy 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]JenniferLopez -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]boomguy 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]JenniferLopez -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]boomguy 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JenniferLopez 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JenniferLopez 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]EvilPundit 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JenniferLopez -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JenniferLopez -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Starcast 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JenniferLopez -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JenniferLopez -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Tiby312 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]misnamed 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]snkscore 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]snkscore 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

if the fetus growing in the woman's womb isn't a human being, what is it?

Obviously we'd need to agree to some definition of a human being, or I'd have to use more specific language in my post but I'd say that the fetus is just that: a "human fetus". If it makes it easier to discuss I'd say that what I've been calling a human being might more easily be called a "person" whereas a fetus is a growing embryo, and not a person.

If someone was decapitated in a car accident, but through the miracles of modern medicine the doctors were able to keep his body alive by connecting it to a bunch of machines surely no one would consider that thing a living person anymore. It's got human DNA and it's heart is beating, but the brain is gone, it's just flesh and bone. A embryo has not a single brain cell. It can't think a single thought or "feel" anything.

And what's your scientific evidence for holding that position? Everything I've read on the subject indicates that we are human right from conception - the sperm is human, the egg is human, the combined 46 chromosomes comprise a complete set of fully human DNA.

Shortly after conception the blastocyst is growing with cells each containing human DNA. But I think this falls far short of being a person. It can grow into one, but it isn't one. As a minor aside, I think you are also incorrect to say that sperm and eggs are human, unless you are suggesting that masturbators and menstruating women are both murders.

When does it suddenly become a human?

This is a question for which I don't think we have a good answer. It would be like asking, at what exact point does green become purple: http://www.kinemac.com/products/kinemac/next/150/gradient_stage.jpg

Right now, in terms of us law, the fetus gains some level of rights at the time of viability. Once the fetus reaches a point where it could survive, it ceases to be just a fetus and starts to be considered a human in the eyes of the law. That seems like a good point to me as well, if not even earlier.

A fetus that is 39.9 weeks old is basically an infant. A fetus that is 0.1 weeks old is basically nothing. Along the path from "a clump of 10 cells" to "a baby on the verge of being born" it grows into a human. But I don't know if there is a way to point to a day on the calendar and declare this the day that the fetus is now more than just a fetus.

A interesting thought experiment I like to propose when people insist that fertilized embryos are in fact, equal to human babies: imagine you find yourself outside a burning down office that contained a nursery and an invetro fertilization clinic. You run inside to see if anyone needs help. On your left is a little freezer containing 100 fertilized embryos. On the right is a crying baby. You only have time to save one. Either the 100 frozen embryos or the baby. I've never met anyone who would pick to save the 100 embyos.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If someone was decapitated in a car accident, but through the miracles of modern medicine the doctors were able to keep his body alive by connecting it to a bunch of machines surely no one would consider that thing a living person anymore. It's got human DNA and it's heart is beating, but the brain is gone, it's just flesh and bone.

That's not the same thing.

A embryo has not a single brain cell.

Not so...the brain and spinal column begin developing during the embryonic stage, which is basically from implantation (7 days after the egg is fertilized) to the 9th week of pregnancy. Brain waves have been detected during the embryonic stage...you cannot have brain waves without brain cells. They are capable of movement, which requires nervous tissue, and they are capable of detecting and responding to things in their environment - a needle, for example. Again, brain matter is required for that to happen. Whether they feel pain or not is irrelevant; we don't perform surgery on people who are paralyzed without anesthetic just because they can't feel it, as that would be inhumane.

As a minor aside, I think you are also incorrect to say that sperm and eggs are human, unless you are suggesting that masturbators and menstruating women are both murders.

I meant "human" in the same sense that you could identify my skin cells or muscle cells as human rather than some other species. Not that they are a human - that would be ridiculous indeed.

A interesting thought experiment I like to propose when people insist that fertilized embryos are in fact, equal to human babies:

I'd save the baby too. My point all along hasn't been that an embryo is the same as a newborn; my point has been that, while it's far less developed, it's no less human. I'm not talking about personhood or legality; just humanity. They are human.

[–]snkscore -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's got human DNA and it's heart is beating, but the brain is gone, it's just flesh and bone.

That's not the same thing.

Why not? This seems like a similar thing to me. You say later that you are not talking about any type of equality of "value" but simply that a fetus is human. Surely a person with massive brain damage still is human right? Even though he has no brain function and is effectively dead, the body laying there being kept alive by machines is still human. Maybe you don't even disagree with any of this and it's all down to my use loose of the term "human being" to describe what I consider to be a "living person" as opposed to a human fetus or brain dead human body.

Not so...

I'm not an expert in the field, but some quick google searchers show that a lot of stuff in this paragraph is well-debunked stuff being pushed by the pro-life side. Pain sensation at 26 weeks. Brain waves not before 20 weeks etc.

"Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks."

we don't perform surgery on people who are paralyzed without anesthetic just because they can't feel it

Honestly I'd assume that they wouldn't bother with anesthetic for minor things. I couldn't find anything online one way or another, but if someone who is paralyzed from the waste down cuts their leg badly, you'd think the doctor would give them a shot of novocaine before sewing up their leg? I'd be really surprised if that were the case. What's the point? They can't feel it.

If you were doing open hear surgery, well then of course you want them unconscious, but not because of pain sensation but because you don't want them moving around during the process.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Starcast-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'll give it a go!

If the fetus growing in the woman's womb isn't a human being, what is it?

A human fetus. Just a part of the woman, though for a short time.

When does it suddenly become a human? And what's your scientific evidence for holding that position?

I always thought birth to be a fine cutoff for these types of things. I suppose I don't have any real science to back my claims.

Everything I've read on the subject indicates that we are human right from conception - the sperm is human, the egg is human, the combined 46 chromosomes comprise a complete set of fully human DNA

I'll throw this one back at you - What is a human being? Do you just need those 46 magical chromosomes? What about people with an extra chromosome? Or a missing one? Are they no longer human? How many missing is acceptable? What if I could turned off all the right genes and started expressing the blocked ones? The result would be the same DNA, yet completely different in every meaningful way.

At any stage of pregnancy, you can take cells from the fetus and readily identify it as a human one by sampling its DNA (and once it's big enough, just looking at it makes it obvious which species it is).

DNA test on my dead skin cells would reveal the same thing, and what part of webbed toes and feet appears human to you? I would argue that fetuses are the furthest we get from being human in our entire lifetime (depending on when one starts the clock).

Science shows that the unborn are human. It also shows that they're alive. Have you any evidence to the contrary?

My liver is not only alive, but diploid too. If I cut it out of me would it deserve habeas corpus? No, because that would be silly. Science shows that the unborn have human characteristics. Whether they are living could be argued. Have YOU any evidence to the contrary?

I humbly suggest that fetuses are simply a part of a person, until the moment of birth where they are able to maintain homeostasis independently.

[–][deleted]3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Thanks for answering - a lot of people simply brush me off when I ask this question!

Just a part of the woman,

But it's not part of her body. It has unique DNA that differs from hers - before implantation, the zygote secretes a substance designed to slightly suppress the mother's immune system so that it won't reject it as foreign tissue when it burrows into the uterine wall. It also develops its own blood supply, often with a different blood type than the mother. Heck, half the time it's not even the same sex as its mother. It's not part of her body. It resides within hers, but it isn't part of it.

I always thought birth to be a fine cutoff for these types of things

The problem with that is that there's not much difference between a fetus at, say 22 weeks and one who's just been born at term, other than size and preparedness of bodily systems. It's rather like the difference between a newborn and an adult - both human, but one much smaller and less developed.

I'll throw this one back at you - What is a human being? Do you just need those 46 magical chromosomes? What about people with an extra chromosome? Or a missing one? Are they no longer human? How many missing is acceptable? What if I could turned off all the right genes and started expressing the blocked ones? The result would be the same DNA, yet completely different in every meaningful way.

Obviously, people with chromosomal abnormalities are still human, but on a genetic level they are still readily identifiable as human beings. My point was not that one must have only 46 and that anyone differing was subhuman! It was that right from conception we can be identified as human - a geneticist examining it could tell that it's human rather than a primate or some other mammal.

what part of webbed toes and feet appears human to you?

So if it doesn't look exactly like you and me, it's not human? What about babies who are born with webbed fingers and toes? Are they not human because they don't look like they should? Everything that happens during gestation has a purpose, even webbing. It doesn't mean they aren't human...it's simply a developmental phase they grow through.

My liver is not only alive, but diploid too. If I cut it out of me would it deserve habeas corpus? No, because that would be silly.

A developing fetus is different than one organ...comparing the two is as silly as the notion that your liver deserves habeas corpus.

Science shows that the unborn have human characteristics.

Because they're human.

Whether they are living could be argued. Have YOU any evidence to the contrary?

Is there evidence that a being who moves, has a beating heart, produces brain waves, responds to stimuli, and dreams is not alive? Fascinating! I haven't seen any evidence that this is true, though...everything I have read (and not from pro-life sites, either...I don't like biased information) indicates that they are very much alive.

I humbly suggest that fetuses are simply a part of a person, until the moment of birth

I humbly disagree. : ) Besides all the stuff I've read over the years, having been pregnant three times myself, some of the things I experienced during those times were rather compelling also. All three of my fetuses (feels odd to call them that, ha!) behaved as individuals rather than simply parts of my body. Once they were far enough along for their hearing to develop, they each responded differently to the same sound stimuli - the sound of their father's voice, the sound of me playing my piano loudly, television. They had their own unique movement habits - my first would stretch hugely, feet out to one side and butt to the other, and he continued to stretch the same way after birth. Still does (he's 7 now). My daughter spent the last 4 months of the pregnancy with her feet wedged up under my right ribs (yeah, it was as comfy for me as it sounds...). Our other daughter used to poke me with her hand right in the belly button. I know, I know, it's anecdotal evidence...but in talking with other moms, I've found that many of them can share similar experiences: that their babies behaved as individuals even before birth. So much goes on in the brain of a fetus; we are learning more and more about them all the time. The more they uncover, the more obvious it becomes that we are not simply part of our mothers before birth, but that we're individuals who are very much alive.

Thanks for taking the time to answer me...it's nice to be able to have a respectful discussion on this topic. That's hard to do online! : )

[+]adamwong246 14 years ago* [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

I posted this on FB and in the insuing fallout, the response was this: "Abandonment of a child and abortion of a child are not equivalent."

[–]PushTheLittleDaisies 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]womblefish 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]spagma -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]adamwong246 14 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

Disagree

[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]adamwong246 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]adamwong246 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]adamwong246 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wizzard13 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]mackey187 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wizzard13 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This is a failure of society to properly educate young men that when you have intercourse with a woman you have to be 100% OK with a child being a potential result. That doesn't mean that it always will be the result but that means that we should educate young men to choose their mate wisely b/c it could be the result. If you're having intercourse with someone you don't want to have a child with them then that is not recommended.

Still, if the guy wanted to escape he probably could. Most of the time child support won't get you jail time. The choice is still yours to make who you mate with even if you're avoiding pregnancy. Men want all of the choice but none of the responsibility. There are far more cases of dead beat dads than men going to jail for failure to pay child support and it's silly to pretend otherwise. They should go to jail if they could support their child and they don't and this hopefully would dissuade young men from thinking that they can have sex with no consequences.

[–]spagma 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]numb3rb0y -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]numb3rb0y1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kleptofridge -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wizzard13 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]wizzard13 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wizzard13 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sillyhatsnthings 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sillyhatsnthings3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dewisri 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seel007 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dewisri-5 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nadrik -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]dewisri 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]DrunkenVillain 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]dewisri -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]boomguy 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dewisri 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]boomguy 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpawnQuixote 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]venomous_harridan -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]venomous_harridan 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dewisri -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]petedacook 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SweetJeebus 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]petedacook 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kimano 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nadrik 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]CellarDorre -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nadrik 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CellarDorre -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

As opposed to depriving a father of a child he wanted to raise, but the mother didn't, so she aborted?

Again, this relies a lot on biology and things that really can't be changed. It's not as simple as just handing over a child to a father who wants it. There's the pregnancy and delivery.

Obviously they should discuss the situation and hopefully the woman would be okay with going through all of that for them, but it's still a huge thing to ask of them.

So if the father wants the child, and the mother doesn't she can just go ahead and abort.

You're not looking at both sides. They're not undergoing the same thing in this situation. Obviously they need to talk about the situation, but ultimately, if she gets pregnant, the woman's stuck in an awful situation while the male can just sit around, twiddling his thumbs. I think this is a situation where they're going with the lesser of two evils because there aren't any other options.

Think of it this way:

If you changed the situation so that both sides had to agree to an abortion, people could go around having sex with women, getting them pregnant and then refusing to allow them to abort. This is similar to the idea of women running around, getting pregnant and collecting child support. If they got rid of the child support idea, then there would be some (again, only some ) men who wouldn't care about whether they got a woman pregnant or not because they could just leave without an repercussions.

So, none of those things work. The best option, in my opinion, is to just have something you sign declaring that you're not prepared to accept any responsibility for a child and that you reserve the right to leave/abort if pregnancy occurs. Both parties sign and date it before having sex and there you go. It's inconvenient and there are flaws, but other than that, there will always be one party that's worse off than the other.

[–]Nadrik 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

but it's still a huge thing to ask of them.

And 18 years of child support for an unwanted child isn't? Personally, I'd shit out a kid before I turned over a significant portion of my paycheck every month for 18 years.

You're not looking at both sides.

I laughed at this. You're supporting hypocrisy, and have the gall to say that.

They're not undergoing the same thing in this situation.

Wrong. The situation is exactly the same, the end result isn't. Father wants child, mother doesn't. No child, cost of abortion. Mother wants child, father doesn't. Child, cost of 18 years of child support.

If you changed the situation so that both sides had to agree to an abortion, people could go around having sex with women, getting them pregnant and then refusing to allow them to abort.

Do you really believe that? That is completely ridiculous.

If they got rid of the child support idea, then there would be some (again, only some ) men who wouldn't care about whether they got a woman pregnant or not because they could just leave without an repercussions.

So have them be financially obligated to an abortion. I mean, if the mother doesn't want a child, that's all she has to pay. It'd only be fair, right?

[–]Celda 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CellarDorre 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Few things suck more than hearing people fight over who should support you and hearing your parents treat you like a disease that needs to dealt with instead of a human being that needs to be cared for.

I was raised by a single mother. My father fought her tooth and nail re child support. She was only asking for around $150 a month and he wouldn't even pay that, so finally she had to take him to court and was told that he should be paying 4 times that much...but she was proud and took only the amount she needed (she's always been awesome like that). I grew up knowing this. I remember how it felt knowing he didn't really want anything to do with me. And you know what? There are A LOT of things that are WAY WORSE. For example: his wife used to torture me (i.e. locking me in a basement closet for hours, burning me with cigarettes, etc.). Do you know what else was worse? Having a bunch of close family members and friends die while I was growing up. Knowing that he wanted nothing to do with me and only saw me out of some weird attempt to keep up appearances for his brothers and sister? Not that big of a fucking deal in comparison.

My dad and I have had a fucked up relationship since as far back as I can remember. And you know, after all is said and done, I wish he would have just walked away. I wish he would have been able to opt-out of parenthood, in the way that I've described. Why? Because it's worse to have two parent in your life when one doesn't really give a shit about you, than it is to have a single-parent who loves the fuck out of you.

[–]CellarDorre 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And you know what? There are A LOT of things that are WAY WORSE. For example: his wife used to torture me (i.e. locking me in a basement closet for hours, burning me with cigarettes, etc.). Do you know what else was worse? Having a bunch of close family members and friends die while I was growing up. Knowing that he wanted nothing to do with me and only saw me out of some weird attempt to keep up appearances for his brothers and sister? Not that big of a fucking deal in comparison.

So what? Just because there are worse things that could happen doesn't mean it's okay to have to experience something shitty. Also, just because you personally didn't think it was that big of a deal, doesn't mean that it won't be more significant to someone else. Honestly, I found that having someone blatantly not give a shit about me and fighting to not support me was worse than cigarette burns by far.

Why? Because it's worse to have two parent in your life when one doesn't really give a shit about you, than it is to have a single-parent who loves the fuck out of you.

You know what's even better than that? Two parents who can act like adults. Either way, you said your mother took what she needed and fought for the money because she needed to have it. What would've happened if he wasn't there at all? She wouldn't have had that money and your life could've been much worse. It seems like she must have really needed that money to have put up with so much bullshit.

[–]Kill_The_Rich-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So what? Just because there are worse things that could happen

So what? You just said this:

Few things suck more than hearing people fight over [...]

...that's what.

Also, just because you personally didn't think it was that big of a deal, doesn't mean that it won't be more significant to someone else

If that's the biggest problem someone faces in their life, then they have lived a very fucking privileged life.

Honestly, I found that having someone blatantly not give a shit about me and fighting to not support me was worse than cigarette burns by far.

Oh, really? Did you have someone hold you down and laugh as they plunged a lit cigarette into your cheek? Do you remember that distinctive smell of burned flesh, tobacco, and salty tears? Do you remember having no one believe you because your dad covered for her and made up some bullshit excuses every time this shit happened? DO you? Really? Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you.

What would've happened if he wasn't there at all? She wouldn't have had that money and your life could've been much worse.

No, actually, my life would have been much better. You don't know me, and honestly, I don't really feel feel like spilling my guts for someone who's looking to tear me down. Suffice it to say that I have greater insight into my own life than does a person who read two paragraphs about me on reddit.

You know what's even better than that? Two parents who can act like adults.

Yeah, unfortunately we all don't live on gumdrop lane.

I really don't want to talk to you anymore.

[–]CellarDorre1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

...that's what.

So? That doesn't mean things less extreme aren't valid reasons to be upset and that people should just suck it up and take it.

If that's the biggest problem someone faces in their life, then they have lived a very fucking privileged life.

Your ignorance is showing. Clearly you don't understand the concept of priorities. To some people, having someone who's supposed to love and care about openly hate you is worse than physical abuse. That has nothing to do with privilege.

Oh, really? Did you have someone hold you down and laugh as they plunged a lit cigarette into your cheek? Do you remember that distinctive smell of burned flesh, tobacco, and salty tears? Do you remember having no one believe you because your dad covered for her and made up some bullshit excuses every time this shit happened? DO you? Really? Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you.

Oh, that's really cute. So, you're the only person in the world who has ever had that happen to them? And that no one else could've possibly experienced something equally or more awful?

You don't know me, and honestly, I don't really feel feel like spilling my guts for someone who's looking to tear me down.

The irony is strong with this one.

[–]Kill_The_Rich-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So? That doesn't mean things less extreme aren't valid reasons to be upset and that people should just suck it up and take it.

It also doesn't mean "few things suck more"...MANY things suck more.

Your ignorance is showing. Clearly you don't understand the concept of priorities. To some people, having someone who's supposed to love and care about openly hate you is worse than physical abuse. That has nothing to do with privilege.

indifference != hate

there is a HUGE difference between the two.

And yeah, if that's the biggest problem in someone's life (after they're already an adult), then they did live a privileged life. They had the privilege of being protected from worse shit.

Oh, that's really cute. So, you're the only person in the world who has ever had that happen to them?

No. However, someone who has experienced that and has also experienced an indifferent "parent" will tell you that the two are not even in the same fucking ballpark.

The irony is strong with this one.

I don't think you know what that word even means.

[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rockidol -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

If the woman chooses to abort, there is no child to support.

A huge portion of the population thinks of abortion as murder. To this group an abortion is worse than a father not wanting to be a parent. This group alone has a significant weight against the point you're bringing up. I am undecided on this extremely complex topic. But I do think both sides have valid arguments and at least to some extent it is reasonable to view abortion as a negative thing. What you've done here is nonchalantly implied that abortion is not a big factor when analyzing the ethics on this topic.

If the man chooses to not be a parent, the child is still alive, just bereft a parent.

This implies that you think there is a strong moral responsibility to afford children both a mother and a father. We could debate the legitimacy of this idea for quite some time. Although that would be pointless since we can't quantify this at all. As a counter point to this idea, though, let me bring up another argument.

Do you think women should be allowed to be single mothers by their own choosing? If a woman wants to go to the sperm bank and raise a kid on her own, is she doing a disservice to the kid? If not, why is it only a disservice to the kid when a man doesn't want to be a father? This is about as big of a double standard as you can get.

[–]Kimano 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

What you've done here is nonchalantly implied that abortion is not a big factor when analyzing the ethics on this topic.

I was mostly just setting the ethics of abortion aside. It was just a simple statement of fact that if the mother has an abortion, there's no child to support anymore. For the purposes of discussion, it's common to just ignore facets that are only tangentially related.

Do you think women should be allowed to be single mothers by their own choosing? If a woman wants to go to the sperm bank and raise a kid on her own, is she doing a disservice to the kid?

While I think the whole 'nuclear family' idea is outdated, I don't really think there is any question that a 2 parent (gay couples included) environment is better for a child than a single parent one. I have no data or statistics to back this up, it's just personal opinion.

I think that adoption should be considered on a case by case basis (as it's done now), if the woman can prove that as a single parent she has the means to give the child a loving home and to provide for him/her there's no reason not to allow it.

This is about as big of a double standard as you can get.

You're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying that it's a disservice to the kid to give it up as a father, I was pointing out that the end scenario, given the current rules, is vastly different.

After a pregnancy, when the two parent have disagreed on whether or not to take the baby to term, the two outcomes are different. In one the baby is born, in the other, it's not.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry if the bolds comes off as flaming - I don't intend on it being that way at all. I really do appreciate the discussion we're having here. I just want to make it very clear why I think you're having a double standard here.

In an earlier post you had a problem with a dad not wanting to be a dad. The main consequence you listed was that the child would lose out on having a second parent. If a man chooses not to be a dad, the child ends up with only one parent, thus he is doing something wrong.

If you compare this to my example the same exact end outcome happens. Mom decides she wants to be a single parent and based on her actions the child ends up having only one parent. If mom chooses to be a single mom, the child ends up with only one parent, and she is doing nothing wrong.

So yeah I am really not sure how this can't be considered a double standard.

[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh no, I have no problem with a man not wanting to be a father. It's a lot of pressure and responsibility on a person and not something to be taken lightly or without consent.

My point is that when a father decides sometime during the pregnancy that he's not ready and wants out, the child is going to be born anyway, as biologically, he has no way to terminate the pregnancy without the mother's consent.

If a mother decides during a pregnancy she's not ready one of two things happens: 1) She aborts. There's no baby and no 'dereliction' ( though I don't mean that with any negative connotation.) 2) She has the child and leaves it with the father. Ethically, I'd consider this on the same level as the first case, where the father is considered a 'deadbeat'. She's essentially a deadbeat mom in this case.

We agree in the first and third cases, but not on the second.

To clarify:

 Mother Wants Mother Doesn't Want Father Wants Baby Born, No Issue See Below Father Doesn't Want 'Deadbeat Father' Abortion/Adoption

The point of contention is on the 'See Below' and it essentially comes down to the mother having an additional option the father does not: terminating the pregnancy. If the pregnancy isn't terminated and the father raises the child then it's just a 'Deadbeat Mother' situation.

What people are essentially suggesting in this thread is the father having access to an 'abortion' of vested rights and responsibilities for the child, which I think is the only viable and realistic solution.

[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_The_Rich -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kimano 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kimano1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kill_The_Rich1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kimano1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kill_The_Rich1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Since we're talking about legality, technically is really all that matters.

Technically I'm allowed to run in a women's fun-run...that doesn't mean it's not set up explicitly for women, and that women aren't going to be overwhelmingly represented amongst the runners. Sure, there may be one or two men, but it's for women. Also:

In four States, only the mother may relinquish her infant.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.pdf

So, technically, men can't in 4 states.

The bottom line is just that, within the legal system, men need a way to secede their parental rights after conception and before childbirth (or a very limited time thereafter, which they'd need permission from the other parent to undo.

I agree, which is why I support the financial abortion. In fact all of this shit about safe haven laws is simply my way of backing up that argument (i.e. showing the disparity between the options available to women, and the options available to men).

Alternately (and really preferably to me personally) you could use birth control. It's not a solution but it is a very effective stopgap.

Agreed, however contraception fails (and can be sabotaged).

[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

If he wants the child, and, after giving birth, she decides she doesn't, then she can ANONYMOUSLY leave it at the hospital and he has no recourse.

This is not entirely true.

Approximately 20 States have procedures in place for a parent to reclaim the infant, usually within a specified time period and before any petition to terminate parental rights has been granted. Five States also have provisions for a nonrelinquishing father to petition for custody of the child.

In addition

Before the baby is placed in a preadoptive home, 13 States require the department to request the local law enforcement agency to determine whether the baby has been reported as a missing child. In addition, five States require the department to check the putative father registry before a termination of parental rights petition can be filed.

From here.

In certain states, there may be no recourse, and that's obviously wrong.

[–]Kill_The_Rich 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CellarDorre 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coziestpigeon2 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]boomguy 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

A huge portion of the population thinks of abortion as murder. To this group an abortion is worse than a father not wanting to be a parent. This group alone has a significant weight against the point you're bringing up. I am undecided on this extremely complex topic. But I do think both sides have valid arguments and at least to some extent it is reasonable to view abortion as a negative thing. What you've done here is nonchalantly implied that abortion is not a big factor when analyzing the ethics on this topic.

This implies that you think there is a strong moral responsibility to afford children both a mother and a father. We could debate the legitimacy of this idea for quite some time. Although that would be pointless since we can't quantify this at all. As a counter point to this idea, though, let me bring up another argument.

Do you think women should be allowed to be single mothers by their own choosing? If a woman wants to go to the sperm bank and raise a kid on her own, is she doing a disservice to the kid? If not, why is it only a disservice to the kid when a man doesn't want to be a father? This is about as big of a double standard as you can get.

[–]Coziestpigeon2 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Fair. Let me clarify, firstly, I was meaning to include adoption and abortion when I said 'get rid of the pregnancy.' I worded that poorly.

And I do believe women have a right to chose to be a single parent, but no one should ever be abandoned and forced into it. It is a disservice when the man doesn't want to be a father, but the woman is unable to raise the child alone. A woman that chooses to be a single mother is generally prepared for it. A woman that gets knocked up in a situation where the father may not want the child is usually not thinking about children at all.

Basically, the point I mean to convey is that the parents should be in agreement, or at least understanding, about the situation. If the father wants no part in the child, but the woman is against abortion/adoption (and we assume here that it is viewed as morally wrong to make a woman give up her baby), if she is not able (financially or otherwise) the father should at least help her become prepared. Give an amount of money for diapers/food or something. I don't believe he should be forced to be included in the upbringing or financing of the child after it is born, but in the nine months leading up to it, he could help the woman prepare for something that is partially his doing.

It's kind of like if you set someone's house on fire while you were with them, playing with matches. The house is gone now, and it's partially your fault. You should help pay for the damages, but you don't have to live there.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think you bring up a really good point here about the mother having to deal with the cost of an unexpected pregnancy more than a father would. This certainly sways my thinking on the subject so that if this were to happen the man should be liable for the money to help her get out of it. If the woman chooses to have an abortion I think it is reasonable that the guy should foot the bill (since it hurts her body but not his). I even think that if she decides to go through with the pregnancy then the man should have to pay for half of the medical costs until the baby is delivered. And maybe even a limited amount of support for a minimal period of time - like one year, which represents the period of time that the woman cannot really work. Past that, though, I still think it is entirely unreasonable for the man to have to pay for a kid that he does not want.

[–]Coziestpigeon2 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lepetitmonstre 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]CellarDorre 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So if a woman decides to "forget" to take the pill one morning...

You can take someone to court for lying about something like that. For something relating to deception and fraud. There have been cases where men have won on those grounds. Also, very few women actually do things like that; those are the actions of a crazy person, not your average woman.

Also, it's the male's responsibility to make sure that they're protecting themselves as well. If you're having sex with someone who you don't know very well/can't fully trust, use a condom; don't just believe they're on the pill. If you're in a relationship, then you need to make sure you're being smart about it and with someone you can trust, not just sticking with crazy because it's good sex.

So really...guys should just stop having sex with woman unless they are fully ready to have a kid, right?

Or you could just, y'know, be safe about it.

[–]numb3rb0y 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CellarDorre -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I totally agree about the fact that most people would never do something like that. I'm just not sure where "being safe" crosses over into "obsessively protecting onesself."

I think it's pretty clear where those things cross over. If you're sitting there inspecting your own condoms for pin-pricks, you need to get the fuck away from whatever girl you're with. If you actually think she may have done something like that, you're an idiot for being anywhere near her, let alone sleeping with her.

Of course, we don't always know who's crazy and who isn't, however, if there's a case where someone tampers with someone's birth control, you can take them to court.

In all fairness, unplanned pregnancy is one of the risks of having sex before you're prepared to handle that kind of situation. One of the reasons why it's such a big deal is because it's a rough situation where it's impossible to please everyone involved and someone will end up losing out in some way. However, the priority should be to make sure that the child which may result won't be the one losing out.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Generally, it seems as though "crazy" comes out in a grand moment, though I suppose people really should only sleep with people they trust. At least in a perfect world. Still, sociopaths of both sexes are experts in hiding their nature.

That is interesting that you can take someone to court over birth control, but how would you ever prove that someone didn't simply "forget" to take it or that the condom didn't simply fail except in extremely obvious cases?

That is definitely true about unplanned pregnancy, but is this entire thing really only about the child? I mean, if the man wanted to father the child, but the woman wanted to abort, it would be aborted. If the woman wanted to mother the child but the dad didn't want to, he's paying child-support whether he even gets to see the child or not. It seems as though it is more:

1) what does the woman want? 2) in light of what the woman wants, what is in the best interest of the child?

[–]CellarDorre -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shuddleston919 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]rokovoj 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]CellarDorre 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rokovoj -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DownSoFar 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]getting_old_not_wise 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Madness_As_Muse 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Benny_the_Jew 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrbigfresh 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maxplatypus-4 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]boomguy 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mammoth12 -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Indeed. Women are allowed to abandon their child with finality by aborting it, and you're not supposed to judge them for it. After all, "a woman shouldn't be forced to be a mother if she doesn't want to be" (why? nobody can ever tell me why...). But when a man does the same thing, abandoning his child (only without ending its life), suddenly he's a selfish douchenozzle and everyone hates him and condemns him for it. Apparently, while it's inhumane to force motherhood on a woman, it's not at all wrong to force fatherhood on a man.

At any rate, I am of the opinion that abortion - unless it's being done for a medically valid reason, such as an ectopic pregnancy - is no different than a deadbeat "dad" running away and refusing to take responsibility for his kid. It's not right. It shouldn't happen.

[–]Maxplatypus-6 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-6 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spagma1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-14 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji0 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LonelyCynic1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LonelyCynic8 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]A_Nihilist3 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kuonji2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]jonmlm -20 points-19 points-18 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadowboxer47 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]jonmlm 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jonmlm 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rockidol -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jonmlm -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GeminiVI -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OtherMikeP -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iheartbakon -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chiglet[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Chiglet[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Willie_Main -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ABrown890 -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]superpony123 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Because she is the only one capable of carrying a pregnancy to term. Do you think it would be okay if a woman said "I want to get an abortion" and the man that got her pregnant would not allow it? Forced her to carry it and give birth?

You can't deny biology. It is what it is. It's a woman's right to choose what to do with the baby. Pregnancy is not only an extremely expensive endeavour (yes, pregnancy. not even talking about a born child yet), but it is dangerous and often forces a woman to be bedridden and unable to go to work if she has a job. If a woman decides not to keep a pregnancy, it's ultimately her decision. Sure, she should discuss the decision with the man, but no matter what, its going to be her decision. If they both can't afford it and would not be in a good situation, SHOULD she abort? Probably. Regardless, you can't take away her right to choose (although it appears that is already happening in some states)

[–]ABrown890 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]superpony123 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How is being outside the mother cause enough to call the baby a living human with a human's rights as opposed to when the baby is still in her womb?

Probably because if a child (already born) is alive, it's a living human with human rights. A baby that is still inside the womb is a fetus (up to a certain number of weeks. There is a reason we have limits on when you can voluntarily have abortions. There are times when late-term abortions are necessary due to medical complications, in order to save the life of the mother)

A born human baby is a human baby. I am 100% pro choice. If a woman wants an abortion, I believe she should have access to safe and affordable abortion procedures. There is a difference between a fetus and a born infant if you ask me. Some people feel differently, but thats everyone's own choice.

Having said that, I'm not cool with bitches who think it's cool to poke holes in condoms or lie and say theyre taking their pills when they arent. But, at the same time, both parties are risking pregnancy every time they have sex. You have to accept that pregnancy is a very possible outcome of the act.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]superpony123 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Willie_Main 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Willie_Main 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]spagma 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	This about sums it up.
Author	spagma
Upvotes	1007
Comments	589
Date	August 26, 2011 2:29 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/jv4z2/this_about_sums_it_up/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/this-about-sums-it-up.1035390 https://theredarchive.com/post/1035390

Comments