Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Chen » Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:08 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:So, again; I would rather see a duped father roped into paying for a child he didn't want, then a child raised unsupported.


Except these don't have to be the only options. Since we already have plenty of ways you get unsupported children in the current system, this issue should be fixed as a whole instead of keeping up a system where the man can in fact be the victim of deception. Hell even without deception the woman changing her mind results in a situation the man has no control over. As evidenced by the whole debacle with astinence only teaching, we know that simply saying "well don't have sex then" does NOT work.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:09 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:So, if you don't want to get robbed don't open a shop! If you do it's your fault!
Norris, this has been covered repeatedly. Either discuss it with good faith, or go away. Don't just pop in and just yell "Victim Blaming" again.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:15 pm UTC

General_Norris wrote:Given we are talking about law and morality...

We distinctly are NOT talking about morality, but we are talking about law. Which is why I have made comments pertaining to the absurdity of making laws that protect fathers from being duped, such as the contracts.
General_Norris wrote:The only reason you keep thinking "It'ss your fault if your GF dupe you" is because you think you are safe. So what would happen if suddenly your GF gets pregnant? Would you feel happy even if you didn't want any kids?

That's a solid point, to some extent, I'm confident my stance on this is because personally I don't feel I will end up in this situation, and admittedly, can be more judgmental of people who find themselves in said position. But part of that opinion is reflected by the fact that I'm no one special, am not particularly good at negotiating or coercion, and as such, feel that if I can be in a long term relationship that openly and honestly (hopefully) discussed the repercussions of the frequent (and irresponsible!) sex we engage in, as well as prepare for said contingencies in the form of having money set aside for an abortion, I don't see why anyone else can't. But that aside, and most importantly, because I stand by my stance, I recognize that sex has ramifications, and if you have it, be prepared to deal with them. Ramifications = child. Don't delude yourself and think that actions don't have consequences.
Chen wrote:we know that simply saying "well don't have sex then" does NOT work.

Which is why I agreed with setzer, and said in the very post you quoted, that I felt we should make sex as easy as possible and as complication free as possible by encouraging birth control access and removing the stigma of abortion.
Chen wrote:Since we already have plenty of ways you get unsupported children in the current system, this issue should be fixed as a whole instead of keeping up a system where the man can in fact be the victim of deception.

I think the state should intervene and care for children when there are no other options. When parents have died, or when they have FINALLY been deemed unfit to parent and there are no grandparents/siblings/cousins/neighbors to do the brave thing and step in. Then yes, then we let the state care for a child. But the state already has it's hands full doing that, why would you want to add a HUGE number of children to be cared for by the tax payers, again, simply because the father claims he didn't want the kid?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:20 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:But if you'd like an example? You and your friend mutually agree to rob a bank, aware that there are potential consequences of your actions. His job is to drive the getaway car. If he chooses not to [fill in the blank with your chosen example of route, speed, recklessness or what have you] and you get caught, you can't blame the robbery on him. When you undertake an action that has consequences, you can't pass complete responsibility off on someone else because they have the last chance of avoiding those initial consequences for you.


Two things wrong with that scenario. One, in the analogy the robbery is sex, and going to jail is the baby. So if for instance the driver decided not to drive, you are right in saying that you can't blame him for the robbery. You could still blame him for going to jail (whether or not you would be right is another story). Two, it doesn't have any stop-gap mesures. Add this to your scenario to make it slightly more representative: The getaway driver is best friends with the president. The president would give you a pardon if the driver asked for one, like he said he would. But he isn't making the phone call because he decided he likes jail.

Or how about a loose sports analogy? In sports, like sex, the team is one. Still players can be held responsible for actions they take. A player shoots the puck down the ice towards the goal, (man shoots his...) the puck is slowly sliding down the ice (9 month pregnancy). The goalie can make an easy save (abortion, adoption, etc). He skates away from the puck, then celebrates when the other team scores (having baby, being happy about it). Sure if the players had never let the other team touch the puck (not had sex) they wouldn't have a problem. Still, all the blame would lay squarely with the goalie.

nitePhyyre wrote:Woman: Honey, I'm pregnant.
Man: That's amazing! I've always wanted to be a dad!
Woman: Aww, that is too bad. I decided to get an abortion. You have no say in the matter.
I'm sorry, but given the above, I honestly do not understand how you say she doesn't have 100% responsibility for *not* bringing it into the world.

Izawwlgood wrote:I'm in complete agreement that should make having sex as easy and convienient as possible, but the risks are what they are and the consequences as well. If you don't want to get into a car accident you can drive safely and wear a seatbelt, but that doesn't somehow mean you'll never get blindsided. Ultimately, the only way to never get into a car accident is to not drive.

The thing is as far as cars are concerned a driver can take EVERY possible action and still get into an accident. The same simply cannot be said for babies. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a couple to take every possible action agaisnt having a baby, and have one.

Izawwlgood wrote:The answer to this debate in my opinion is not a method for protecting fathers, but instead a method to make sure children aren't the consequence; you shouldn't worry how to split responsibility in what circumstance, but how to make eliminating consequence. Like you said setz, remove the stigma, increase access to birth control, and don't have sex with women who want to dupe you.

You can't just say that you wish there were methods to have sex and not wind up with a baby, while ignoring that those methods exist! On a side note: there is a stigma about abortions? Most women I know essetially have the opinion "they aren't my primary birth control method, but if I have to get one, i'll get it."
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:30 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Or how about a loose sports analogy? ... A player shoots the puck down the ice towards the goal, (man shoots his...) the puck is slowly sliding down the ice (9 month pregnancy). The goalie can make an easy save (abortion, adoption, etc). He skates away from the puck ... Still, all the blame would lay squarely with the goalie.

You know what's interesting with your chosen analogy? The player that shoots the goal gets credit for scoring it.

And you've also pre-loaded the situation by stating that it's the male's job to impregnate, and the woman's job to prevent it.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:15 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Or how about a loose sports analogy? ... A player shoots the puck down the ice towards the goal, (man shoots his...) the puck is slowly sliding down the ice (9 month pregnancy). The goalie can make an easy save (abortion, adoption, etc). He skates away from the puck ... Still, all the blame would lay squarely with the goalie.

You know what's interesting with your chosen analogy? The player that shoots the goal gets credit for scoring it.

And you've also pre-loaded the situation by stating that it's the male's job to impregnate, and the woman's job to prevent it.

You and I both know our little side tangent is about the last line of defense, and it's effects on responsibility. So again:
nitePhyyre wrote:Woman: Honey, I'm pregnant.
Man: That's amazing! I've always wanted to be a dad!
Woman: Aww, that is too bad. I decided to get an abortion. You have no say in the matter.

I'm sorry, but given the above, I honestly do not understand how you say she doesn't have 100% responsibility for *not* bringing it into the world.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:28 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Woman: Honey, I'm pregnant.
Man: That's amazing! I've always wanted to be a dad!
Woman: Aww, that is too bad. I decided to get an abortion. You have no say in the matter.


I'm not sure what the consequence in this scenario is, or at least, the consequence to the father. Emotional duress?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:33 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:You and I both know our little side tangent is about the last line of defense, and it's effects on responsibility.
Actually yes, and it has been since Biggles and I resolved this on page ... 2? You chose the analogy, it's not my fault that the 'scoring' player is also held responsible (given credit = held to be responsible) for the goal, as is the person that didn't stop it.

But ok, we've been over this: Abortions are not equitable to the other forms of contraception.

wikipedia wrote:Because of the split between federal and state law, legal access to abortion continues to vary somewhat by state. Geographic availability, however, varies dramatically, with 87 percent of U.S. counties having no abortion provider.[15] Moreover, due to the Hyde Amendment, many state health programs which poor women rely on for their health care do not cover abortions; currently only 17 states (including California, Illinois and New York) offer or require such coverage.[16]
So not only is this a surgical procedure, it is not free (whereas free condoms are fairly easy to come by, and even if they aren't the cost is negligible in comparison), it's nowhere near universally accessible. The problem is exacerbated by requiring time off and travel expenses for those who more clearly require material support in raising a child. And adoption requires carrying the child to term, which also has financial and job implications that are almost certainly more straining than abortion.

This is also about equality in bodily autonomy. If a male who does not want children impregnates someone, they have been given the opportunity to fully expresses their bodily autonomy and chose not to act in a manner that was 'safest' to their long term desires. A woman is *absolutely* allowed to equally express their bodily autonomy. The guy chose not to use protection; The girl chose not to use protection. In doing so she has not violated the autonomy of the male, nor should she be held 100% responsible for the consequences of that male's decision.

Because the loop is destined to continue: If you say that because the woman is 100% responsible for not stopping every pregnancy, she is 100% responsible for every child, you end up in a state that the law, morals and society as a whole have repeatedly recognized is wrong. So either that initial assumption is wrong, or the logic that got you there is. Incidentally, this is indicative of why we can't get meaningful reform of the system as is -- if it's brought up, someone loudly insists that no father is responsible for his kids if he decides not to be. And everyone else gets tired of trying to be rational with them.

When you act in a way that produces consequences, you are responsible for them -- regardless of whether you wish someone else had saved your ass for you.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:33 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Again, you are proposing to contractually screw over a child. For this reason alone, I think it's a foolish notion, and as I've said before, would rather see a screwed father roped into paying, then a screwed child forced to grow up in sub-optimal conditions.

The person who forced the father into the suboptimal condition is not the father, its the mother for signing an agreement that said she would have an abortion, and if she didn't she wouldn't get child support.

If your okay with just screwing people over to make sure the child doesn't grow up sub-optimally, just pick someone off the street. Better yet we should just do this if the father dies.

Azrael wrote:So not only is this a surgical procedure, it is not free (whereas free condoms are fairly easy to come by, and even if they aren't the cost is negligible in comparison), it's nowhere near universally accessible.


If the woman says she's going to, it means she has indicated she is willing to go through all of that (and in many areas of the world they are quite accessible). Just because abortion has consequences doesn't mean that she doesn't hold responsibility if she changes her mind and doesn't have one.

Similarly, if a male decides against having a vasectomy for similar reasons (costs, surgical procedure), and a pregnancy results, we would all find him responsible for the pregnancy.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:57 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:The person who forced the father into the suboptimal condition is not the father, its the mother for signing an agreement that said she would have an abortion, and if she didn't she wouldn't get child support.

If your okay with just screwing people over to make sure the child doesn't grow up sub-optimally, just pick someone off the street. Better yet we should just do this if the father dies.

Why do you keep insist that rather then rope in a father, we should just screw over a mother/child? It's mildly akin to telling an accident victim that because they weren't wearing a seatbelt, they shouldn't be treated in a hospital.
And why do you further keep failing to recognize that the father still consented to having sex with the mother, knowing full well that a consequence COULD be a child. No one forced him to have sex with her. As such, you can't just pick a random person off the street, because a random person didn't impregnate her, HE did.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:28 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Why do you keep insist that rather then rope in a father, we should just screw over a mother/child?...
And why do you further keep failing to recognize that the father still consented to having sex with the mother, knowing full well that a consequence COULD be a child. No one forced him to have sex with her. As such, you can't just pick a random person off the street, because a random person didn't impregnate her, HE did.


Because the two alternatives, in the case of a contract, are
a) status quo: we abide by the contract
b) we screw someone over to save the child

Taking b is being utilitarian to a fault.

Further, had the woman been accurate in her statement that she would have an abortion, then the consequence COULD NOT be a child. No one forced him to have sex, but they duped him into it by misrepresenting the consequences of that sex.

Izawwlgood wrote:It's mildly akin to telling an accident victim that because they weren't wearing a seatbelt, they shouldn't be treated in a hospital.


I think the proper analogy would be an accident victim who signed a contract saying they would take responsibility of any injury resulting in not wearing a seat belt winning damages from the driver.

If were going to play the analogy game, suppose you and a co-worker are trying to reformat a document. The co-worker says "Why don't you try with some macro's for a bit, and if that doesn't work I'll do it by hand overnight". The macro's don't work, and so you send it to her to do overnight. She then decides she's tired and goes to sleep.

Now, who is responsible for the work not getting done? Are you responsible because you should have known your co-worker may have been lying? And if your manager expects you to take into account that the co-worker may be lying while your working with her, what does that say about the impression of the co-worker? Probably pretty bad right?

Of course, the co-worker was responsible for being inaccurate, and if the manager expects you to consider that your co-worker was lying, then they must think quite poorly of your co-worker.

To me, its similar that if the mother says she'll have an abortion, then she is responsible, and if you think men should always have to consider that the women are lying, well then implies we ought to have a low opinion of women.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Owijad » Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:45 pm UTC

spiderham wrote:
Owijad wrote:Genetics seems a pretty kludgy way of determining financial responsibility.

Suppose a woman has protected sex with three different men, none of whom want children, and ends up pregnant. Why, specifically, is it one guy's job to support the kid she decides to keep?


As opposed to dividing the responsibility among the three?
This has some attractive benefits -- as creditors, the mother and child have more financial protection with 3 debtors as opposed to one.

The problem (at least in the U.S.) is that a biological father has a constitutional right to establish a relationship with his flesh and blood.
So your hypo only makes intuitive sense because it presumes the biological father renounced that right now and forever.
But what if he changes his mind?
And once you make the 3 liable, what are their potential parental rights?

It's ironic that you characterize the current biological rule as "kludgy".
Bringing more parties into the mix of obligations would create an even more complicated mess than the one we currently deal with.

I call it a kludge not because it's more confusing, but because it's a totally arbitrary hack job slapped together to make up for the fact that our support networks for new humans are totally lacking. And it's falling apart because it wasn't built for this kind of situation. Maybe it worked two hundred years ago. And back then, you wouldn't see these arguments, because when this system was devised, it was a pragmatic imperative in order to save human life.

And that's the only reason anyone is insisting that the way we do it now is a moral imperative: because that's how we've always done it. The only reason anyone has supplied in this thread as to why the impregnator should pay for the child is "because it's right".

Sure, it might have been right, back when certain assumptions were true. Like that the child was conceived with the implicit understanding that conception was not a mitigable risk of sex, that conception would inevitably result in birth, and that upon birth it would be impossible to prove who exactly had supplied the sperm. It was also designed with the understanding that the father's social rank would etch the child's into stone, and with the understanding that the parents of the child would be in a monogamous relationship, and a hundred other things which, today, just are not true.

With those things being false, the system founded upon them is not a pragmatic imperative. It isn't crafted to produce optimal quality of life any longer. All it's designed to do is feel "right", because it used to make sense.

Making a man who doesn't want children pay for a child because he decided to have sex doesn't make his life better, it doesn't make the child's life better to have an unwilling financier, and it doesn't make the mother's life better to deal with this shit in court. The only person whose life it makes better is you, the taxpayer, so long as you don't have sex. So, bully for you.




Azrael wrote:
Owijad wrote:Suppose a woman has protected sex with three different men, none of whom want children...
If they don't want kids, then why weren't they using protection?

Personal responsibility: Take it. And stop blaming women for *shock* being able to get pregnant!

I don't know who you think you are talking to, but I'm pretty sure it isn't me.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby PictureSarah » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:14 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:Similarly, if a male decides against having a vasectomy for similar reasons (costs, surgical procedure), and a pregnancy results, we would all find him responsible for the pregnancy.


That only holds water if there is no other method of contraception available. Otherwise, I would hold the mother AND the father responsible (assuming the sex was consensual), because they both decided to engage in an activity with very obvious potential consequences, and not use one or more forms of contraception. I don't really see why this is so hard. Both parties are responsible. Both parties must face the consequences of an activity they willingly engaged in, whether they want to or not.

Owijad wrote:Making a man who doesn't want children pay for a child because he decided to have sex doesn't make his life better, it doesn't make the child's life better to have an unwilling financier, and it doesn't make the mother's life better to deal with this shit in court. The only person whose life it makes better is you, the taxpayer, so long as you don't have sex. So, bully for you.


Actually, I'm pretty sure that having a single parent and one income is worse than having a single parent and an income from child support, no matter how unwilling the father is. And I'm frankly stunned that people in this thread seem to think that the tax payer should be the first one to take responsibility for a child, rather than the people who created it. I don't disagree that social assistance and programs should be there as a last line of defense, but if you make a baby, why should you automatically assume that other people will pay for it (if you are alive, capable, etc)?
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:17 pm UTC

PictureSarah wrote:That only holds water if there is no other method of contraception available. Otherwise, I would hold the mother AND the father responsible (assuming the sex was consensual), because they both decided to engage in an activity with very obvious potential consequences, and not use one or more forms of contraception. I don't really see why this is so hard. Both parties are responsible. Both parties must face the consequences of an activity they willingly engaged in, whether they want to or not.


Sorry, the situation I was refering to was a throw back to a few posts ago. The male tells the female that he has had a vasectomy when he hasn't. So the female thinks they are using birth control. Are they both still responsible?
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:26 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:The male tells the female that he has had a vasectomy when he hasn't. So the female thinks they are using birth control. Are they both still responsible?
... Yes. I know you're trying to flip the scenario around and make us be surprised with ourselves, but when we've been advocating equal responsibility, it goes both ways. If she absolutely didn't want to risk having children, she should have been using protection (or abstaining entirely, depending on how little risk she was willing to accept) as well.

PictureSarah wrote:And I'm frankly stunned that people in this thread seem to think that the tax payer should be the first one to take responsibility for a child, rather than the people who created it. I don't disagree that social assistance and programs should be there as a last line of defense, but if you make a baby, why should you automatically assume that other people will pay for it (if you are alive, capable, etc)?
I'm pretty surprised as well. It would make a little more sense if this were coming from the perspective of people in a fully socialist system, but there aren't many of those. Perhaps there's a political bleed through happening?

I also reject that the notion that there is no benefit to the child, nor that the mother's life is made measurably worse by court dates than what it would be sans support. The male refusing responsibility is simple not a zero-sum outcome.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:34 pm UTC

I had a post but just reread Owijad instead.

Oh and Az, that is a sad outlook on life 
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby PictureSarah » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:36 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:... Yes. I know you're trying to flip the scenario around and make us be surprised with ourselves, but when we've been advocating equal responsibility, it goes both ways. If she absolutely didn't want to risk having children, she should have been using protection (or abstaining entirely, depending on how little risk she was willing to accept) as well.


Indeed. In such a scenario it would be super shitty of that man to have lied about his procreative abilities....but two people have now made a child, and those two people are now responsible for that child, because they engaged in an activity with known potential consequences (even vasectomies have a failure rate, although it is admittedly very low), and they are the clear and logical choice to take responsibility.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:41 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Oh and Az, that is a sad outlook on life

Personal responsibility is a sad outlook on life? Well I guess I can see why you'd suppose so, after ardently advocating that you should be able to have all the consequence free sex you can get simply by stating that you don't wish to accept responsibility for your actions -- or go to the stunningly large inconvenience of using a condom.

But you know what? The entire world isn't populated by males.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:01 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Oh and Az, that is a sad outlook on life

Personal responsibility is a sad outlook on life? Well I guess I can see why you'd suppose so, after ardently advocating that you should be able to have all the consequence free sex you can get simply by stating that you don't wish to accept responsibility for your actions -- or go to the stunningly large inconvenience of using a condom.

But you know what? The entire world isn't populated by males.

No I'm not talking about personal responsibility being sad, I'm talking about you assuming that if anyone says anything ever it is a lie.

And who is talking about not wearing a condom? I was assuming that birth control was used, but that it for some reason failed.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby PictureSarah » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:08 pm UTC

I didn't see anywhere where Azrael assumed that everyone ever was lying...He just said that people should be prepared for the potential consequences of their actions. Pregnancy is a potential consequence of sex. Things like vasectomies, and birth control make the chances of pregnancy very low...but they could always fail. Or your sex partner *could* be lying. Or your sex partner could forget a pill. Or any number of SNAFUs. You seem intent on making this the most unlikely of scenarios ever. What are the odds that 1) a man was lying about his vasectomy 2) birth control failed 3) pregnancy resulted 4) pregnancy resulted in birth. Pretty damn low. But it could still happen. And if it did, it would be the responsibility of both parties to care for the resulting child.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:10 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:I'm talking about you assuming that if anyone says anything ever it is a lie.
... I never said that. Or implied it. Not even close. Hell, I've repeatedly requested that the topic move away from the ever-so-popular yet statistically-unimportant fringe cases that have been contrived around one of the individuals lying.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:17 pm UTC

Yes, right here...
Azrael wrote:
nowfocus wrote:The male tells the female that he has had a vasectomy when he hasn't. So the female thinks they are using birth control. Are they both still responsible?
... Yes. I know you're trying to flip the scenario around and make us be surprised with ourselves, but when we've been advocating equal responsibility, it goes both ways. If she absolutely didn't want to risk having children, she should have been using protection (or abstaining entirely, depending on how little risk she was willing to accept) as well.

You are saying she is responsible because she did not assume her pertner was lying about a vasectomy.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby PictureSarah » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:26 pm UTC

No. He's saying that it's her responsibility (as well has his) because she engaged in an activity that she knew could potentially result in pregnancy. Even if she assumed her partner was honest, as I mentioned before, vasectomies can fail or be misused (the vas deferens aren't actually cleared of sperm for sometimes three months or longer after a vasectomy). There really are VERY few completely failsafe methods of preventing pregnancy. She presumably assessed the risk, thought it was worth it, and became pregnant. This doesn't absolve her of responsibility, even if he was lying. She participated in an activity which sometimes results in babies, knowing that it could potentially result in a baby. Granted, the odds are higher if he lied than if he hadn't, and that sucks quite a bit.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:You are saying ...
You do know that there's a difference between what I'm saying, and how you've misrepresented me, right?

For the 9th time, no one has to be lying (or not lying!) for you to be responsible for your own actions.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:38 pm UTC

PictureSarah wrote:You seem intent on making this the most unlikely of scenarios ever. What are the odds that 1) a man was lying about his vasectomy 2) birth control failed 3) pregnancy resulted 4) pregnancy resulted in birth. Pretty damn low. But it could still happen. And if it did, it would be the responsibility of both parties to care for the resulting child.


The probability isn't the issue, the morality was. As Azrael noted, the point of the example is the mirror a far more common instance where a woman says she'll have an abortion and chooses not too. If you don't think thats common, I'm fine with that too.

I respect that you and Az both find the responsibility equally distributed. At the same time, I don't think society does. If a man does this to a woman, I'll bet the expression "cut his nuts off" would be heard, and basically people would be out for his blood. If a woman decides against an abortion, its 'her choice' and he should support her.

To me, and seemingly to you as well, thats would be a moral inconsistency. You resolve it by having the injured party bear responsibility in both cases. I resolve it by having the injured party not bear responsibility in both cases.

PictureSarah wrote:Granted, the odds are higher if he lied than if he hadn't, and that sucks quite a bit


Thats the key difference to me. She may have used more protection if she had known he hadn't had a vasectomy, including refusing to have sex. Therefore, its his responsibility, not hers. I'll refer to my co-worker analogy: if your co-worker tells you they'll take care of something, they become responsible if it doesn't get done, and if you work under the assumption that their lying then that says something quite bad about the coworker.

How much is it to ask the female to not lie to her partner?? I mean honestly...
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby PictureSarah » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:47 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:I respect that you and Az both find the responsibility equally distributed. At the same time, I don't think society does. If a man does this to a woman, I'll bet the expression "cut his nuts off" would be heard, and basically people would be out for his blood. If a woman decides against an abortion, its 'her choice' and he should support her.


Actually, I think I can count the number of times that the hypothetical situation you proposed (man who lied about his vasectomy) has been brought up in my hearing on one hand. I can't even count the number of times I have heard women villified for "trapping" her partner by becoming pregnant, intentionally or not. Society most certainly does not side with women in this situation, and women are definitely expected to bear the responsibility of contraception far, far more than men are.

nowfocus wrote:How much is it to ask the female to not lie to her partner?? I mean honestly...


I find your usage of "the female" in this sentence telling. I am honest in my relationships, and expect honesty from my partner. Ideally, this is how all relationships would be. But it's not. And dishonesty in your partner does not excuse you from the consequences of your actions. You are engaging in an activity where it is rare that you are 100% sure that you will not face any consequences, and hopefully you know that.
Last edited by PictureSarah on Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:53 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:You are saying ...
You do know that there's a difference between what I'm saying, and how you've misrepresented me, right?

For the 9th time, no one has to be lying (or not lying!) for you to be responsible for your own actions.


I really hope you don't mean that, because I think you've just shifted the blame to...all victims? everywhere?
Are you saying that as long as there is a small chance of some terrible event if you take an action, your responsible for the consequences, even if someone commits an immoral act to grossly raise the probability of that event occuring?

I hope I'm misreading you.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:21 pm UTC

How is it that we've gone through 5 pages of your "the woman lied!" bullshit examples and now that the guy is lying, everyone's thrown for a loop? If using that scenario is the only way you can meaningfully discuss this, then just stop already.

The reason why this is distinct from victim blaming has already been discussed several times previously.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:48 am UTC

nowfocus wrote:Thats the key difference to me. She may have used more protection if she had known he hadn't had a vasectomy, including refusing to have sex. Therefore, its his responsibility, not hers. I'll refer to my co-worker analogy: if your co-worker tells you they'll take care of something, they become responsible if it doesn't get done, and if you work under the assumption that their lying then that says something quite bad about the coworker.


Firstly, your coworker analogy fails, as your boss is still going to look to the two of you and say "this work didn't get done". Similarly, regardless of who did the duping (father lying about vasectomy or mother lying about being on the pill), there is still a child, and the child needs caring for. You think your boss is going to say "Oh shucks, I told you both to get the work done, and it's not, but it's ok, you THOUGHT your coworker was going to do it! Coworker, you're fired! Employee who trusted the co-worker, you are not responsible for the failure to complete the task!"? Look, THEY do not become responsible for not getting the work done, you are STILL equally responsible for the failure to get it completed. That's not how the world works, morally or legally.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Kyrn
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:55 pm UTC
Location: The Internet

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Kyrn » Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:20 am UTC

If we're talking about contracts, there is a different take for it.

There already exists a contract which binds the father to caring for a child (or vice versa in extremely rare cases). It's called marriage. Aka if you want to ensure your child gets cared for, make sure you get married. Or else you cannot ensure that your child will get support.

And on that note, some addendums:
1) Divorce doesn't absolve marriage responsibilities if conception is proven to occur during marriage.
2) Divorce should be retroactive in cases where the divorce is held due to infidelity.

In short: there is a reason why pre-martial sex is discouraged.
(and more marriage clauses are required for unconventional family structures)
I am NOT a snake.

Opinions discussed are not necessarily the opinions of the people discussing them.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby nowfocus » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:16 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Firstly, your coworker analogy fails, as your boss is still going to look to the two of you and say "this work didn't get done". Similarly, regardless of who did the duping (father lying about vasectomy or mother lying about being on the pill), there is still a child, and the child needs caring for. You think your boss is going to say "Oh shucks, I told you both to get the work done, and it's not, but it's ok, you THOUGHT your coworker was going to do it! Coworker, you're fired! Employee who trusted the co-worker, you are not responsible for the failure to complete the task!"? Look, THEY do not become responsible for not getting the work done, you are STILL equally responsible for the failure to get it completed. That's not how the world works, morally or legally.


I think a bad boss would leave it at "this work didn't get done", and a good boss would find out why it didn't get done.

Azrael wrote:How is it that we've gone through 5 pages of your "the woman lied!" bullshit examples and now that the guy is lying, everyone's thrown for a loop? If using that scenario is the only way you can meaningfully discuss this, then just stop already.

The reason why this is distinct from victim blaming has already been discussed several times previously.


It was a very unconvincing argument to me.

You can call the examples bullshit, but I've outlined some that I think would be quite common (woman says she'd have abortion, chooses not too).

I'll agree with one thing: meaningful discussion has pretty much stopped here, everyone is too entrenched. Voluntarily leaving the thread.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:39 am UTC

I think a normal human being would recognize that your excuses for skirting responsibility aren't their problem, and the task they assigned was incomplete, and the consequence is, the task is incomplete.. Just as a normal human being would recognize that merely saying "I don't want a child!" isn't sufficient to excuse you from the consequences of supporting the child. You seem to still think it is, and we've been trying to tell you, it isn't. A good boss may investigate why it didn't get completed, but it certainly won't excuse either from not having done it.

Your examples may be reasonable, but the conclusions you are drawing from them are not.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Owijad » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:42 am UTC

Owijad wrote:Making a man who doesn't want children pay for a child because he decided to have sex doesn't make his life better, it doesn't make the child's life better to have an unwilling financier, and it doesn't make the mother's life better to deal with this shit in court.

PictureSarah wrote:Actually, I'm pretty sure that having a single parent and one income is worse than having a single parent and an income from child support, no matter how unwilling the father is.

Azrael wrote:I also reject that the notion that there is no benefit to the child, nor that the mother's life is made measurably worse by court dates than what it would be sans support. The male refusing responsibility is simple not a zero-sum outcome.


Oh, sorry. That is, it doesn't make the child's life better that her financier be unwilling and unreliable, it doesn't make the mother's life better that she has to go to court to get the money she needs.

And I'm frankly stunned that people in this thread seem to think that the tax payer should be the first one to take responsibility for a child, rather than the people who created it. I don't disagree that social assistance and programs should be there as a last line of defense, but if you make a baby, why should you automatically assume that other people will pay for it (if you are alive, capable, etc)?


And now we're back to "because it's right".

Someone doesn't want children, but wants to have sex. So they take steps to avoid sex resulting in children, have sex, and make a baby. At this point, from a moral standpoint, I firmly believe that they should not be made to support this child they did not want to create just because somebody else does want to create the child. Hence, Plan B, abortion, adoption. To me, that's reason enough. But that's compounded by the fact that it is in nobody's best interest that the deadbeat dad pay. His life, the mom's life, and the kid's life are all better if the child has steady support without hassle.

That's outweighed by "but he should man up just because"?
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:45 am UTC

Owijad wrote:That's outweighed by "but he should man up just because"?


Yes. It's not 'just because', it's because the man is also responsible, whether or not he 'wants a child'. I'm really amazed that this line of argument is still being continued, we have pointed told you time and time again that 'not wanting to' does not excuse you from the consequences of your actions. Again, if you don't want to get roped into potentially supporting a child, don't have sex. Having sex? You better consider getting roped into supporting a child a potential consequence.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Owijad » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:48 am UTC

I'm sorry, just for reference, are you pro choice?
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:49 am UTC

Vehemently so. Is that relevant?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Owijad » Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:56 am UTC

Well, I mean, replace all instances of a male with a female and you just posted one of the primary arguments against the plan b pill and abortion.
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:06 am UTC

Not at all. I've claimed one is responsible for one's actions, as I feel they should be.
Az made a comment about how we've been over this. If a man dupes a woman and impregnates her, he is equally responsible for the creation of a child as she is. The difference is, the right to bodily autonomy dictates that she can decide to have an abortion, he cannot. If she chooses to do so, then as far as this discussion is concerned, there's no further issue. If she doesn't (dingdingding that *autonomy* thing again!), then she is equally responsible for the child, and they both should support it. Misrepresenting risk or sabotaging birth control doesn't excuse one party or the other from the responsibility, as like it or not, having sex (again, as it applies to this discussion) is a voluntary decision both parties have made. This is why in the muddy event of a woman having sex with three men, only the man who is the biological father should be forced to pay child support; the other two men engaged in something equally as risky, and because actions have consequences, they lucked out that their number wasn't up. Turn it around all you want; if three women have sex with one man, and one gets pregnant, obviously, the now pregnant woman and the man impregnated her support the child. If you're still unsure of why this is, I assure you, the answer can be found in this post, and many others.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Owijad
1000 posts and still no title
Posts: 1625
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:07 pm UTC
Location: Mas-a-choo-sits
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Owijad » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:16 am UTC

It doesn't matter how many people had sex with whom, or who lied about it. I'm talking about any case in which, despite contraceptive efforts, people who would like not to have children get pregnant or get someone pregnant.

If it's a woman, as you think, she should not be made to support the child at the man's behest. Why? Why doesn't she have to take responsibility for her actions, even if she doesn't like it? Why is "not wanting to" a valid reason to dodge the consequences of her decision to have sex?

If it's a man, as you think, he should be made to support he child at the woman's behest. Why? Why doesn't he have financial autonomy? The woman has the bodily autonomy to dodge 9 months of pregnancy because she doesn't feel like it, but the man doesn't have the autonomy to dodge 216 months of financial stress, for the same reason?

How is this position in any way internally consistent?
And if you win you get this shiny fiddle made of gold,
But if you lose, the devil gets your sould!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:34 am UTC

If you want to protest the sexist difference between the location of the gestation of a fetus, then I'm not sure I can really argue with you. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable where I to point out that if we bred like seahorses, my opinion wouldn't change?
Can you really not envision a scenario in which abortion is not an option for the woman, even if it is as simple as an ethical constraint? Is that even relevant? No matter how you boil this down, a consenting male chose to have sex with a consenting female; what resulted from that pairing is the responsibility of both parties.
If you want to add stipulations or caveats, be my guest. If you want to whine about how it's 'unfair' that women have the final say with their bodily autonomy (heh, not in this political clime/time), then I can only really laugh. You are some how stuck on the notion that it's 'unfair' that a man cannot decide what happens with his sperm after he decides to shoot them at potentially fertile ovum, while how forgetting that it was his decision to send his soldiers sallying forth.
So yes, a woman has bodily autonomy insofar as she can choose to abort a fetus if it's an option. A man has bodily autonomy insofar as he can choose to not have sex with fertile women. Biologically, we aren't egg layers or external fertilizers, so your attempts to break responsibility into anything other then 50/50 is a wasted thought exercise.
Owijad wrote:Why is "not wanting to" a valid reason to dodge the consequences of her decision to have sex?

Because it's like saying "I didn't want to get electrocuted" while playing around a subway's rails. This is something they teach pre-schoolers who throw snowballs with chunks of ice; you may not have 'wanted' to bust little Ricky's forehead open, but you threw snowballs with chunks of ice, and thus, you are responsible for his bleeding scalp. What you want is moot when you are willfully committing actions with consequences, and don't think that your desires affect your responsibility for the results.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests