How's that? By flipping the tables on you? What she gets to do with HER BODY is HER CHOICE. There's no fundie logic there.

With these comments, I'm officially bowing out of the discussion with the suggestion that you think long and hard about Watcher's comment. You know, we've ALL had bad relationships--I'd be willing to bet that some of my experiences could trump yours. Yet, I do not hate men nor do I participate in generalized man-bashing, no matter how common it is. Your attitude towards women is not only offensive; it's incredibly ignorant and unfair. You're doing to women what fundies do to atheists--just because a few assholes are atheists, they all are. THAT is poor logic.

That has to be the most unrealistic thing i've ever read. sex does have consequences. aside from having a baby, sex can change the relationship, it can cause you to have an emotional response that's unpleasant, you could contract a disease. just because something is fun and can be engaged in simply for your amusement  that doesn't mean it can be done with impunity. there are some situations where a guy really shouldn't have to pay. if you have a one night stand and you see the girl 9 months later with a baby saying hey you gotta pay for this little bundle of joy and you're like "i don't even know your name lady"  then probably not. But that doesn't mean in any situation the guy can just  wave it off and say "that's your problem bitch, you should  have been smart enough not to sleep with me".

You raise a very good point.  Women are not immune from the consequences of actions either.  If you're a woman and you engage in casual sex with someone you have no intention of staying with, you shouldn't have the "Get Out of Jail Free" card.  Abortion is not the most pleasant thing in the world, to be sure,  but one of the potential consequences of casual sex is pregnancy, and I don't agree with blanket paternal obligations in all cases.

In short, I believe that parental obligations ought to be tied to a reasonable assumption that both people were ok with the possibility of staying together and possibly having children.  Of course, this belief is concurrent with my belief that the government ought to provide free abortions for anyone who wants one.  Just as a man takes several risks when having sex, so does a woman.  One of those risks, when having casual sex, is that an unwanted pregnancy will result.  Just as 18 years of child payment is pretty painful, abortion is pretty painful.  Even so, sometimes humans are capable of rising above their emotions and doing something painful because they know it's the right thing to do.  Forcing a man to pay child support from a fling is unreasonable.

We know you don't see anything wrong with what you said.  Did you notice what I said about your social disconnection, Matt?

It would be nice if we all lived in lollipop land where there were no consequences from consensual sex.  Tell that to my cousin who contracted HIV doing so.  Or the 45 million Americans with Herpes. 

Sex isn't just for giggles anymore no matter which way you look at it.  Be an adult, take the proper precautions, or own up to the consequences of your actions.

Watcher is spot on, Matt.  You're missing a really important point, which is that sex does have potential negative consequences, and both legal and economic justification exists for saying that men and women are jointly responsible for babies they make.  This isn't even taking into account the psychological issues that go along with sex.

Look, I agree that our system of automatic economic responsibility across the board is unreasonable.  I think that a woman who gets pregnant by accident on a casual encounter has a moral responsibility to choose between abortion, adoption, or raising the child herself rather than saddle a man she hardly knows and certainly doesn't want to marry with 18 years of debt.  I wish she had a legal responsibility, too.  However, I think that the majority of cases where men end up paying child support are NOT from casual encounters like this.  Maybe someone knows where some data is on that, but I'm guessing that most are cases where the couple was dating.  If you're dating someone, you need to have an agreement about what happens if there's a pregnancy.  That's part of the responsibility of being an adult.  If you haven't had the talk, that's tough tits.  You're morally and legally responsible to help raise the child.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with this.  I'm all for std research, treatment, and prevention.  I think it would be awesome if we developed a vaccine for herpes and HIV. 

We do have virtually 100% effective birth control.  The three month shots are damn near 100%.  The daily pill is, too, if taken as directed.  Even though it's technically intrusive, IUDs are virtually 100% effective, and the intrusion is minimal.

We have really awesome intrusive birth control, too.  Vasectomy and tubal ligation are virtually 100%.

I agree that free abortion should be available to anyone who wants it.  However, this doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a man is obligated to pay for a child.

Matt, you seem to have this bizarre disconnect about sex.  People didn't invent the consequences of sex as a way to stop people from having sex!  Sex has consequences, and people make policies about how those consequences should be dealt with.  Nobody's trying to tell anybody they shouldn't have sex, just like we're not trying to tell people not to skydive or bungee jump.  These are all activities that are fun but have unavoidable potential consequences.   If someone skydives and then breaks both legs from hitting a tree while landing, we say, "Gee, dude.  That sucks, but you knew it might happen."  It's the same with sex.  You're going around having unprotected sex and knock a girl up?  That sucks for both of you, but it's a risk you took.

I'm going out on a philosophical limb by suggesting that there are some cases where I don't feel a man ought to be economically responsible for a child, but that's the way I feel about it.  I don't believe that babies are sacred, or that women have the inalienable right to have babies any time they please.  Sometimes, it's a really bad idea for a woman to have a baby, and I think one of those situations is when the pregnancy resulted from a casual hook up.  I think the mature thing to do is have an abortion and count it as a hard life lesson.  Even so, when a baby is born, somebody's got to pay for it.  If it's not the father, who's it going to be?  You and me?  The mother's family?  Why should they be responsible for someone else's actions just because they're related to her?

It's reasonable to suggest that the government could encourage abortions for unwed mothers with unwilling fathers by making it very difficult to win child support in such cases, but even if they do that, there's the very real possibility that it won't really make a significant difference in the number of babies born in this way.  If that's the case, are we going to punish the children by forcing their mothers into poverty?  Because that's what would happen.

The world is not fair because evolution doesn't care about fair.  It cares about babies being born.  Sex isn't just a fancy playground that evolution developed for our amusement.  It's an integral part of our psyche, our culture, and it's all about making babies.

I submit to you, Matt, that YOU are being just like the fundies by ignoring the real facts of how life is and believing what you want to believe just because it makes you feel good.

Matt, you seem to think that things happen in a vacuum.  They don't.  In our society, it takes more than most middle class people can make by themselves to raise a child.  If a woman chooses to have a child in poverty, it's all fine and dandy to say that she's made a bad choice.  I agree with you.  However, that child is alive, and needs food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care.  Somebody's got to pay for it, and you, Mr. Socialist, should know better than anyone else who that's going to be if it's not the father.

Are you going to advocate government subsidies to mothers who can't afford to raise their kids?  That's what you're proposing, you know.  If fathers aren't obligated to pay for their children, the choices will be poverty or government aid.  Poverty, as you well know, breeds crime and societal dysfunction, so the government has an obligation to try to prevent it.  That means the government is obligated to pay women to have babies, based on your logic.

Alternatively, you can just take away women's rights to reproduce.  You can mandate that any unwed women who get pregnant must have abortions.  That way, men are never responsible, just like you want.  You're going to have to face facts.  If you don't take away reproductive rights, many women WILL choose to have babies when they can't afford it.  Many men will not want to pay for them.  Poverty WILL result.

So, which do you want?  Government checks for having babies, or taking away reproductive rights?

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know humans didn't invent pregnancy - but we can certainly do something to stop it. I actually am in favor of limiting reproductive "rights." With the population out of control, we do need to control who can have kids and how many (if you can't afford it, you can't.) No, I don't think anyone should pay for someone else's CHOICE to have a baby. If she chooses to have it it's up to her. Please stop repeating the same thing. Yeah I get it. Nature causes pregnancy/STD's. So by your logic someone who contracts an STD should just go die because that's the way it it and that's the consequences? Some of you are apparently still deluded by the idea that sex is bad and should be punished.

It seems my beliefs are very internally consitsant (Life in and of itself is worthless, women should have an absolute right to abortion, and men shouldn't be forced to pay for an unwanted baby either.)

The double-standard it seems most here is:

(women should be able to get abortions, but whether the man has to pay or not is completely at the woman's whim.)

Fundies seem to do the oppisite double standard (Women shouldn't be allowed abortion but men shouldn't have to pay support, and welfare is bad - life is sacred until you are born - if you happen to become brain dead it becomes sacred once again.)

I'm not the hypocrite - she has the choice to abort - she doesn't HAVE to raise it on her own.

I wouldn't see that as cold hearted - I really wouldn't see it any different from cutting out a tumor or taking an antibiotic for a disease. As to the first part, I'm OK with people having all the casual sex they want - it just isn't for me. And it would violate my personal honor to sleep with another man's wife. I say if neither take precaution and pregnancy results - that's why there is abortion. Here is where I'd place what happens:

Both want baby: They have it and poth pay to support - probably a married couple who wants kids or decide to stay together with kids.

Woman wants but man doesn't - she can have it but he doesn't support. If she can't afford on her own or through voluntary help - abort.

He wants she doesn't - tough shit for him - she aborts he has no say.

Neither want - obviously abort.

Seriously, even the fundies give the woman the right to put the kid up for adoption regardless of how "irresponsible" she was - but the man doesn't have this choice! Why should the woman be the only one who can decide not to have the baby?

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. This is the old "You don't understand unless..." fallacy. If the woman can get an abortion even though she was "irresponsible" a man should be able to refuse to support if he was. I hate double standards totally - If I was in charge Augusta National would be shut down and Hootie Johnson in prison for their refusal to let women join. Again, I would love to see reproduction considered a privledge not a right. Since they can even get people state to state, if I was a guy in that situation I'd leave the entire country.

Seriously! It's downright insane to let women be irresponsible but not men. Even the way I put it she has a choice. Abortion or raise herself and support herself. Why should ONLY women have a choice? That's selfish on a woman's part to have a kid and make the man pay when he didn't want a baby. Granted, a guy who doesn't want kids is better off not dating a woman that does - but why should he be fucked over if she changes her mind? I really don't see it as a responsiblity issue. If anything she's irresponsible for not aborting if she can't afford it or be with someone who can and wants to.

Your argument is the equivalent of if a woman gets Syphillis she gets the antibiotic, but if a man does it's up to the woman he got it from whether he gets it or suffers. And I don't really see a fetus as any more worthy of being than a syphillis microbe (not sure of the type it is.)

If there was a way to do it that she could just walk away it would be great. But why should the man suffer just because of how biology works? A guy should have the absolute right to walk away if it wasn't planned and he didn't accept it at any point. I think it would solve this completely if they provided those shots free of charge (if there was one that worked for a man.) Notice the woman has all the "easy" methods of birth control - pill or shot - while a guy has to either get surgery or have something that more resembles a medical procedure than making love (condom)

Note: no method of prevention is 100% effective - and all the man has control over are either expensive, involve surgery or greatly reduce intimacy/pleasure (ie condoms.)

Knock off the ad hominems.

Losing a testicle permanently would be much worse than getting rid of a fetus. Pulling out doesn't work well at all. Obviously you don't get what I'm saying and we are never going to agree on this.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Wrong.

Please inform us of your personal experience that this is so.

I understand exactly what you are saying.  I would have agreed with you when I was 15.

Who has a agreed with you so far on this Matt?  Does this give you a moment's pause?  Or do you just bulldoze your way on ahead and ignore the possibility that you might be missing something that people who are not Autistic don't miss?

I recall hearing a piece on NPR (I know it's not peer-reviewed) about the Religious Right and it's conception for forward motion in politics.  I'm currently searching for the real interview with Fallwell (I believe)...but the general idea runs along these lines:

Abortion was legal.

Christian ministers were all for it..."whatever is best for the Mother" and so forth

Republicans were losing ground politically

Politicos noticed that Catholics voted Democrat, yet they were anti-abortion

Fallwell gave the First Abortion Sermon in '78..."This is not just a Roman Catholic issue, this an issue we should all be concerned about."

*Ding* More Republican voters

I do just love the audio of the big preacher extolling the virtue of abortion...makes me smile.  I will continue to search for that and bring it to show and tell.

Matt, you need to read what I wrote more carefully.  I said that while I feel like a man shouldn't be forced into child support from a casual hookup, I can't work around the mechanics of trying to implement such a strategy.  Remember all that stuff about governments having to pay for women to have babies?

Oh yeah... you didn't respond to that at all.  Curious.

I do believe that a woman has a moral obligation to have an abortion, put the baby up for adoption, or find a way to support it herself if she conceived from a casual hookup.  I wish there was a way to structure the law so that this moral obligation could be encouraged.  However, the math just doesn't work out.

In short, Matt, I agree that it seems unfair, but I (unlike you) am not hanging my hat on fair.  I recognize the futility of trying to fight human nature and economics, and I'm resigned to the fact that correcting that imbalance would cause more problems than it solved.

Just to be perfectly clear, I believe it's unfair for women to expect men to pay for babies from casual hookups.  However, it's even less fair to ask me to pick up the slack when my dick was in my pants at the time.  Given two poor alternatives, I choose the one that says the man responsible has to pay.

I did respond to it:

I said that they shouldn't support her baby from the government either. She should understand if she makes the choice to have a baby the burden to raise and pay for it is completely on her.

I answered that - I said take away reproductive rights. Take them from anyone who can't afford them, anyone who will pass on terrible genetic conditions, etc too.

regardless of whether it's equivalent to getting a testicle chopped off or having a route canal while heavily sedated and going home with fun drugs, the point is - it's a medical procedure.  matt - you're saying that a man can just say "i don't want kids" before the sex act and boom - he's off the hook.  (of course, he could just not use his real name but that's another story entirely...)  a woman can't just tell her uterus she doesn't want to be late that month and call it a day. 

sure - we can limit consequences with birth control and std medications... but we can also limit consequences of sky diving with better parachutes and safety gear.  limiting doesn't eliminate.   i'm going to say the same thing i said to you about carla - just think about it, okay?

to semi-derail this though - i do think it's good that we are talking about abortion because the guilt, emotional pain, etc. thing is used by the religious community big time to convert people.  look at norma mccorvey and she didn't even have the abortion herself!  on campus' here fundies proselytize under the guise of pro-life signs and pamphlets.

you started this thread out with a statement that to say 'abortion is murder' is irrational.  i would say it's tragic, irrational and grossly deceitful that large amounts of women who have undergone an abortion are targeted into religion as an attempt to negate the emotional pain resulting from the procedure.

Why should I work so my child can get all the money?

Fuck you.

Peace.

Seems you're coming around on capitalism too!  

I'm opposed to abortion, as a method of birth control. It sucks, as does ANY invasive medical proceedure for a condition that could have been prevented.

That being said, as a male, I'm never going to have to make that choice, thus, I have no say in what another person does with their own body. (It occurs to me, that even were I of the XX persuasion, I'd still have no 'right' to assert soverienty over another person's body).

To my mind, there IS an objective and empirical point at which a fetus becomes a person, that is to say, when an animated collection of cells becomes a human being.

The medical and legal definition of when life ends, is at the point when brain function ceases, thus, it is logical and reasonable to assert that life begins at the same point, when brain function starts. This occurs sometime in the late 2d tri-mester, or at the 5th to 6th month of gestation.

LC >;-}>

Ok, I edited the darned thing...

I'm guessing that means XX (female). YY is genetically impossible.

XXY and XYY can occur as genetic disorders.

Back on Original topic:

"Fuck this and fuck that! Fucking motherfucker fucking brats! She don't want a baby that looks like that I don't want a baby that looks like that. Bodies!!!!!!!!!! It's an abortion."

Are we talking about the legal right for women to have abortions or the moral permissibility of a woman choosing to abort a fetus? They are two very different conversations and I just want to be clear about what is being said.  i think too that because religious groups have been so insensitive on this issue athiests will often diagree with them simply because of their less than honourable tactics without regard for the moral philosophy behind it. Likewise religious groups seemed to have confused morality and legality, claiming that what is perhaps is immoral should also be legislated against.

But you would save a cat?

So you don't see a baby as a human being? Tough titty for you then, that the rest of humanity does, with the exception of emotionless sociopaths like yourself. You are talking about killing human beings, because they have no more value than insects, and the rest of us capable of human emotion are revolted by your words. Deal with it. It's not our fault that you can't sympathise with anyone but yourself (and your cats... Retch!).

You are a dispicable human being Matt, because of what you have said here. That's how it is. DEAL WITH IT!