Instapundit weighs in on that lying-about-birth-control question we were talking about — a lot — yesterday.
He's mostly focused on sympathy for males who must pay child support, but I think society has chosen to put the burden on men to control where they put their sperm. Imagine endless factual disputes over whether the woman claimed to be infertile or on pills. The child is real and needs support, and anyone who expressed horror — as Instapundit did — at "The Life of Julia" should understand why we hold men responsible for the consequences they risk.
To save commenters the trouble of telling me again: I know, there was an underage boy one time who was the victim of statutory rape and made to pay child support. So craft a narrow exception for people like him. The general principle is a good one.
If you're thinking of bringing up the woman's right to choose to avoid a pregnancy, let me repeat that this is a decision that properly belongs to the woman. Pregnancy occurs inside the woman's body, where the man lost control of his sperm. He should have been more risk averse.
Now, here's a proposal, based on all the attention Obamacare has given to women's health. Let's require health insurance to cover vasectomies. Then there will be some surgery that men have a right to choose. How's that for a pro-equality policy? Men can freeze their sperm beforehand and thereafter have perfect control over when women get hold of their reproductive powers.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५७७ टिप्पण्या:
577 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»"Men can freeze their sperm beforehand and thereafter have perfect control over when women get hold of their reproductive powers."
Be careful, guys – could be a trap.
So if I give the bank my money with the understanding that they will not spend it, they can still spend it because I've lost control of it, and that's just too bad for me.
Likewise, if a woman drinks herself unconscious in my company because she trusts me, then she simply lost control of her body, and now I can do what I want with it. This is a great concept. I accept these terms.
We'll hold the sperm banks liable, if that's your problem.
You can store your sperm for your own future use.
If you want to be a sperm donor type person, there already is law sparing you having to pay child support for the consequences of that.
"Let me repeat.." Repeat it all you want, that doesn't make it true.
Let's try applying your logic the other way. Women are free to freeze their eggs and then have their tubes tied. That way they have perfect choice not to get pregnant. So that does away with the case for abortion, right?
The fact is, you insist on rights for women that you don't admit are fair for men, and you refuse to hold women to the same standard of responsibility for their own decisions you demand of men.
You're a sexist hypocrite.
Great suggestion Ann. Women must carry a baby and give birth to it, which includes far more pain and suffering than a vasectomy. So a man who desires full control of his sperm could use Ann's option. Problem solved.
The child is real and needs support. Or its brains sucked out, as the case may be.
Yeah, and hey, here's an idea: We'll build this National Sperm Agglomeration facility right next to the National Security Agency’s Utah Data Center. What could possibly go wrong?
Guys, listen to Uncle Meade: keep your DNA to yourself. Trust no one.
That was a good word choice, Meade.
Agglomeration.
It sounds so spermy.
So it's actually your position, Althouse, that if a woman lies to a man and tells him she's infertile, with the intention of getting pregnant; then he should pay support and she should get away with fraud?
Interesting.
Suppose one gay man lies to another about his HIV. I guess it's the heretofore uninfected man's fault -- he should have been more careful where he stuck his tallywhacker. Right?
"Let's try applying your logic the other way. Women are free to freeze their eggs and then have their tubes tied. That way they have perfect choice not to get pregnant. So that does away with the case for abortion, right?"
Get the Congressional Budget Office to put a price tag on all that. The fact is, once a woman is pregnant, she has a right to use abortion to get out of the physical process that has begun, but it is too late for the man to exercise a right, because his rights relate to his body, not hers.
The man must take responsibility for himself, not seek to control the woman.
I know you men would like to have your fun and freedom and not be troubled by risks, but your body is yours and her body is hers.
"So it's actually your position, Althouse, that if a woman lies to a man and tells him she's infertile, with the intention of getting pregnant; then he should pay support and she should get away with fraud?"
If there's a fraud tort, let him sue if he can prove the elements. I don't know what the remedy there would be, but I suspect men are held to the consequences of their action and aren't supposed to believe that sort of thing. Take care!
All I'm talking about is the domestic relations law that relates to the expenses of rearing the child, who is a separate person. The father has rights to that child too. It's not all burdens. But he is the father and that matters.
Guys, listen to Uncle Meade: keep your DNA to yourself. Trust no one.
So what we really need is a sperm disposal facility where men can send their sperm so it is really good and gone.
Taking advantage of Federal infrastructure already in place, it could be in Nevada, the Yucca Mountain Sperm Waste Repository.
Rules to live by:
1. Don't let women use your sperm without your permission. If she lied, show me the evidence. And no, just your word isn't good enough.
2. If you cry Rape, show me the evidence. And no, just your word isn't good enough.
3. Abortion: In case of tie, the women's opinion rules.
"The father has rights to that child too."
Tell that to the Nazis in family court.
I mentioned to my wife just a few days ago (after discussing some tales of college age pregnancies and what we thought about women who chose to abort) that I might suggest to our 6-year-old son when he reaches 18 to freeze his sperm and get a vasectomy. Take the bullets out of the chamber so to speak.
Men should be careful and assume that every woman is fundamentally dishonest when it comes to birth control.
What I want to see is mandatory paternity testing before any man's name will be put on the birth certificate. That would protect men against the threat of cuckolding and ensure that the state knows what man is required to provide support to his children.
Although I'll make one more very important point - when I had my vasectomy, the doctor required a consultation with my wife to make sure she was OK with it. I will ask anyone - my body, my business. How in the name of God could that request be moral or legal?
A woman does not have the right to use abortion to get out of the physical process once it has begun.
A woman has the right to prevent the process before it has begun. That is the only right she possesses. She does not have the right to terminate a human life at will. She does not have the right to devalue human life at her leisure. Society has a material interest to preserve the intrinsic value of its members.
Once the process has begun, both the mother and father are responsible for its development.
"society has chosen to put the burden on men"
Yes, yes it has. And women still like to disingenuously claim that they're "independent" and pretend they desire equality.
What if there's a fire at the sperm bank?
Though, like borscht, sperm is probably really difficult to light.
Let's require health insurance to cover vasectomies.
Let's drop the mandated contraceptive coverage instead.
Doubling down on stupidity in the name of equality is still stupid.
Just vasectomies? I think a free carton of condoms from the government every month is the least we should be expecting. I'd settle for a certain seemingly-trustworthy Indian procedure being rushed through the FDA.
Sure cover vasectomies.
But, getting back to matter of "women's health". If within 20 weeks, you can't figure out that you're pregnant or that you want to terminate that pregnancy, you should be held criminally liable for aborting that baby for your convenience.
Or, with the soon-to-be wide availability of the "morning-after" pill, the limit should be reduced to 12 weeks or less.
How about instead of breezily bringing up "the woman's right to choose to avoid a pregnancy" (by the way, if she is having an ABORTION to kill her child, she already missed her chance to avoid getting pregnant), both men AND women keep their pants on and keep their pro-creative material to themselves until married?
That was the answer that society used to have. And it avoided problems such as these.
It was the promotion of the nonsense routinely spouted here that ushered in the society we have today.
Yes, yes it has. And women still like to disingenuously claim that they're "independent" and pretend they desire equality.
And that they're oppressed.
My sperm have all been trained to travel to the heart where they cause mayhem, emotional issues, and eventual depression and remorse, but hey, I lost control of them. It's not on me.
Women can't talk about this for even 20 comments without suggesting or attempting some form of castration, so we have vasectomies on today's menu.
What Glenn Reynold's quoted:
Suppose Bill was in charge of birth control, and he informed his girlfriend that he had stopped using contraception some time ago, was coy about the exact date and chose to break the news to her in bed after a successful frolic. Lucy would feel violated; most women would regard him as a man so predatory as to be unfit for fatherhood.
I would be delighted if Ann addressed this.
The only reasonable system is the one we ditched; unmarried fathers have neither rights nor obligations regarding their child. Men are just ATM machines in the modern world. If you get any better treatment than that consider yourself well off.
"To save commenters the trouble of telling me again: I know, there was an underage boy one time who was the victim of statutory rape and made to pay child support. So craft a narrow exception for people like him. The general principle is a good one."
So, since biological fatherhood controls, I assume that if a couple divorces, the man shouldn't be liable for child support for kids he didn't actually father. The State should track down the actual biological father of those kids, and dun him for the child support.
More to the point, why limit child support to single women? All kids should be DNA tested at birth, and if the husband isn't the biological father, the State should track down the actual biological father of those kids, and dun him for the child support for that kid until age 18. Why should the non-biological husband be burdened with the expenses of raising the kid?
Imagine what that would do for marital fidelity, if men sleeping with women married to someone else realized that they would still be liable for any child that results.
A vasectomy is only a man's "right to choose" if a woman's "right to choose" is also permanent sterilization... a tubal.
But it's not, is it.
Women get do-overs, and men don't. Men don't even get do-overs if they are deliberately deceived.
I'd also like to see Ann respond to this:
So if I give the bank my money with the understanding that they will not spend it, they can still spend it because I've lost control of it, and that's just too bad for me.
Meade said...
Be careful, guys – could be a trap.
It's always a trap.
@richlb
It's state law in California that wives have to sign off on their husband's vasectomies. Been there, done that.
I'm sure there's some bullshit feminist reason for it, other than putting wives on notice that if they fuck around on their husbands and get pregnant, she can't claim it's his.
Of course, that won't stop the state from forcing him to pay child support regardless.
Men can freeze their sperm beforehand
I'm going to go on limb and say that's impossible.
Why do people keep talking about DNA testing? The case at issue has no false fatherhood at issue; DNA testing would be irrelevant. Stay on point!
" The child is real and needs support..."
Way to miss the point, Althouse. The child doesn't get any support. The support goes to the mother. That's why women sometimes lie in order to get pregnant: to get work-free, tax-free income.
Why is the burden always on men? What? Like women can't freeze there eggs? They can't apply a spermicide or some other form of contraception themselves? These double standards that fall on the side of misandry really need to be done away with.
If we're going to try to make the law more equitable let's start with baby steps and do something about paternity fraud. I think in most states if your wife has someone else's baby while you're married you're on the hook for child support, which is just blatantly wrong.
How about this crazy idea: people search for partners with character and shared values whom they can trust, and keep their legs together unless they are willing to accept the birth of a child.
Guys, listen to Uncle Meade: keep your DNA to yourself. Trust no one.
This message is repeated about ninety times in the book of Proverbs.
It's a terrible situation no matter how you cut it. But the fact is, there's a child and the child must be supported. (I'm editing out the abortion option, as I find it reprehensible). Given that, and assuming that the mother is not able to support the child on her own (go ahead and assume that; it's almost certainly true) is it better for everyone considered, including the kid and the general public, to:
* Have the child (who had no say in this mess) go without;
* Have the child be supported by the state;
* Require both parents to contribute to the child's support;
* Have both parents' parental rights terminated and the child forceably given up for adoption?
In other words, it has to be unfair to someone - should that someone be the dad, the kid, or the public coffers?
It's state law in California that wives have to sign off on their husband's vasectomies. Been there, done that.
That is astoundingly unjust. I'd love to see the assplosion if the father had to sign off on an abortion, and that's with his actual extant living child, not the potential of future children! I can't believe a law that absurd ever got passed.
As instapundit says
"Rationalization. And if what you do with your wombs is no business but your own, then the notion of “child support” should be equally one-sided."
"The fact is, once a woman is pregnant, she has a right to use abortion to get out of the physical process that has begun, but it is too late for the man to exercise a right, because his rights relate to his body, not hers."
Why does this even make sense? Barring some unusual risk to her body she had the same control over the process that he did up to the same point that he did. At that point, as you say, there is a child and the child exists and he's the father quite separate and apart from whatever either of them intended when they had sex.
Unless, of course, he only becomes the father when she decides that the child will be born. In which case, he had nothing to do with it at all.
"I can't believe a law that absurd ever got passed."
You don't much about how family law operates, do you?
I think what we have seen is that the best solution is make the woman swallow every time.
Get the Congressional Budget Office to put a price tag on all that. The fact is, once a woman is pregnant, she has a right to use abortion to get out of the physical process that has begun, but it is too late for the man to exercise a right, because his rights relate to his body, not hers.
But the man is expected to pay for something that he, in your scenario, has ZERO rights to?
The man must take responsibility for himself, not seek to control the woman.
So, feminism wasn't about equality? Why is the man held to an unequal standard?
The woman had the exact same option to avoid the situation in advance.
I know you men would like to have your fun and freedom and not be troubled by risks, but your body is yours and her body is hers.
Unless it's rape, then the woman consented to the sperm. The repurcussions are known to her well in advance.
The man is liable for anything...why?
The father has rights to that child too.
Clearly he doesn't. It's the woman's child first and foremost. She can kill it with no penalty.
Ann Althouse said...
You can store your sperm for your own future use.
If you want to be a sperm donor type person, there already is law sparing you having to pay child support for the consequences of that.
Feel free to ovulate.
You missed one option, Lyssa...
- If the father requests, he gets automatic sole custody of the child conceived through fraud.
After all... the mother has proven she's unfit.
Besides, my hand has warm blood vessels underneath the skin.
Risk loosing my hand, playing with liquid nitrogen, just so I can freeze my sperm, is too much of a sacrifice to have a baby.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Men: you want to fornicate with single women and commit adultery with married women, then protect yourself.
Otherwise: No sympathy from me.
Inga said...
Great suggestion Ann. Women must carry a baby and give birth to it, which includes far more pain and suffering than a vasectomy. So a man who desires full control of his sperm could use Ann's option. Problem solved.
Labor can go for how long, a day or two? The actual birth is just a few minutes after crowning, then it's all over, unless she has an episotome. You don't have testicles, contrary to Garage asking you to hold his, so you wouldn't understand testicular pain under any circumstance.
You don't much about how family law operates, do you?
Thankfully, no.
All I'm talking about is the domestic relations law that relates to the expenses of rearing the child, who is a separate person. The father has rights to that child too. It's not all burdens. But he is the father and that matters.
And yet a man has no say in the pregnancy itself. I thought he was the father and he has rights to that child too. And that that child is a separate person.
If a woman makes the choice about about having a baby and it's only her choice she shouldn't be able to demand that he pay child support if he doesn't want to. Give men the same choice that women use when it comes to abortion. The choice to say no. You can give birth to the kid, but that's your choice. I don't want to be a father, nor pay for your choice. If you are now realizing that it's going to be too expensive to raise a kid on your own, shouldn't you have thought about that when discussing whether to have an abortion? You, as a woman had that choice too.
Meade said...
Guys, listen to Uncle Meade: keep your DNA to yourself. Trust no one.
I would, but your wife said I should feel free to masturbate. It's gonna be kinda hard to not let the outcome be decided.
I agree with some here that say its unjust for a wife to have to give permission for her husband to have a vasectomy. It's his body, his choice. See how that works?
The feminist solution.
Men cut your balls off.
Ann - does the child, whom the government can require the parents to support, come into existence after the man has lost control of the sperm?
Is the existence of a child preventable after the man has lost control of the sperm?
If so, who is responsible for creating the child?
If you give me a gift, and relinquish all control over it, are you legally responsible for what I choose to do with it?
Should you be?
"Men can freeze their sperm beforehand and thereafter have perfect control over when women get hold of their reproductive powers."
Will we be making the ladies extract it (the sperm) before the procedure?
Synova said You missed one option, Lyssa...
- If the father requests, he gets automatic sole custody of the child conceived through fraud.
After all... the mother has proven she's unfit.
Fair enough, and I don't disagree (heck, I'm not too far outraged by the forcable adoption option I suggested). That said, as someone who has spent way, way too many hours in family court, men in general don't want that option. Over and over, no matter how crazy the mother, men will virtually always tell the court that they want her to have at least half custody. It probably wouldn't solve the problem in 5% of cases.
@Synova, Bagoh20, Panachronic
Great, great points!
The man must take responsibility for himself, not seek to control the woman.
Isn't this problem a result of the woman not being responsible for herself? Or is she absolved of any responsibility for making sure she doesn't get pregnant?
Jr.
The unborn child is not a separate person until there are laws protecting its personhood. The question is when should that happen? But that's another discussion.
Inga said...
I agree with some here that say its unjust for a wife to have to give permission for he husband to have a vasectomy. It's his body, his choice. See how that works?
Has there been any court that has demanded a woman have an abortion? Now, how many court ordered vasectomies have there been? See how that works?
I don't like sperm.
I know most straighties think mos love the splooge. Oh sure I know some fags who love nothing better than downing a load but I hate it.
If I am yanking on their hog and they are telling me they are about to blow I immediately point the shaft away from me and to the left.
Sperms gross. Sperm smells too.
Titus said...
I don't like sperm.
I know most straighties think mos love the splooge. Oh sure I know some fags who love nothing better than downing a load but I hate it.
If I am yanking on their hog and they are telling me they are about to blow I immediately point the shaft away from me and to the left.
Sperms gross. Sperm smells too.
I thought you liked the smell of curry.
The unborn child is not a separate person until there are laws protecting its personhood. The question is when should that happen? But that's another discussion.
So then why can't a man say, prior to the baby becoming viable when it's personhood is still in question "If you have this baby then I don't want to be a dad, so don't expect support from me. If you want the baby you can have it as a single mother, or simply abort it".
There are four parties involved in these cases: Dad, Mom, Child, and Taxpayer. Assume Mom lied to Dad, Mom doesn't have enough income to adequately support Child. Who should pay? My ranking, is:
Mom
Dad
Taxpayer
Child
Child is innocent. He needs support even if Mom and Dad are both terrible.
The Taxpayer shouldn't be on the hook to support the child if the Dad has some money. Dad at least got some action.
Ann - does the child, whom the government can require the parents to support, come into existence after the man has lost control of the sperm?
Is the existence of a child preventable after the man has lost control of the sperm?
If so, who is responsible for creating the child?
If you give me a gift, and relinquish all control over it, are you legally responsible for what I choose to do with it?
Should you be?
Jr. Because he cannot compell her to have an abortion and he cannot compell her to not have one. It's her body that carries the child, or doesn't. He has lost control of his sperm.
Inga: He has lost control of his sperm.
Then why is he responsible for what she does with it?
If you give me a gift, are you legally responsible for the choices I make in how I use it?
I have not been following the story, but I believe Instapundit's wife, Dr. Helen, is becoming concerned that with all this fussing over "rights," a lot of men are both opting out of marriage and keeping their pants zipped.
The fact is, once a woman is pregnant, she has a right to use abortion to get out of the physical process that has begun, but it is too late for the man to exercise a right, because his rights relate to his body, not hers.
But the child is a creation of both her body and HIS. In addition, the child is NOT the same as her body. A human body does not have two heads, four arms and legs, and two types of DNA.
In a surprise development, DNA analysis of the stain on the blue dress shows it's not human.
- John and Ken, back when.
To save commenters the trouble of telling me again: I know, there was an underage boy one time who was the victim of statutory rape and made to pay child support. So craft a narrow exception for people like him.
What about the women who get pregnant through fraud? What about the women who cheat on their husbands? What about the women who save used rubbers and mouthfuls of sperm from oral sex to impregnante themselves with?
The general principle is a good one.
If you are a woman.
The swim team has rights too.
The man must take responsibility for himself, not seek to control the woman.
But it's perectly fine for a woman to seek to control a man, or at least his income.
The father has rights to that child too. It's not all burdens
Bullshit!
Vasectomy is not an abortion. More like tubal ligation.
Not to mention the fact the man's heart isn't necessarily broken when the woman's tubes are tied.
(I know, not the same thing...)
Meade said...
Men can freeze their sperm beforehand and thereafter have perfect control over when women get hold of their reproductive powers.
Be careful, guys – could be a trap.
That's how you ended up in CO?
Inga said...
Great suggestion Ann. Women must carry a baby and give birth to it, which includes far more pain and suffering than a vasectomy.
You want pain and suffering?
A woman doesn't have to listen to somebody like the She Devil of the SS nag and bitch for 40 years, either.
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
How about this crazy idea: people search for partners with character and shared values whom they can trust, and keep their legs together unless they are willing to accept the birth of a child.
Well, if you want to be logical about it...
Guys, listen to Uncle Meade: keep your DNA to yourself. Trust no one.
This message is repeated about ninety times in the book of Proverbs.
Not to mention Conan's Father:
For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts.
[Points to sword]
This you can trust.
Biologically the child is a seperate being, dependant on the uterus and placenta of the mother to survive, legally not so much, unless personhood laws declared it to be a American with rights at a certain point in development.
Again a seperate conversation.
Hagar said...
I have not been following the story, but I believe Instapundit's wife, Dr. Helen, is becoming concerned that with all this fussing over "rights," a lot of men are both opting out of marriage and keeping their pants zipped.
In her new book, Men on Strike (reviewed here),she's saying that a lot of men are refusing to marry because they see it as a poor risk. Some men are just going their own way altogether and avoiding women completely. She also discusses why some men are avoiding going to college due to the hostility they find in higher education.
"In her new book, Men on Strike (reviewed here),she's saying that a lot of men are refusing to marry because they see it as a poor risk. Some men are just going their own way altogether and avoiding women completely. She also discusses why some men are avoiding going to college due to the hostility they find in higher education."
7/5/13, 4:30 PM
There are more fish in the sea, as my mother used to say.
At least one man (IIRC) was held liable for child support after his girlfriend performed (only) oral sex on him, with a condom, fetched it out of the trash afterwards, and inseminated herself.
I do not think that a man should be held responsible for getting a woman pregnant if he has not done anything that could possibly result in her getting pregnant except via her artificial intervention, without his knowledge. Ditto, of course, cases of statutory rape. (And spare me the line about how "teacher coming on to me" is every teenage boy's fantasy. It's illegal, unethical, and you don't get to profit by it, even vicariously.)
Instapundit's wife, Dr. Helen, is becoming concerned that with all this fussing over "rights," a lot of men are both opting out of marriage and keeping their pants zipped.
Have no fear; laws to extract $$$$ from them anyway will be passed someday.
Ah, so Althouse started off another post with a hearty meal of Quaker Instant Bitch.
Did Meade support his first family after abandoning them?
rhhardin said...
The swim team has rights too.
Every Sperm is Sacred.
Still drinking that 60's cool-aid, Ann. Reread "Men on Strike"
Pregnancy occurs inside the woman's body, where the man lost control of his sperm
Beta issue: “Lost control of his sperm.” So, a man loses any rights with respect to his sperm once it’s "inside a woman's body? Then it becomes the woman’s property, to do with it what she will, and whatever she does with it are the consequences whose costs are the responsibility of the man? OK. Forget the myriad ways a woman can steal sperm, ways where the man cannot hope to prove that he did not have sexual intercourse with the woman (without videotaping the whole thing in fine detail). But “steal” is the wrong word, isn’t it? You can’t steal what is already yours. What I think is meant is that it is not only “inside” a woman’s body – i.e., her reproductive organs – where a man “loses control of his sperm.” What can be the only intent -- due to the practical limitations on obtaining proof that a man did not ejaculate in the woman’s vagina but rather in her mouth, ass, navel, ears or up her nose, or elsewhere on her body, or in a improperly discarded condom, or on her bed sheets, floor, wall, etc. – is that a man loses his right to determine the fate of his DNA as soon as he ejaculates anywhere except for on himself or on his property. When he’s home. Alone. In the only place where the NSA can definitively supply the proof that he was viewing internet porn and jerking off like a proper beta male.
Am I right here?
Beta follow-up question: Feminists wouldn’t be trying to control men’s sexuality, would they?
But there is some beta bait: They’re willing to give betas free stuff!!! 100% free and irreversible sterilization! “You want to fuck us beta losers? Get your beta asses sterilized first. It free from the government! ObamaSnip™ Otherwise the price of this pussy is 21 years of child support.”
How's that for a pro-equality policy?
It’s a joke.
Ah, so Althouse started off another post with a hearty meal of Quaker Instant Bitch.
I prefer Quaker Instant Cantankerous Bastard. More fiber.
I wrote an article about the fundamental unfairness of reproductive law back in 2006:
http://gahrie.blogspot.com/2006/03/roe-v-wade-for-men.html
Inga said...
Biologically the child is a seperate being, dependant on the uterus and placenta of the mother to survive, legally not so much, unless personhood laws declared it to be a American with rights at a certain point in development.
Again a seperate conversation.
Personhood?
Even Dr Goebbels didn't get that weird.
And, no, all one conversation. Until the feminists decided to rewrite medical science for their own convenience, everybody was pretty well agreed life began at conception.
And the word is separate.
AnUnreasonableTroll said...
The swim team has rights too.
Every Sperm is Sacred.
Guess what, smartass? That's what the Bible says, too.
The answer is for a young man to keep his zipper up until he marries a woman who believes in responsibility and equality. Whereas the modern woman think men should be responsible and women should be "equal."
I'm skipping all your "so what you're saying is" and "that's like" something unrelated argumentation. I find them unhelpful and actually obfuscating rather than clarifying.
We empaths take a different track.
We inhabit the minds of the principals and tarry, viewing with their eyeballs and thinking with their brains and feeling what it is like inside there, planting the suggesting to unbutton the blouse because we're pervs too, hey, can't help it, while you're in there, what the heck, and then move on. Oops. I meant to say walk a mile in another man's moccasins but that came out instead. Or a woman's moccasins, perhaps, they're fuzzy inside, you know what I mean.
And emerge with a fuller understanding of the situation. This innate ability is what our Wise Latina® alluded to, but one needn't be Latin nor female just for that.
Edutcher doesn't know that his own Party, the Republicans were pushing Personhood Laws.
I had no ideas women had so little self control.
Titus said...
and they are telling me they are about to blow I immediately point the shaft away from me and to the left.
It is these small details that bring vibrancy and immediacy to Titus's posts. Without the 'to the left' the post is generic but this phase gives a Titus-eye view of the world, as if we were really there.
edutcher said...
"Every Sperm is Sacred".
Guess what, smartass? That's what the Bible says, too.
I know.
Truckee Man said...
The answer is for a young man to keep his zipper up until he marries a woman who believes in responsibility and equality. Whereas the modern woman think men should be responsible and women should be "equal."
Nice point.
Women want men to be responsible until they want to make the decisions on their own; then the man can go to Hell.
How about the women taking some responsibility, for a change?
How about they quit all this talk about viability and personhood and fetus and just make the woman say, "I killed my baby"?
"Have no fear; laws to extract $$$$ from them anyway will be passed someday."
Who do you suppose pays for all of Julia's free stuff?
Inga said...
Jr. Because he cannot compell her to have an abortion and he cannot compell her to not have one. It's her body that carries the child, or doesn't. He has lost control of his sperm.
Still sounds more like giving a woman a choice between two options, not compulsion.
Inga conflates the imposition of any adverse consequence following the choice that a woman makes with compulsion.
The power of Christ compels you!
Inga said...
Edutcher doesn't know that his own Party, the Republicans were pushing Personhood Laws.
The Governor of CO just signed one, genius, and he's a Democrat.
In any case, they're unnecessary. If Choom is afraid to answer when life begins because even somebody as clueless as he knows the answer, the science, as they say, is settled.
Society has chosen... is a laffer.
How about you just abort it, unless both agree. Equal responsibility, equal rights. A women is responsible for her own contraception, just a man. It's like a contract.
"That said, as someone who has spent way, way too many hours in family court, men in general don't want that option. Over and over, no matter how crazy the mother, men will virtually always tell the court that they want her to have at least half custody. It probably wouldn't solve the problem in 5% of cases."
It would solve far more than 5% of cases where a woman is looking for a paycheck from a rich guy or athlete or such.
"Why do people keep talking about DNA testing? The case at issue has no false fatherhood at issue; DNA testing would be irrelevant. Stay on point!"
Women might not think its a big deal but men sure do.
Edutcher, make up your mind, you think Personhood Laws a bad thing? Even if your own Party is in favor of it? So what if a Democrat signed a Personhood Bill, that would be a good thing if you are pro life, no?
Or are you simply a contrary crotchedy old fool, who is always wrong and never makes sense?
Funny how the harpy notions of "reproductive rights" and "reproductive freedom" always dissolve once the discussion turns to male paternity.
I'll take "Althouse' for $500 dollars, Alex.
Answer: A dull Atlhouse comment thread.
Question: What happens when Inga and her pals post more than 3 times?
EDH said...
The power of Christ compels you!
I also just watched "This Is The End". I thought it was only so-so but the demons were suitably Dantesque.
"Right now unmarried men are automatically opted into parental status at birth. If there was a lot of public support, I could see the legal system changing the presumption of fatherhood, so that unmarried men are automatically opted out.
But, unmarried men would have to accept the loss of this right: if they impregnated a woman, that child would not be their legal child at birth."
That's not the only option. Because, you see, a woman gets to *choose*. If she does nothing, she's a mother. So give men the right to choose. He does nothing, he's a father. Give him the same amount of time that a woman gets when she finds out she's pregnant.
That's fair.
Althouse for $1,000, Alex.
Answer: Unknown.
Question: Is Inga a woman or a Gay man?
What happens? We get lots and lots of money!
If you give me a gift, are you legally responsible for the choices I make in how I use it?
"Losing control" is not the same as "giving a gift."
Think of your sperm as a loaded gun, and think of a woman as an ignorant and impulsive child who picks up that gun. Then, you'll have an appreciation for the legal and philosophical niceties -- even the grandeur -- of feminist law.
Is rcocean a hater?
Answer, why yes, he is.
Question, why does rcocean make personal attacks?
Answer, because he feels that his side is losing, but must not call him a loser,oh noes.
"Did Meade support his first family after abandoning them?"
I've done the manly thing by never abandoning any of my families. Just the contrary - I continue to support them all in every way they ask me to.
Inga: "It's his body, his choice. See how that works?"
Actually, we see how it works in real life rather than in platitudes. Did you miss the point that it's currently not his choice? Do you see how injustice works?
One way it works is that women minimize and gloss over it when it happens to men.
wwww said...
But are unmarried men ok with giving up this right?
I would guess that the answer is generally yes. I am willing to state on this public forum that if there are any children out there for whom my parentage can be established as a fact, I forgo all fatherhood rights. Given my advanced age all these potential children should be over 18 so I should be in the clear anyway but I want this on the official record.
Meade said...
"Did Meade support his first family after abandoning them?"
I've done the manly thing by never abandoning any of my families. Just the contrary - I continue to support them all in every way they ask me to.
This was a pretty low shot by the way.
Its good to see that at least three women that I can think of who are willing to see the situation from the male perspective, Synova, DBQ and Freeman Hunt, though there might one or two others that I missed. All the other women are making typical female knee jerk reactions in my opinion.
Just keep a low profile, and where there are women, try to pass through quicly and unobtrusively.
Try to not meet their eyes, and if you accidentally do anyway, keep your face expressionless and pass on.
Given my advanced age all these potential children should be over 18 so I should be in the clear anyway but I want this on the official record.
Emancipation is 21 in some jurisdictions, so you better delete that comment post haste.
Nomennovum said...
Emancipation is 21 in some jurisdictions, so you better delete that comment post haste.
Crap!
Question, why did rcocean think his comments of a personal nature are worthy commentary?
Answer, it has no value whatsoever, except to portray him as he is, a jerk.
Inga said...
Edutcher, make up your mind, you think Personhood Laws a bad thing? Even if your own Party is in favor of it? So what if a Democrat signed a Personhood Bill, that would be a good thing if you are pro life, no?
My party?
Which one, the one that stands for fiscal responsibility, secure borders, and a strong defense, or the one made up of Chuckie Schumer's "Republicans"?
I said it's unnecessary if one knows science and the Constitution.
Are you incapable of comprehending the English language, meine schatzi?
Or are you simply a contrary crotchedy old fool, who is always wrong and never makes sense?
The word is crotchety and I, at least, know whether I have 3 or 4 kids and whether my spouse is still alive.
IOW, Mitochondri, I'm not a liar.
Is rcocean a hater?
Answer, why yes, he is.
Question, why does rcocean make personal attacks?
Answer, because he feels that his side is losing, but must not call him a loser,oh noes.
So, if the She Devil of the SS makes personal attacks, as she always does when cornered, is she a loser and a hater, too?
Or just a troll that can't hold her own?
Low shots always ensue when the debate has been lost. Always, it's so predictable.
"This was a pretty low shot by the way."
Hah. I've taken lower blows and cheaper shots. MomJeans is the former Fred4Prez. He comes from a long line of haters, losers, and beta males. Clearly, he hides behind a screen name so his former wives, employers and children can't recognize him.
" I think society has chosen to put the burden on men to control where they put their sperm."
But society also decided that women should stay barefoot and pregnant, but you wouldn't listen. You couldn't man up and just take it. You got all beta female on us, didn't you? You became all uppity and demanding fairness and equality, and now you wanna pull up the ladder behind you. That's tactic is getting to be theme around here.
Thanks Meade! I suspected it for a while.
Inga said...
Low shots always ensue when the debate has been lost. Always, it's so predictable.
So why do you always resort to them?
Inga said...
Jr.
The unborn child is not a separate person until there are laws protecting its personhood. The question is when should that happen? But that's another discussion.
If the child is not a separate person then what is it?
Oh great. while you all are arguing about ways for people to avoid conception or ending pregnancies, and thus driving down the birthrate, Pharaoh Puttmost the First's new "healthcare" law will cause the decreasing cohort of young people pay for the health needs of an explosion of old people.
Yeah, that'll work.
Way to keep your eye on the ball, Ann!
The fact is, once a woman is pregnant, she has a right to use abortion to get out of the physical process that has begun
Point of order, the woman has a right to seek an abortion. There's nothing about anyone having to provide it to her or having Other People pay for it.
Inga said...
Jr. Because he cannot compell her to have an abortion and he cannot compell her to not have one. It's her body that carries the child, or doesn't. He has lost control of his sperm.
Losing control of his sperm? The fact that impregnation occurs says that the sperm were in control of what they were doing. At least 1. Where do you come up with this stuff? Not to mention that you again are using physiology against men simply because they cannot become pregnant and therefore in your tiny little mind they have zero say so in the future of their child. What a preposterous life you live.
Ed, dear poor Ed.
I accept your surrender.
"All I'm talking about is the domestic relations law that relates to the expenses of rearing the child, who is a separate person. The father has rights to that child too. It's not all burdens. But he is the father and that matters. "
Maybe you should read Helen Smith's book. Men are choosing. If that's OK with you, problem solved.
"Is rcocean a hater?"
Yes, he hates dullards.
Michael K, it's more than OK with more women than you think. There are more fish in the ocean and the guys who can't deal with the realities of reproduction need to become monks...or something.
Inga hates dull commenters like rcocean, especially if he does nothing to enhance the discussion.
"If you're thinking of bringing up the woman's right to choose to avoid a pregnancy, let me repeat that this is a decision that properly belongs to the woman."
Her body, her choice, her problem.
"Pregnancy occurs inside the woman's body, where the man lost control of his sperm. He should have been more risk averse."
He didn't 'loose control', he transferred ownership. If she didn't want to own it, she should have been more risk averse.
'lost control'? By necessity of 'Her body, her choice' it must be a transfer of ownership. If she didn't want to own the sperm she should have been more risk averse.
He should have been more risk averse.
Men are becoming more risk adverse. They are, en masse, avoiding cunts like those who you seem to be admiring and standing up for. Devious, selfish, bitches who trick a man into being a father by lying about using birth control. OR.... Narcissistic, bitches who use their children as bargaining chips to trick a man into supporting children that aren't of his own biological generation. Or women who kill their children because it just isn't convenient and deprive the man of being a father when he may have wanted to take the responsibility.
Men have no choices other than to avoid any contact with such toxic entities.
Women who use these tactics and those who stand up for them literally, not figuratively, make me sick. It makes me ashamed to be a woman or even be classified in the same category of these nasty pieces of work. If I were a man I wouldn't have any respectful or meaningful relationships with women until it isn't a one way street or a fool's game anymore. Rights for women and NONE for men. And then they get berated by delusional feminists for not wanting to just stand there and take it, to not be a pinata or punching bag for women. No wonder men are just not interested in commitment. No wonder men don't have respect for women. Women don't deserve respect until they earn it, and these women you admire and stand up for have lost any claim for respect.
Nauseating.
AA: I know you men would like to have your fun and freedom and not be troubled by risks, but your body is yours and her body is hers.
And we'll be self-servingly clever and arbitrary about how to define just when certain bodies count as bodies that belong to individuals with rights, so that, unlike men, women can have their fun and freedom and not be troubled by risks.
rcocean: Men: you want to fornicate with single women and commit adultery with married women, then protect yourself.
Otherwise: No sympathy from me.
'Cause fornicating and committing adultery should only be risky for men, I guess.
Lyssa: * Have both parents' parental rights terminated and the child forceably given up for adoption?
In other words, it has to be unfair to someone - should that someone be the dad, the kid, or the public coffers?
What's unfair about denying public support to people who screw around and reproduce irresponsibly? Destigmatizing and incentivizing (is that a word?) single motherhood is a disaster. Would it really be so terrible to say, "put the kid up for adoption, or, if it can't be adopted, the public will bankroll its care, but you, mom, take a hike".
Yeah, I know, there are decent women who find themselves in that situation, but that was always the case, and helping them doesn't require supporting daft jerkettes' whims or li'l Julias' 30, 40, 50, 60, 70% illegitimacy rates.
"If the child is not a separate person then what is it?"
************
If the mother wants it, it's a person.
Is she doesn't, it's not.
While she's deciding?
Think of Shroedinger's cat.
"People who use sperm banks and are inseminated in clinics do not have a claim on the male donor. That's because the intent to become a parent is missing and all parental rights are relinquished. There is no evidence of intent. "
There was a woman in Los Angeles a few years ago who was 35 and angry and trying to identify the sperm donor to a clinic that treated infertility when she was conceived. She wanted to find the donor of the sperm that created her and sue the donor for support.
It was no surprise that she was a social worker. The article didn't mention her sexual orientation. All the donors to that clinic were USC medical students, thank god before my time.
And be sure you get a lawyer before trying to help someone out..
"Michael K, it's more than OK with more women than you think. There are more fish in the ocean and the guys who can't deal with the realities of reproduction need to become monks...or something."
Then why are they complaining ?
Men do have other options, like vasectomy. Read the biography of Karen Carpenter.
DBQ: Women who use these tactics and those who stand up for them literally, not figuratively, make me sick. It makes me ashamed to be a woman or even be classified in the same category of these nasty pieces of work.
Preach it, sister. The inability to see 'em and call 'em for what they are - nasty, dishonorable, despicable - disturbs me no end.
Well Karen Carpenter is a very thin reed to rely on.
What?
You don't like thin people jokes?
Whose complaining? Men. You must've missed yesterday's meeting of the He Male Women Haters Club, Michael, lol.
"If you're thinking of bringing up the woman's right to choose to avoid a pregnancy, let me repeat that this is a decision that properly belongs to the woman."
Her body, her choice, her problem.
"Pregnancy occurs inside the woman's body, where the man lost control of his sperm. He should have been more risk averse."
He didn't 'loose control', he transferred ownership. If she didn't want to own it, she should have been more risk averse.
'lost control'? By necessity of 'Her body, her choice' it must be a transfer of ownership. If she didn't want to own the sperm she should have been more risk averse.
Fun fact. Did you know that when the research was going on to develop a contraceptive medication (pill) that it was first aimed to men? However, one side effect was ball shrinkage. That was unacceptable so research into a male contraceptive stopped, and they switched to researching oral contraceptives (the Pill) for women. Side effects were thrombosis deaths, but that was considered an acceptable risk.
What Ann seems to not notice is that child support is also mom support. Now if men were allowed to counter-claim for fraud and be able to garnish mom's salary and pension after the kid turns eighteen she might have a point.
In an age of legal contraception and abortion the notion of each act of intercourse implies consent to fatherhood is a bit dated. Anyway why does a kids needs trump fraud? Just because on has needs doesn't justify fraud anymore than being hungry doesn't give one the right to give the supermarket a bad check.
wwww said...
"Give men the same choice that women use when it comes to abortion. The choice to say no. You can give birth to the kid, but that's your choice. I don't want to be a father, nor pay for your choice."
This doesn't work legally. Think about the practicalities for the legal system.
I can say without reservation that the legal system can go fuck itself with respect to how it works vs. what my rights are and how they should be observed.
The law needs to know who gets parental rights at birth. Who is legally a father?
If the biological father wishes to be the caretaker of the child, then he should have that right to be instead of deferring to the mother simply because her physiology allows her carry and nurture one. Does the law have the right to tell a father, "no, you cannot be the caretaker of your child." Does the law have right to tell a mother who doesn't want the child while the father does that she can terminate her pregnancy at any time she wants? If the court won't allow her to go through with an abortion and she does so anyway, is she subject to murder charges?
It's gotta be straightforward or there's a helluvva mess in family courts forever.
Not only does it not have to be straightforward, but often times is not.
Now, unmarried adopting post-birth could work.
But at birth -- who gets to be a legal parent -- gotta be real clear or the courts are not happy.
Read above.
Right now unmarried men are automatically opted into parental status at birth. If there was a lot of public support, I could see the legal system changing the presumption of fatherhood, so that unmarried men are automatically opted out.
But, unmarried men would have to accept the loss of this right: if they impregnated a woman, that child would not be their legal child at birth.
Your premise is bullshit. Non-marriage isn't a presumption of loss of rights for a father simply because he isn't married. They are the legal father of that child and if you are going to state that they shouldn't be then that's something else. To tell any man or anyone else for that matter that they have to accept the loss of this right implies two things. One that they have the right to begin with and two, that you wish them to, for the sake of legal neatness, that they should lose it. Unclear, irrational, and murky thinking.
I'm male and certainly agree that children need to be supported but the present arrangement is clearly biased.
However improbable this scenario might be, suppose for a moment that, upon meeting for the first time, either the male or the female had contract which both would sign in which the female agreed to be responsible for any pregnancy which might ensue if they had sexual relations. Would that be valid and enforceable?
Inga said...
Jr. Because he cannot compell her to have an abortion and he cannot compell her to not have one. It's her body that carries the child, or doesn't. He has lost control of his sperm."
Really? That's like saying I lost my car keys and you found them so that gives you the right to take the car.
OK, if child support is really for the support of the child (please don't claim to be so naive that you actually believe this is currently true), why don't we make it a loan?
The man spends his 18 years paying so that the child is raised at an income level the state deems minimally sufficient (rather than proportional to his income, as it is now, which only gives additional benefit to the mother). Then, after 18 years, the woman spends as long as it takes, for the rest of her life, to pay all that money back.
Fair?
suppose for a moment that, upon meeting for the first time, either the male or the female had contract which both would sign in which the female agreed to be responsible for any pregnancy which might ensue if they had sexual relations. Would that be valid and enforceable?
No. They are documented cases where women signed contracts absolving men of any responsibility for donating sperm. The courts have ignored these documents.
Inga said...
Inga hates dull commenters like rcocean, especially if he does nothing to enhance the discussion.
Well, now, suddenly your willingness to make a fool of yourself makes sense.
cubanbob said...
Jr. Because he cannot compell her to have an abortion and he cannot compell her to not have one. It's her body that carries the child, or doesn't. He has lost control of his sperm."
Really? That's like saying I lost my car keys and you found them so that gives you the right to take the car.
Welcome to Lefty Logic 101.
If I get what I want and it advances the agenda, it makes sense.
When it comes to reproduction, men have responsibilities and women have rights.
wwww: "loose control of the sperm"....
"People aren't seeing that unmarried men will loose rights here if it's an opt-in rather then opt-out system."
"Loose" control? "Loose" rights? Upon what or whom are unmarried men going to loose that control or those rights? Or are you just suggesting that their rights aren't tight?
Lose. Lose lose lose LOSE LOSE!
Sorry. Pet peeve. I'm getting old and crotchety.
let me repeat that this is a decision that properly belongs to the woman. Pregnancy occurs inside the woman's body, where the man lost control of his sperm. He should have been more risk averse.
And yet the female doesn't lose control of her uterus once she's invited its invasion by a sperm and had her egg fertilized -- and she is not asked to be more risk-averse, or even use the same levels of common sense.
However much women screech about the unfairness and ungentlemanliness of such a conclusion, any reasonable man can see the grotesque asymmetry there, and however women may demand that they man up and take it, many men of moderate means will disdain to do so. This is apparently Helen Smith's argument in her book. It's hard to disagree, when you see the young twentysomething female crowd bemoaning the "hook up" culture that has them putting out endlessly -- but turning 30 and 35 without a "commitment" minded non-Peter Pan man in sight.
There is one category of man who will not be dissuaded by the insistence on female privilege, of course: that is the alpha male, with very dominant social position. Bill Clinton and Mitt Romney don't worry about female privilege in reproduction and marriage, because their political power and $2 billion fortune, respectively, nullify it, or more precisely fully counterbalance it. They can afford lawyers, or to buy people off, or just to raise cuckoos with pocket change.
So what is interestingly ironic is that the end-game of insisting on the abandonment of the old-fashioned male prerogatives in procreation and marriage, while retaining the old-fashioned female prerogatives, seems likely to be an acceleration towards a patriarchal alpha-male dominated society, in which women of all classes tend to compete for attachment to a very small class of alpha males with extreme wealth and power, who will gladly give them the privilege they insist upon, while the much larger beta class of men abandons the model of monogamy and nuclear family entirely.
It won't happen for those middle-aged and above, of course. Social change is slow. But for the young girls now being born -- your mothers and grandmothers would like to say welcome back to the harem! Remember to avert your eyes when the sultan summons you.
"MomJeans is the former Fred4Prez."
That news to me, Meade old boy. Your technological savy is of Boa-ian proportions. Are you just making shit up because I struck a nerve?
You were quite testy about it yesterday, and now again today. I take your statement about being properly supportive at face value.
I certainly don't have any ex wives, and no children that I know of. .
Do you come from a long line of people who make poor decisions in their first marriages only to be the "kept man" of an aging ivory tower law professor?
Not that there is anything "ugly" about that.
Let's require health insurance to cover vasectomies.
I'll go you one better, Althouse, let's make abortion mandatory for single women who cannot demonstrate adequate financial resources to raise a child alone (with an exception for women who conceived -- or conceivably conceived -- while married and whose husband died while the baby -- should we call it a fetus? -- was still in utero).
""People who use sperm banks and are inseminated in clinics do not have a claim on the male donor."
Well, today's that true.
Of course, all it takes is one trailblazing feminist judge who wants to "establish a new area of the law", and one particularly heartrending case (woman is destitute, sperm donor is now a wealthy surgeon) to give women a financial claim on sperm donors.
And why not - if biological parenthood controls, why shouldn't sperm donors be liable for child support?
Meade, the homeless man's John Kerry.
No Heinz fortune for you, but I'm sure that pension plan provided by the Taxpayers of Wisconsin is very nice.
Feminism and the sexual revolution hasn't been a win for women because women are longer treated with the respect they once were and many women are living unhappy single lives when they would prefer to be married.
Hey if you have a spouse who won't let you have a peeve of your own can you find some body to rent you their pet peeve?
Aren't there already men who do this to women? Men who say they will do something to prevent pregnancy and then don't? I've never heard that called rape.
I mean I really hate bow ties so if somebody has a pet peeve against bow ties that I could rent I would really appreciate it.
Thanks.
When I was growing up, the prevailing sex ed was that you, male or female, were wholly responsible for your own birth control and that you should never assume or believe that the other person was taking care of it. That's not the prevailing wisdom anymore?
Maybe all those traditionally religious people don't hate sex--maybe they have all those prohibitions on sex outside marriage for some other reason...
It's like there was a plan for all of this or something.
I would love to take my rented pet peeve out for walks. Maybe video tape it as I go up to Tucker Carlson and punch him in the face.
I could say "Hey don't blame me it's this stupid pet peeve I rented."
That would be way cool.
The woman's actions of stopping her birth control pills and lying to her boyfriend about it were despicable. However, regardless of the conditions of conception, both parents are unconditionally responsible for the support of the child until he/she reaches adulthood. Period!
The poor sap may have made a mistake, but he is responsible for the outcome.
(I'm a 70 year old male father of three and grandfather of six.)
Dust Bunny Queen said...
He should have been more risk averse.
Men are becoming more risk adverse. They are, en masse, avoiding cunts like those who you seem to be admiring and standing up for. Devious, selfish, bitches who trick a man into being a father by lying about using birth control. OR.... Narcissistic, bitches who use their children as bargaining chips to trick a man into supporting children that aren't of his own biological generation. Or women who kill their children because it just isn't convenient and deprive the man of being a father when he may have wanted to take the responsibility.
Men have no choices other than to avoid any contact with such toxic entities.
Women who use these tactics and those who stand up for them literally, not figuratively, make me sick. It makes me ashamed to be a woman or even be classified in the same category of these nasty pieces of work. If I were a man I wouldn't have any respectful or meaningful relationships with women until it isn't a one way street or a fool's game anymore. Rights for women and NONE for men. And then they get berated by delusional feminists for not wanting to just stand there and take it, to not be a pinata or punching bag for women. No wonder men are just not interested in commitment. No wonder men don't have respect for women. Women don't deserve respect until they earn it, and these women you admire and stand up for have lost any claim for respect.
Nauseating.
EPIC CLAPPING!!!
Is it even possible for a conservative to think clearly at all these days about anything? While manipulated paternity is pretty despicable, and certainly a species of high-stakes fraud, the analogy is substituting a woman's oral contraceptives for placebos. No one would call that rape, whatever it is. "Rape" is a term loaded with connotations of the violence, brutality and coercion that often accompanies it, and revolves around forcing your way into obtaining the act itself (and intrusion into a person), not what comes of it. Yes, we call people who drug drinks and manipulate minors into sex rapists, but that technicality revolves around how consent was faked for the sake of the act itself. Most rapists (I would guess) don't give a damn about making a baby out of it.
Your party really does seem to have a problem with some basic ideas and definitions, doesn't it? What gives? Are they just that much into economic liberty that the personal and social tyranny they advocate leaves them completely incapable of understanding issues of bodily autonomy? I'd expect better from him that this brain freeze - he's supposed to be one of your side's most advocacy-focused pundits after all.
Time to ask for a recount.
"Point of order, the woman has a right to seek an abortion. There's nothing about anyone having to provide it to her or having Other People pay for it."
That's true, and that is something that makes the proposal in my post not neatly about equality.
But there really can never be equality about pregnancy and childbirth. It is the woman's special burden, and the policies have to be arranged to make sense around that basic inequity. I'm not trying to punish men by imposing a corresponding inequity, I'm just not impressed by the whinings of males who were profligate with their sperm. They are not the backbone of society.
The backbone of society is the married, committed couple who channel their sexuality into making and growing the next generation. Those who do other things are free to make choices, but we as a society have no reason to facilitate their choices, especially their destructive choices.
I know people like their free sex, but the expectation that the rest of us will save them from consequences is pathetic. I heartlessly laugh in their face.
However, regardless of the conditions of conception, both parents are unconditionally responsible for the support of the child until he/she reaches adulthood. Period!
Well, there's where I disagree. Fraudulently obtaining consent for paternity leaves the burden of supporting the object of said paternity on the party perpetuating the fraud. She might not be a rapist, but she is a thief, and a fraud. And financially rewarding a fraud for their act is the stupidest way to warp incentives inside-out that I can think of. The last thing we want is to perpetuate the genes of people who lie their way into child support by defrauding those most intimate with them. More thief genes in this society are not needed, especially those who would use the creation of new human life as a ruse for doing so. Disgusting. Women already have enough difficulty separating their own sense of personal glory from what's actually good for a child; there's no need to make that problem worse.
"The backbone of society is the married, committed couple who channel their sexuality into making and growing the next generation."
Really? Really?
After all your gay marriage histrionics? Or were you being literal with your "growing the next generation" choice of words, as in growing in a test tube?
Also, any chiming in on the homeless man's John Kerry's claim that I used to post as Fred 4 Prez?
President Mom Jeans is Fred4Prez?
Wow, I didn't know.
tits.
" I heartlessly laugh in their face."
that's funny. I would like to see that too.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा