Pro Life? Then Don't Run Under Liberal Banner

[Argus]

I'm saying that men and women both have a responsibility to try to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Not sure why that's such a problem to you.

I really don't care how anti-abortionist fanatics might twist words.

.

Who on this thread would you term an 'anti abortion fanatic"?

[cybercoma]

I'm saying that men and women both have a responsibility to try to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Not sure why that's such a problem to you.

I really don't care how anti-abortionist fanatics might twist words.

.

I didn't say that at all either.

You're saying if men don't want to be responsible for a child, then they should abstain.

I'm saying that the same logic applies to the argument that women should be allowed to have abortions. If they don't want to be pregnant, they should abstain.

You see how that works?

I'm not twisting your words. I'm using your exact logic.

I'm trying to enlighten you as to the problems some pro-choice folks fall into when they're making these arguments. You should stay away from the argument that someone who doesn't want children should abstain from sex or use contraceptives because that's the exact same argument pro-lifers use against abortion, which you obviously support.

The issue is about fiscal autonomy vs bodily autonomy. Men don't have a choice over a woman's pregnancy because it's her body that's being used for it. It's legal to require financial support because requiring fiscal responsibility is not a violation of charter rights when it comes to bodily autonomy. They're different issues. When you try to boil it down and say, "if you don't want kids don't have unprotected sex," you lend support to the exact same argument that's used against your (and my) pro-choice position.

I'm not really sure how to explain this to you so that you get it, but what you're saying about men's responsibilities here undermines your own position on pro-choice and you refuse to see it.

[overthere]

I rely entirely on my personality to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

[Argus]

It's legal to require financial support because requiring fiscal responsibility is not a violation of charter rights when it comes to bodily autonomy.

And to repeat, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, there is no Charter prohobition against regulating abortion.

Furthermore, only men are required to be fiscally responsible for the resulting child. Women can, as I said, simply dump the kid and walk away.

[cybercoma]

Women are required to provide for the child as long as they have it. If the woman dumps the child, guess what? The man isn't responsible to pay child support to the adopted parents. Your argument doesn't support itself.

[Argus]

Women are required to provide for the child as long as they have it. If the woman dumps the child, guess what? The man isn't responsible to pay child support to the adopted parents. Your argument doesn't support itself.

Can the man dump the child and wash his hands of responsibilites? Nope. Nor does he get a veto on whether the child will be born or not. Even if the woman is only four or five weeks pregnant, he can't say to her "I am not in a position to support a child now and don't want to. If you go through with this and have it I am not going to be helping". He doesn't get that choice... but she does. And she not only gets to make the choice for herself, she makes it for him, too.

I think this is derivitve of religious prohibitions against abortion. I.e., once she's pregnant, that's it. Abortion is not really an option, so of course, he and she are both resposible. But now she's not but he still his.

[cybercoma]

I've already acknowledged that problem and said we need to come to a solution about it that recognizes the problem of men burdening women with the entire responsibility to care for a child they helped create. Women have the choice of walking away and men have to live with whatever consequences the woman decides upon. The problem trying to equate the two however comes with the types of autonomy they violate. When that child is born, it's his child, his flesh and blood, his creation, whether he likes it or agrees to it or not. He has a duty to provide for that child, just as the mother does. They have an equal duty to provide. It's not unfairly making the duty his alone. Furthermore, banning abortion or strictly regulating it, undermines the bodily autonomy of the woman. No one has a right to violate the bodily autonomy of any individual. You cannot force someone to carry something, anything, inside their body against their will. That's on a completely different level from fiscal responsibility. So the equivalency you'er trying to paint is just not there.

[jbg]

I rely entirely on my personality to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

I don't know if you're male, but if you are pregnancy is highly unlikely.

[jacee]

I didn't say that at all either.

You're saying if men don't want to be responsible for a child, then they should abstain.

No I did not say that.

I said men should wrap it up in good quality condoms and stop whining that "it broke" or "she said she was on birth control".

[cybercoma]

No I did not say that.

I said men should wrap it up in good quality condoms and stop whining that "it broke" or "she said she was on birth control".

Which is an even worse position, because condoms do break and birth control does fail. Is that not the argument you have for keeping abortion legal?

How does this sound to you?

"Abortion should be illegal because a fetus is a human life and ending a human life is wrong. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she should make sure she's on birth control and make sure her partner wraps it up with a good quality condom, but she should not be allowed to kill a fetus because she was not responsible for her actions."

That's the exact same argument you're making.

[jacee]

Which is an even worse position, because condoms do break and birth control does fail. Is that not the argument you have for keeping abortion legal?

How does this sound to you?

"Abortion should be illegal because a fetus is a human life and ending a human life is wrong. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she should make sure she's on birth control and make sure her partner wraps it up with a good quality condom, but she should not be allowed to kill a fetus because she was not responsible for her actions."

That's the exact same argument you're making.

No I'm not, and I'm done with this.

But the whiners lamenting men's 'lack of choices' after they fail to prevent pregnancy seem to have quieted down.

.

Edited May 30, 2014 by jacee

[Bob Macadoo]

No I'm not, and I'm done with this.

But the whiners lamenting men's 'lack of choices' after they fail to prevent pregnancy seem to have quieted down.

.

Not a whiner but a debater. You have never actually addressed Cyber's argument, just repeated your "wrap your rascal" mantra. Ideology is not debate.

[cybercoma]

No I'm not, and I'm done with this.

But the whiners lamenting men's 'lack of choices' after they fail to prevent pregnancy seem to have quieted down.

.

Men have less control over becoming a parent than women do. That much is certain. Mind you I fully support abortion.

[PIK]

So he is starting to lose people over this, will there be more? This guy has been around for while, hate to lose guys like him.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/former-chretien-minister-drops-liberal-bid-over-trudeaus-abortion-policy/article18914841/

[cybercoma]

That's probably the best headline Trudeau could have possibly gotten out of this. Now he's demonstrably moving the party away from Chrétien and the old guard.

Edited May 30, 2014 by cybercoma

[PIK]

That's probably the best headline Trudeau could have possibly gotten out of this. Now he's demonstrably moving the party away from Chrétien and the old guard.

Just makes him look more like the liar he is, open nominations anyone.

[jacee]

Not a whiner but a debater. You have never actually addressed Cyber's argument, just repeated your "wrap your rascal" mantra. Ideology is not debate.

I have no interest in the abortion debate. It's over. We won.

Cyber's arguing with me about something I'm not even talking about.

That's over too.

[jacee]

Men have less control over becoming a parent than women do. That much is certain. Mind you I fully support abortion.

Men have just as much control over contraception as women do IF they bother to take that responsibility on.

I support abortion choice too.

I do not support (mostly) young male idiots who fail to use contraception themselves, and then whine about the consequences.

.

[cybercoma]

jacee, you really don't get it. If abortion were illegal, women would have the same choices about contraception. They also have the added choice of abortion once they get pregnant.

[WestCoastRunner]

How do we reconcile that with the view that all women have the right to decide when they will be pregnant?

Simply because women get impregnated, men don't. Women should be in control of their bodies and whatever happens to it. I agree, there is no easy answer if a woman decides to keep the child and the man would have preferred an abortion and ends up paying support for 21 years or more. Those are the chances you take when you fool around.

[cybercoma]

Simply because women get impregnated, men don't. Women should be in control of their bodies and whatever happens to it. I agree, there is no easy answer if a woman decides to keep the child and the man would have preferred an abortion and ends up paying support for 21 years or more. Those are the chances you take when you fool around.

And I completely agree that it's a woman's choice to make. Yet, why is the argument "those are the chances you take when you fool around" ok when it comes to men paying child support, but not when it comes to banning abortion? Saying to a woman, "those are the chances you take when you fool around" is the same argument. I've offered an explanation in a few responses in this thread already, namely that providing the necessities of life is a financial burden and not a violation of the sanctity of one's body. The latter is vastly more unethical and wrong. Moreover, the financial burden is shared between mother and father, whilst the physical violation of the body is the mothers' alone.

What I'm suggesting is the "wrap it up" argument doesn't fly for women for a reason and for those same reasons it shouldn't fly for men. If a man doesn't want to be a father, I don't think he should have to be. Yet, I recognize that this puts women at significant risk to suffer the socioeconomic consequences of providing for a child on her own. There's no easy answer here.

[Bob Macadoo]

There's no easy answer here.

Incorrect. You heard, you ride the "ohhh" rollercoaster, be prepared for the sudden stop at the end.

[jacee]

And I completely agree that it's a woman's choice to make. Yet, why is the argument "those are the chances you take when you fool around" ok when it comes to men paying child support, but not when it comes to banning abortion? Saying to a woman, "those are the chances you take when you fool around" is the same argument. I've offered an explanation in a few responses in this thread already, namely that providing the necessities of life is a financial burden and not a violation of the sanctity of one's body. The latter is vastly more unethical and wrong. Moreover, the financial burden is shared between mother and father, whilst the physical violation of the body is the mothers' alone.

What I'm suggesting is the "wrap it up" argument doesn't fly for women for a reason and for those same reasons it shouldn't fly for men. If a man doesn't want to be a father, I don't think he should have to be. Yet, I recognize that this puts women at significant risk to suffer the socioeconomic consequences of providing for a child on her own. There's no easy answer here.

Wrap it up.

[cybercoma]

Then ban abortions and birth control pills if it's that simple. All we need to do is have guys wrap it up and we'll never have unwanted pregnancies.

[Guest]

It's simple. When a pregnancy is discovered, the man should be taken to a private location and asked the question, abort or keep? Then the woman should be informed of the man's choice. Then she can make the choice to abort or keep. If she aborts, no problem. If she keeps, but he said abort, then no money, no access. If she keeps and he said keep, then he pays full support and has full access.

Solomon has nothing on me...