If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure how this relates directly to my point. I do agree that you cannot "have it all" and that goes for both men and women.

It doesn't. Only the first line was in response to your comment. The rest was an explanation that I see privilege as extending beyond the legal system. The first two examples were legal examples.

 

[CiG]

Why isn't it equally hard to argue a man should have to support a child he didn't want? We are talking about 9 months vs 26 years (now).

Well, I come back to the understanding that entering into an act of sex is entering into the risk of pregnancy. So what I'm saying is, if you don't want children, don't have sex. If you do have sex, you have in some proportion decided to have a child.

 

[Einherjar86]

So what I'm saying is, if you don't want children, don't have sex. If you do have sex, you have in some proportion decided to have a child.

Tough to arrive at this kind of morally prescriptive attitude from the tendentious premise that sex is "for" childbirth. Sex is also for fun - neither one is primary.

 

[CiG]

Oh of course! But even when sex is for fun, sex is fun and feels good specifically to make breeding more attractive, you are still risking pregnancy and if you understand this simple biological fact, you are therefore consenting to such a risk.

 

[rms]

But walking outside my house increases my risk for nearly everything. Should I be responsible for every negative or unwanted action because I chose to leave the house today?

 

[EternalMetal]

No, but you are responsible for your own actions. Im with CIG on this one, if you dont take the proper precautions when choosing to have sex (ie birth control), you are taking a risk. Pregnancy is an avoidable scenario, only irresponsible people get someone accidentally knocked up.

 

[rms]

you act like the odds of pregnancy when having sex is likely let alone the majority possible outcome (above 50%) -- it's not

 

[arg]

Abortion is evil and women should be shamed for doing it.

But it should still be allowed because 1) government should stay out of people's bodies and 2) taxpayers will end up paying if a poor person's baby is not aborted

 

[Dak]

The point is that the risk in engaging in sex is 100% on the males, 0% on females (or at most a negligible amount). There's effectively zero risk for females currently. They hold veto power yet are not tasked with the responsibility that goes along with certain decisions.

Edit: To provide clarity, the term relevant to this situation is moral hazard.

 

[Baroque]

The point is that the risk in engaging in sex is 100% on the males, 0% on females (or at most a negligible amount). There's effectively zero risk for females currently. They hold veto power yet are not tasked with the responsibility that goes along with certain decisions.

Edit: To provide clarity, the term relevant to this situation is moral hazard.

I disagree that it's 100% on males, there are females who don't believe in abortion and will carry a child under any circumstance. There are many males who won't provide child support for those kids and the changes to the woman's body, the time investment etc etc. There's also pressure from family members/friends to not have an abortion. Since you used such general terms " the risk of engaging in sex" we could also talk about stds and other topics but I won't go there. I don't know what you mean by they're not tasked with a responsibility? They're tasked with either taking care of the child or arranging to have it aborted.

I do agree with the implication that's not stated here, that males should have some vote in the abortion decision. But who will provide the tiebreaking vote?

 

[CiG]

Legally enforced abortion rights for men seems a little strange, though I fully take Dak's point on the burden men face even though they don't have a choice once a pregnancy has begun.

I think if you're going to have sex with a woman, you should know beforehand where she stands on abortion and she should know where you stand.

This is why I have little sympathy for these scenarios. The sex is for fun mentality has prevailed so much that people have sex without knowing essential beliefs about their partner and act like putting a penis in a vagina is not how we breed.

We can derail the point with questions like rms' about going outside, but you can't deny the fact that sex risks pregnancy and we should all know this prior to sex.

 

[arg]

That's all well and good about knowing that sex risks pregnancy, not to be irresponsible and use contraception, etc

The question is "what do we do now that she's been knocked up?"

Government force to prevent doctors from providing a paid service?

Make no mistake I think it's disgusting and they should be labeled as sluts and baby killers

but it absolutely must be allowed in the name of both freedom and fiscal conservatism and do it ASAP before the fetus develops too much

 

[Einherjar86]

I think if you're going to have sex with a woman, you should know beforehand where she stands on abortion and she should know where you stand.

"Look, I know we just met, and I think you're really hot... but if you get pregnant you'll get rid of it, right?"

Make no mistake I think it's disgusting and they should be labeled as sluts and baby killers

Funny, that's exactly how most of us think of you.

 

[CiG]

"Look, I know we just met, and I think you're really hot... but if you get pregnant you'll get rid of it, right?"

It's worth getting to know someone before you risk paying child support to them for 18+ years. Sex is awesome, but being a total dumb ass has impacts beyond yourself, like your potential future child who is now being raised by two clowns that didn't even converse before sex.

My mother had a random drunken one night stand in the late 90's with a man who was only on holiday in Australia and now I have a younger sister who has no idea where her father is from or who he is.

 

[Dak]

I disagree that it's 100% on males, there are females who don't believe in abortion and will carry a child under any circumstance. There are many males who won't provide child support for those kids and the changes to the woman's body, the time investment etc etc. There's also pressure from family members/friends to not have an abortion. Since you used such general terms " the risk of engaging in sex" we could also talk about stds and other topics but I won't go there. I don't know what you mean by they're not tasked with a responsibility? They're tasked with either taking care of the child or arranging to have it aborted.

I'm talking about the current social/economic/legal environment, not personal convictions which lead people to the decision they end up making. I don't care why the seeder and the egger make their respective decisions, and it in fact does not matter what the seeder decides, yet the seeder is 100% on the financial hook if the egger decides they want it. This is absolutely unethical.

But who will provide the tiebreaking vote?

Game theory: Whoever has the tiebreaker is the only one who matters. And currently it is the egger.

 

[Dak]

https://qz.com/896065/donald-trumps...e-and-american-consumers-would-foot-the-bill/

LOL, suddenly liberals are free marketeers. Thanks, Trump!

 

[Baroque]

I'm talking about the current social/economic/legal environment, not personal convictions which lead people to the decision they end up making. I don't care why the seeder and the egger make their respective decisions, and it in fact does not matter what the seeder decides, yet the seeder is 100% on the financial hook if the egger decides they want it. This is absolutely unethical.

"100% on the financial hook" is incorrect, he's around 50% on the financial hook if he's a decent person who visits with his kids, and depending on how much mom makes it can be less. I'm against child support in some scenarios but let's be honest and speak facts here.

Game theory: Whoever has the tiebreaker is the only one who matters. And currently it is the egger.

My question is/was what is your solution? Give the man the tiebreaker so he's the only one who matters? Or a third party is the tiebreaker?

 

[Dak]

"100% on the financial hook" is incorrect, he's around 50% on the financial hook if he's a decent person who visits with his kids, and depending on how much mom makes it can be less. I'm against child support in some scenarios but let's be honest and speak facts here.

The other 50% is made up by the taxpayer, which often doesn't include the egger.

My question is/was what is your solution? Give the man the tiebreaker so he's the only one who matters? Or a third party is the tiebreaker?

i'm not saying there is a solution if we don't change the balance between rights and responsibility.

 

[rms]

https://qz.com/896065/donald-trumps...e-and-american-consumers-would-foot-the-bill/

LOL, suddenly liberals are free marketeers. Thanks, Trump!

haha, I am seeing this phenomenon on my facebook feed already..

 

[Dak]

"It's insulting to the people who fought and died in the 50's and 60's to claim that things are just as bad now"