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."