Umm, are you an MRM markov chain?
1# No person should be handed responsibility to create or support a offspring without their consent.
2# No child should be without enough financial support to live and grown into an adult.
Reproduction should only be legal when there is two consenting adults that want to bring a child to the world. In every case there isn't, that is a problem we as a society should try to fix as best we can without causing too much harm to either the unwilling parent or child.
So now I'm confused. Do you support abortion or not?
I completely agree. If abortion is illegal, yeah, the man should have no say just like the woman has no say in giving birth and raising a baby.
If abortion is legal, it's the logical equivalent of a woman saying "no thanks" to the baby unilaterally. "My body, my choice" and all that.
I am not trying to be difficult, I just want to know where you're coming from.
Beyond that, be aware that your other posts on this topic are visible, so the "I'm confused... not trying to be difficult" lines ring especially hollow.
The existence is chosen by a woman, who is presumably aware of the fact that it's going to be 9 months of difficult physical changes, followed by 18 years of life changes.
> I just as clearly support the notion that a child carried to term has two parents who share the responsibility of raising that child.
Why do you support that notion? So basically a woman gets to choose to bear a child, but a man has to abide by that decision?
> To clarify again, to avoid any "confusion", the logical equivalent of, "No thanks I'm not involved" is the woman leaving that child on the father's doorstep with a similar statement of disinterest.
That is a logical fallacy. You've already carried the child to term, now you're roping another unwilling participant into this? When you've already had the choice (easy and affordable) of choosing a difficult path?
> Beyond that, be aware that your other posts on this topic are visible, so the "I'm confused... not trying to be difficult" lines ring especially hollow.
I don't see how any of my other posts would counter my position of confusion. There is no "hollowness" there. My point has always been that if a woman can terminate a pregnancy, a man should be able to renounce all parental rights and responsibilities.
Remember, your original post referred to reproductive rights. Shouldn't men have those as well? Instead of just being told not to screw?
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't have to carry the child to term, at least in the states or most western countries. You choose to carry the child to term.
> Don't. Screw.
Have you spoken to teenagers or remember what that was like? They're still not fully formed human beings, under the influence of raging hormones. Don't expect old heads on young shoulders.
>You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't have to carry the child to term, at least in the states or most western countries. You choose to carry the child to term.
Either you misunderstood what I said, or you think that there is something to be gained from harping on semantics. Either way... no thanks.
>>Don't. Screw.
>Have you spoken to teenagers or remember what that was like? They're still not fully formed human beings, under the influence of raging hormones. Don't expect old heads on young shoulders.
Life isn't fair, and sometimes what you do as a teenager has long-term consequences, like having a child, or having to provide for a child. I have to say though, that in general this conversation does not seem to center around the impulsive choices of children, for the obvious reasons you've outlined. The usual way I see this issue framed is:
Condom broke. -or- "Conniving" woman poked a hole in the condom.
Neither implies reckless teenage abandon.
Nowhere in this thread was that brought up, and what is the relevance here? Don't put words in our mouths.
> Life isn't fair, and sometimes what you do as a teenager has long-term consequences,
Yes, like college loans. But people still ask for loan forgiveness. (See what I did there?)
Do you mean, only when a child has two parents, or only when sex is with consent?
The issue is how to deal with those cases, and make sure that everyone is treated in a fair way. Society should make rules that reflect a balance that respect people as much as it possible while doing as little harm as possible. I could suggest solutions here (like say, the government stepping in when there is only one consenting parent involved), but I don't claim to know what the perfect solution is. My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction. We need to start by defining common grounds and then ask how we can best reach those.
Excellent point; thanks for the insight.
> My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction.
While society does have interests in many aspects of reproduction, I think those are greatly outweighed by fundamental liberty and the sanctity of your own person. As an important principle (not an absolutist rule, of course), we shouldn't tell people, including women, what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
Also, governments have a dangerous track record with such policies. They've resulted in forced sterilizations and abortions, for example, and ethnic and religious discrimination.
Yes, I know abuse is possible, but given the alternative, I'm willing to take that risk, unless this kind of person has someone else who will be responsible and can be responsible for this person.
We could, but it is not a good sound bite when calling for gender equality and reproductive rights. It also sound as there is more, maybe smaller steps that we could do to minimize the difference in rights and responsibility when it comes to reproductive rights.
Yes. It's an interesting philosophical point, but there are real differences between men and women and this one is pretty straightforward.
Thank you.
So you're saying that men should shoulder more responsibility for breeding for the greater good?