aban57 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Pay for it how? If she has unprotected sex with me knowingly then she also knows the risk to her own body i.e. she can get pregnant. She can choose to abort it or carry it to term, or it could end in a miscarriage. She made the decision to have sex with me knowing the risks. She is not "paying" for anything.

What a selfish an idiotic logic.

So do you. You know perfectly that not protecting yourself may lead to her being pregnant. But maybe you didn't understand the principle behind that. It takes both of you to make a child. If you don't protect yourself, you're as responsible as she is.

Aye, we are both responsible, as I said initially. But she is the only one with the power and right to decide whether she keeps the pregnancy.

So in other words the woman can force fatherhood on the man.

You guys really are doing some mental gymnastics on this one.

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure I see how being forced to carry another human around inside you for 9 months with all that that entails is exactly the same as being made to give money once a month. Maybe I'm missing something.

It is a good thing I am not saying it's the exact same thing.

Glad this straw man could be resolved though.

willhud9 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Pay for it how? If she has unprotected sex with me knowingly then she also knows the risk to her own body i.e. she can get pregnant. She can choose to abort it or carry it to term, or it could end in a miscarriage. She made the decision to have sex with me knowing the risks. She is not "paying" for anything.

What a selfish an idiotic logic.

So do you. You know perfectly that not protecting yourself may lead to her being pregnant. But maybe you didn't understand the principle behind that. It takes both of you to make a child. If you don't protect yourself, you're as responsible as she is.

Aye, we are both responsible, as I said initially. But she is the only one with the power and right to decide whether she keeps the pregnancy.

So in other words the woman can force fatherhood on the man.

You guys really are doing some mental gymnastics on this one.

Will, in what other area of life would you think a person should be absolved of personal responsibility for something they did just because somebody else could have cleaned up their mess but didn't? Like if I drive my car recklessly and end up in a collision, nobody would say I should be absolved of my responsibility just because the other driver could have moved out of the way but didn't. Nobody would say that other driver forced me into the collision when I had already been driving recklessly. I'm responsible for my own actions even if somebody else could have corrected for my behavior but didn't.

And what's pretty ironic here is that I'd bet my house that most of the people who would find your position compelling are the same type who'd tout the importance of personal responsibility in every other facet of life except for this one narrow situation where they don't like it so much.

All these years I thought it was "wilhud9" with one l.
Not piling on willhud, I like you, I just wanted to echo that I disagree with your opinion on child support. I was trying to work out how to state my case, but purplerat's post above, is my case. (the first paragraph)

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Pay for it how? If she has unprotected sex with me knowingly then she also knows the risk to her own body i.e. she can get pregnant. She can choose to abort it or carry it to term, or it could end in a miscarriage. She made the decision to have sex with me knowing the risks. She is not "paying" for anything.

What a selfish an idiotic logic.

So do you. You know perfectly that not protecting yourself may lead to her being pregnant. But maybe you didn't understand the principle behind that. It takes both of you to make a child. If you don't protect yourself, you're as responsible as she is.

Aye, we are both responsible, as I said initially. But she is the only one with the power and right to decide whether she keeps the pregnancy.

So in other words the woman can force fatherhood on the man.

You guys really are doing some mental gymnastics on this one.

Will, in what other area of life would you think a person should be absolved of personal responsibility for something they did just because somebody else could have cleaned up their mess but didn't? Like if I drive my car recklessly and end up in a collision, nobody would say I should be absolved of my responsibility just because the other driver could have moved out of the way but didn't. Nobody would say that other driver forced me into the collision when I had already been driving recklessly. I'm responsible for my own actions even if somebody else could have corrected for my behavior but didn't.

And what's pretty ironic here is that I'd bet my house that most of the people who would find your position compelling are the same type who'd tout the importance of personal responsibility in every other facet of life except for this one narrow situation where they don't like it so much.

Your analogy is not really comparable though.

As I stated above if a woman and I both had unprotected sex that is both of our responsibility. The problem arises that in terms of rights we are not equal. If a woman has the right to choose to not be a mother then a man should also have the equal right to not be a father. Equal rights.

If the woman does not want to be a mother but the man wants to be a father the man has zero say.
However I will to one step further and say if the woman wants to be a mother but the man does not want to be a father he has the right to choose that option.

Your talk of responsibilities is very akin to conservative pro-lifers who say it's the woman's responsibility to carry the child to term. We say that kind of restriction is sexist and unethical. I also contend that saying a man is responsible for a child he did not plan for or want is also sexist and unethical.

The_Metatron wrote:The real world isn't always fair. Be careful where you release the lads.

Yep. Be vewy, vewy, careful. And never fuck anybody crazier than you. I ignored both pieces of advice many moons ago, so I speak from long, expensive experience.

willhud9 wrote: I also contend that saying a man is responsible for a child he did not plan for or want is also sexist and unethical.

If you don't plan or want a child, then protect yourself, and you won't. If you choose not to, then face the consequences.

I agree with most of the rest of your post though.

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

What a selfish an idiotic logic.

So do you. You know perfectly that not protecting yourself may lead to her being pregnant. But maybe you didn't understand the principle behind that. It takes both of you to make a child. If you don't protect yourself, you're as responsible as she is.

Aye, we are both responsible, as I said initially. But she is the only one with the power and right to decide whether she keeps the pregnancy.

So in other words the woman can force fatherhood on the man.

You guys really are doing some mental gymnastics on this one.

Will, in what other area of life would you think a person should be absolved of personal responsibility for something they did just because somebody else could have cleaned up their mess but didn't? Like if I drive my car recklessly and end up in a collision, nobody would say I should be absolved of my responsibility just because the other driver could have moved out of the way but didn't. Nobody would say that other driver forced me into the collision when I had already been driving recklessly. I'm responsible for my own actions even if somebody else could have corrected for my behavior but didn't.

And what's pretty ironic here is that I'd bet my house that most of the people who would find your position compelling are the same type who'd tout the importance of personal responsibility in every other facet of life except for this one narrow situation where they don't like it so much.

Your analogy is not really comparable though.

As I stated above if a woman and I both had unprotected sex that is both of our responsibility. The problem arises that in terms of rights we are not equal. If a woman has the right to choose to not be a mother then a man should also have the equal right to not be a father. Equal rights.

If the woman does not want to be a mother but the man wants to be a father the man has zero say.
However I will to one step further and say if the woman wants to be a mother but the man does not want to be a father he has the right to choose that option.

Your talk of responsibilities is very akin to conservative pro-lifers who say it's the woman's responsibility to carry the child to term. We say that kind of restriction is sexist and unethical. I also contend that saying a man is responsible for a child he did not plan for or want is also sexist and unethical.

This is exactly what the other thread is about. And it is off topic for this thread.

willhud9 wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure I see how being forced to carry another human around inside you for 9 months with all that that entails is exactly the same as being made to give money once a month. Maybe I'm missing something.

It is a good thing I am not saying it's the exact same thing.

Glad this straw man could be resolved though.

I used those words because I was sure you had used them yourself. If you didn't, accept my apologies.

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

aban57 wrote:

What a selfish an idiotic logic.

So do you. You know perfectly that not protecting yourself may lead to her being pregnant. But maybe you didn't understand the principle behind that. It takes both of you to make a child. If you don't protect yourself, you're as responsible as she is.

Aye, we are both responsible, as I said initially. But she is the only one with the power and right to decide whether she keeps the pregnancy.

So in other words the woman can force fatherhood on the man.

You guys really are doing some mental gymnastics on this one.

Will, in what other area of life would you think a person should be absolved of personal responsibility for something they did just because somebody else could have cleaned up their mess but didn't? Like if I drive my car recklessly and end up in a collision, nobody would say I should be absolved of my responsibility just because the other driver could have moved out of the way but didn't. Nobody would say that other driver forced me into the collision when I had already been driving recklessly. I'm responsible for my own actions even if somebody else could have corrected for my behavior but didn't.

And what's pretty ironic here is that I'd bet my house that most of the people who would find your position compelling are the same type who'd tout the importance of personal responsibility in every other facet of life except for this one narrow situation where they don't like it so much.

Your analogy is not really comparable though.

As I stated above if a woman and I both had unprotected sex that is both of our responsibility. The problem arises that in terms of rights we are not equal. If a woman has the right to choose to not be a mother then a man should also have the equal right to not be a father. Equal rights.

If the woman does not want to be a mother but the man wants to be a father the man has zero say.
However I will to one step further and say if the woman wants to be a mother but the man does not want to be a father he has the right to choose that option.

So basically it's just sour grapes because women can get abortions, right? Because if abortion was banned then your whole argument above would be nullified, would it not?

As stated above life is not fair. Your argument about the inequality of choices due to biological differences might just as well be applied to advocating for laws which try and balance out the inequities between being tall versus short.

willhud9 wrote:
Your talk of responsibilities is very akin to conservative pro-lifers who say it's the woman's responsibility to carry the child to term. We say that kind of restriction is sexist and unethical. I also contend that saying a man is responsible for a child he did not plan for or want is also sexist and unethical.

This is complete horseshit and you know it. I'm not using the argument for personal responsibility to take away men's rights to make their own choice. If I were arguing that men shouldn't be allowed to have vasectomies or buy condoms then you'd have a point. But I'm not so you don't.

As far as this lame sexist angle; with the progress of gender identity rights men having abortions and women impregnating people are very much on the table and the same would apply to them. So no sexism.

***edited to fix quotes***

willhud9 wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure I see how being forced to carry another human around inside you for 9 months with all that that entails is exactly the same as being made to give money once a month. Maybe I'm missing something.

It is a good thing I am not saying it's the exact same thing.

Glad this straw man could be resolved though.

Will. I urge you to read through the other thread Tuco linked to. It thoroughly discusses the topic of male responsibility. And in that thread you will see that I am no fan of the current way men are treated with regard to parental rights/responsibilities. But that conversation seems off topic to this one. there is simply no "what about teh menz" argument that justifies the illegal restrictions Arkansas is trying to impose on women.

That's not the point I'm trying to make though. I agree there is no justification for this law. The problem comes when people are quick to bash this law but ignore a similar law which can give a precedent in court for this shitty law.

The law you think people are ignoring is simply not similar.

First off the reason for abortion being legal is not about women choosing to be mothers or not. If that were the case then it would be completely unnecessary as adoption is readily available. It's about bodily autonomy, nothing else. Comparing a law denying bodily autonomy to one requiring people pay for their children is just stupid.

Secondly, there's no need to compare these two laws on the basis that they are unfair to one gender. Laws requiring support apply both ways and a man can "force a woman into motherhood" the same as you claim men are being forced into fatherhood. If a woman gives birth but wants to give the child up the father can step and stop her, taking custody of the child himself. The same support laws would then apply to the woman who didn't want to be a mother.

Now maybe you think that's wrong either way. I don't, but if you do go argue it on its own merits. No need to make baseless false equivalencies which are contradicted by the rest of our laws.

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Aye, we are both responsible, as I said initially. But she is the only one with the power and right to decide whether she keeps the pregnancy.

So in other words the woman can force fatherhood on the man.

You guys really are doing some mental gymnastics on this one.

Will, in what other area of life would you think a person should be absolved of personal responsibility for something they did just because somebody else could have cleaned up their mess but didn't? Like if I drive my car recklessly and end up in a collision, nobody would say I should be absolved of my responsibility just because the other driver could have moved out of the way but didn't. Nobody would say that other driver forced me into the collision when I had already been driving recklessly. I'm responsible for my own actions even if somebody else could have corrected for my behavior but didn't.

And what's pretty ironic here is that I'd bet my house that most of the people who would find your position compelling are the same type who'd tout the importance of personal responsibility in every other facet of life except for this one narrow situation where they don't like it so much.

Your analogy is not really comparable though.

As I stated above if a woman and I both had unprotected sex that is both of our responsibility. The problem arises that in terms of rights we are not equal. If a woman has the right to choose to not be a mother then a man should also have the equal right to not be a father. Equal rights.

If the woman does not want to be a mother but the man wants to be a father the man has zero say.
However I will to one step further and say if the woman wants to be a mother but the man does not want to be a father he has the right to choose that option.

So basically it's just sour grapes because women can get abortions, right? Because if abortion was banned then your whole argument above would be nullified, would it not?

Er what? It is not sour grapes at all. A woman should and does have the right to get abortions. I am 100% supportive of that right.

As stated above life is not fair.

This is a weak argument and I am really surprised you of all people Purplerat are taking this position considering how closely you and I do share opinions. I mean you can sit here and say, "life's not fair" to any societal issue that we faced: Racism? Life's not fair. Sexism? Life's not fair.

In fact you wield a double edged sword and again display the double standard I mentioned above. Women get pregnant and when pro-lifers talk about responsibility you say, "Bodily autonomy and rights, and a bunch of legal jargon" but when a man knocks up a woman you suddenly say, "Personal responsibility and life's not fair, kid."

Your argument about the inequality of choices due to biological differences might just as well be applied to advocating for laws which try and balance out the inequities between being tall versus short.

Uh no. Either we allow for equal rights between the sexes or we don't. I am an egalitarian 100%.

willhud9 wrote:
Your talk of responsibilities is very akin to conservative pro-lifers who say it's the woman's responsibility to carry the child to term. We say that kind of restriction is sexist and unethical. I also contend that saying a man is responsible for a child he did not plan for or want is also sexist and unethical.

This is complete horseshit and you know it. I'm not using the argument for personal responsibility to take away men's rights to make their own choice. If I were arguing that men shouldn't be allowed to have vasectomies or buy condoms then you'd have a point. But I'm not so you don't.[/quote]

No, but you are saying a man has to be fiscally responsible for something he does not want anything to do with. So it is not complete horseshit. You are restricting a man's freedom (in this case his financial freedom) based on the notion that you believe if a man impregnates a women he should be responsible for the care of the child.

As far as this lame sexist angle; with the progress of gender identity rights men having abortions and women impregnating people are very much on the table and the same would apply to them. So no sexism.

***edited to fix quotes***

And you continue to fail to actually address the points.

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:If you are not comparing the two then why are you talking about child support in this thread about abortion laws?

...........again my post.

My initial post in this thread was I found it ironic that people are quick to call this law an outrage when it is a natural extension of current laws based on "traditional" concepts.

It is not equivocating. It is saying because the way current laws are written in regards to sexual responsibility it is not surprising that people are trying to extend said laws to state that the welfare of a fetus is split between the mother and the father.

So you think people want children to be financially supported because of "tradition"? I think you have a gross misunderstanding of why people are not against laws which require parents to support their children.

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:If you are not comparing the two then why are you talking about child support in this thread about abortion laws?

...........again my post.

My initial post in this thread was I found it ironic that people are quick to call this law an outrage when it is a natural extension of current laws based on "traditional" concepts.

It is not equivocating. It is saying because the way current laws are written in regards to sexual responsibility it is not surprising that people are trying to extend said laws to state that the welfare of a fetus is split between the mother and the father.

So you think people want children to be financially supported because of "tradition"? I think you have a gross misunderstanding of why people are not against laws which require parents to support their children.

And I am not against all child support as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts. I am against the concept that just because my DNA happens to reside within a fetus that I am responsible for it in some manner. It is the exact opposite of what the writers of this law seek that because the DNA resides within a fetus they are partially responsible for it.

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:If you are not comparing the two then why are you talking about child support in this thread about abortion laws?

...........again my post.

My initial post in this thread was I found it ironic that people are quick to call this law an outrage when it is a natural extension of current laws based on "traditional" concepts.

It is not equivocating. It is saying because the way current laws are written in regards to sexual responsibility it is not surprising that people are trying to extend said laws to state that the welfare of a fetus is split between the mother and the father.

So you think people want children to be financially supported because of "tradition"? I think you have a gross misunderstanding of why people are not against laws which require parents to support their children.

And I am not against all child support as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts. I am against the concept that just because my DNA happens to reside within a fetus that I am responsible for it in some manner. It is the exact opposite of what the writers of this law seek that because the DNA resides within a fetus they are partially responsible for it.

If you literally mean "just because my DNA happens to reside within a fetus" then you might have a viable jumping off point. There are situations such as sperm donors or with adoption where there may very well be a case again support that I can get on board with. But I fail to see what it has with this thread.

But if you are talking about people who are simply being careless about bringing life into this world then I have no interest in protecting their "financial freedom" in regards to them not having to support said children. But this has nothing to do with abortion as having an abortion is the exact opposite of being careless about bringing life into this world.

If anything I would say a law which restricts abortions and one which relieves parents of financially supporting their children are in alignment as both encourage irresponsibly bringing of children into this world. And there is certainly a lot of traditional values supporting such.

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:The ironic thing is in Arkansas if a woman wants her baby's daddy to pay child support there is very little the man can do.

So a man who may not wanted to have the child is forced to pay for said child, but not many people get outraged over that.

Probably because there's no law restricting men from exercising their ability to not have a kid to support.

I'm very much a pro-flush the fetus kind of guy, but what you guys are discussing gives me problems. For one thing, I've never had to worry about getting someone pregnant. How does it work in the straight world, if you have sex with a woman, do you ask if she is taking the pill or is otherwise protected? To me, that is the sensible thing, the decision is hers, she can say she won't do it if the guy isn't wrapped up, but what happens when she says nothing? Why shouldn't a guy assume she's protected? If she get's pregnant then it's on her, the guy should not be responsible. If having a kid is too much for her to deal with on her own, she can abort. But like I said, this isn't my area.

laklak wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:The real world isn't always fair. Be careful where you release the lads.

Yep. Be vewy, vewy, careful. And never fuck anybody crazier than you. I ignored both pieces of advice many moons ago, so I speak from long, expensive experience.

Hard advice to follow, sometimes.

AFAICT there's no proudfootz jrs running around, which is a good thing. The world has enough troubles!