My question to pro-choice supporters

[The Grand Nudger]

(Not really responding to anyone in particular)

Let's look at the human animal a little more, and at instinct and evolution.  It seems to me that among young adults, men are much more likely to use relationships to get sex, and women are more likely to consent to sexual encounters because young men set it as a criterion for continuing the relationship.  "Come on, baby. . . if you really loved me. . . "  It seems extremely hypocritical to me that a man in this state should not be expected to live up to the post-sex stages of sexual reproduction-- whether he wants to or not.  "I was willing to pay for an abortion, but she wouldn't do it, so it's on her now. . . "  That's shitty-- just because she has moral or even instinctive reasons not to go through with an abortion doesn't mean she should get a life sentence while he's free as a bird.

No more or less shitty than "he wanted the child and I didn't".  How is referring to her animal instincts to get a partner (if this reference is even remotely accurate..which I doubt) any different than referring to his and the need to nut...and what place does either have in law?  

I have yet to meet a man who's "free as a bird" after having knocked some girl up.  I know plenty manage to dodge the law...but that's kind of a bad thing from top to bottom and the very antithesis of freedom. You are not free if you are under constant threat of legal action. Meanwhile, a female can..not effectively but actually..be free as a bird.  Gopod for her, that -should- be an option..because whatever we were when we were scouring the savannah for roots has jack shit to do with where we are now.

In some cases, you just have a couple of people who are so horny they couldn't think straight enough to stop and get a condom, or to plan ahead enough for the girl to get on the pill or whatever.  Again, they are both submitting to an extremely strong instinctive drive.  Why should one of them get a life sentence for HER logical fail in the face of strong instinct, and he get a pass for his?

No reason at all...-and she can have an abortion- or put the child up for adoption...but he can't...again, that's the point.

Saying "She has control.  She could have gotten an abortion or gone on the pill" really isn't fair.  Some girls don't have access to abortions.  Some are against it for moral or religious reasons, which if she's young have been conditioned in her.  Blaming her because she's not enlightened enough to see a fertilized egg as just a bundle of cells isn't a good enough reason for thrusting her into a lifelong commitment to a young human being with no support from anyone.

Access to reproductive healthcare is spotty, but this is an argument for improving access, not for enforcing inequality in reproductive choices based on possession of peen.  No one is thrusting her into anything, except herself, if she decides -for any reason- to have a baby..and that's her right. No one can force her to abort - again, that's the point.  It''s her choice.  Her choices carry consequences for her...but probably shouldn't for him.  It's a pointless aside anyway..since no one is choosing to have a baby just because they choose to have sex - period.

Nah, fuck that.  It DOES take two to tango, and in the case of young people, it probably takes MORE than two to deal with the consequences.  Pull that other little fucker out of the dance club, give him a goddamned spatula and a McDonald's cap, and let him start paying for his mistakes in an equal way.

..............yup, deadbeat, by god, we'll make him pay.  Why not go shame some sluts while you're at it? Two people looking to come hard in 2017 and -this- is what they get from society? Epic fail. This sort of baseless moralizing might have had a place before the scalpel was invented......but really, what are we doing, today, in the first world.....maintaining it?

All of this...all of it, mirrors word for word and sentiment for sentiment the nonsense that was used to block reproductive choice in women from forever until so recently as within living memory. It's a huge part of -why- we have a ton of fatherless children running around. "Pay for your sins or run" - and what did women do presented with the same "choice"? They broke the law and suffered for it. They cowered under the law....and suffered for it. We all suffered for it.

[Angrboda]

I disagree with the general tenor of this thread. Child support isn't about penalizing the father, it's about the welfare of the child who had no say in the matter. Raising children is expensive. If you don't provide financial support to the custodial parent, the child suffers. The father made his choice at conception. Fair or not, the parents should not be given rights that negatively impact the welfare of the child.

[Losty]

I disagree with the general tenor of this thread.  Child support isn't about penalizing the father, it's about the welfare of the child who had no say in the matter.  Raising children is expensive.  If you don't provide financial support to the custodial parent, the child suffers.  The father made his choice at conception.  Fair or not, the parents should not be given rights that negatively impact the welfare of the child.

I disagree. If the father doesn't want a baby and the woman chooses to have it, she should be responsible. If she can't afford a baby, she shouldn't have one.

[The Grand Nudger]

I disagree with the general tenor of this thread.  Child support isn't about penalizing the father, it's about the welfare of the child who had no say in the matter.  Raising children is expensive.  If you don't provide financial support to the custodial parent, the child suffers.  The father made his choice at conception.  Fair or not, the parents should not be given rights that negatively impact the welfare of the child.

The thread wasn't about child support, and no..it shouldn't be punitive...but it is. It's one of few legal ways, in america..for example..to be thrown in debtors prison - and you don't even need to borrow money to get there.

People accept that because they have the deadbeat in mind..but the nature of the law is that it will be applied to everyone, not just the deadbeats. So, something we think is a-okay when it comes to some asshole (when in reality it probably isn;t) happens to some not-an-asshole with the regularity of any beaurocracy.

Did the mother make her choice at conception? Anti-abortion activists will be thrilled to know that this notion has traction. That's been their schtick all along. "Fair or not" has -no- place in our laws, except to say that it should be fair..or not the law. In fact, we have a constitutional amendment that sort of promises that very thing.

[Mr.Obvious]

You are right, of course Jörmungandr. The child should not be forgotten in this discussion.
If you would follow the idea, you would, in my opinion, ideally need some kind of well-equiped fund to support single parents. So they could have the option of raising a child without it suffering a hindrance in it's opportunities and upbringing. At least on a financial side.
This would require more taxes of course. Like disability payments or unemployment cheques. As a society we'd have to accept that one day we might find ourselves in this situation. The small fees of the many financing those relative few who actually find themselves in the position.

I'm not sure I agree a potential parent, male or female, made their choice at conception, though. Especially not if they take necessary precautions but they fail somehow, from ripped condom to forgetting to take the pill.

[bennyboy]

I disagree with the general tenor of this thread.  Child support isn't about penalizing the father, it's about the welfare of the child who had no say in the matter.  Raising children is expensive.  If you don't provide financial support to the custodial parent, the child suffers.  The father made his choice at conception.  Fair or not, the parents should not be given rights that negatively impact the welfare of the child.

. . . or the  overall welfare of the society when irresponsible actions lead to a burden for all, maybe.

---

No reason at all...-and she can have an abortion- or put the child up for adoption...but he can't...again, that's the point.

I think this asymmetry in choice is made up for by the fact that women have to do about 1000% more, even in a healthy married relationship, when it comes to childrearing. The man may have to cough up a portion of his wages; the woman is going to give up the next 18 years of her life, almost 24/7.

Access to reproductive healthcare is spotty, but this is an argument for improving access, not for enforcing inequality in reproductive choices based on possession of peen.  No one is thrusting her into anything, except herself, if she decides -for any reason- to have a baby..and that's her right.  No one can force her to abort - again, that's the point.  It''s her choice.  Her choices carry consequences for her...but probably shouldn't for him.  It's a pointless aside anyway..since no one is choosing to have a baby just because they choose to have sex - period.

Plenty of girls get pregnant,and decide to keep the baby for moral reasons. That a girl doesn't believe in abortion shouldn't be a life sentence for her and an excuse for the dude. "I OFFERED to pay for an abortion! What else can I DO?" You can pay, and pay, and pay some more, because you've created a human being.

..............yup, deadbeat, by god, we'll make him pay.  Why not go shame some sluts while you're at it?  Two people looking to come hard in 2017 and -this- is what they get from society?  Epic fail.  This sort of baseless moralizing might have had a place before the scalpel was invented......but really, what are we doing, today, in the first world.....maintaining it?

In all areas of life, people, especially young people, make mistakes, and they are expected to accept the consequences of their actions. A guy can't say, "I was driving fast because I couldn't resist the excitement. . . but I don't feel like paying for the accident"? Of course not. Any reasonable person knows that no matter how enjoyable and exciting driving fast is, the likely consequence is a crashed car and potential liability.

Why are dumb fucks always so surprised? "You. . . you're PREGNANT? But how? Why?" Answer: you had sex with that girl. That's one of the predictable results of having sex. Now, there's going to be another human being, and small human beings need about 18 years of supervision and support-- and the girl won't be able to do it on her own, and nobody else should HAVE to do it. Maybe the young man doesn't want to sacrifice so much of his life, but the question is-- who else SHOULD do it, and why?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think this asymmetry in choice is made up for by the fact that women have to do about 1000% more, even in a healthy married relationship, when it comes to childrearing.  The man may have to cough up a portion of his wages; the woman is going to give up the next 18 years of her life, almost 24/7.

Sexist, untrue, and irrelevant. If she doesn't want any part of that she can opt out.  

Plenty of girls get pregnant,and decide to keep the baby for moral reasons.  That a girl doesn't believe in abortion shouldn't be a life sentence for her and an excuse for the dude.  "I OFFERED to pay for an abortion!  What else can I DO?"  You can pay, and pay, and pay some more, because you've created a human being.

It's not a sentence, she decided to have the child, and could have decided otherwise - again..not a choice open to the male or even one he has any say in.  Still slut shaming.  No one "created a human being" they had sex...jesus, lol?

In all areas of life, people, especially young people, make mistakes, and they are expected to accept  the consequences of their actions.  A guy can't say, "I was driving fast because I couldn't resist the excitement. . . but I don't feel  like paying for the accident"?  Of course not.  Any reasonable person knows that no matter how  enjoyable and exciting driving fast is, the likely consequence is a crashed car and potential liability.

Are they expected to do so?  Can;t a female have an abortion instead of having a little mistake?  Like I said before, the cost should be split if it; mutual..and if it isn;t - he can't force her to have an abortion...but..she probably shouldn't be able to force him to become a parent, either.

Why are dumb fucks always so surprised?  "You. . . you're PREGNANT?  But how?  Why?"  Answer: you had sex with that girl.  That's one of the predictable results of having sex.  Now, there's going to be another human being, and small human beings need about 18 years of supervision and support-- and the girl won't be able to do it on her own, and nobody else should HAVE to do it.  Maybe the young man doesn't want to sacrifice so much of his life, but the question is-- who else SHOULD do it, and why?

Having sex is not choosing to have a child, I really can't add anything to that and nothing you can say can change it.  The consequence of sex is orgasm, not parenthood.  Maybe, just maybe, nobody should have that child..or at the very least, whomever is willing to do so should have to "do it".......not those who are unwilling. Basic stuff.

Honestly, anybody who wants to engage in this..before they do so..needs to ask themselves if what they're about to say is the argument that they'd feel comfortable with if it were aimed at the female - telling them why they should have no reproductive choice. That has to be step one, because I'm going to take it there every single time, and it -needs- to be taken there.

[Astonished]

@Astonished, you do bring up good points, nobody is denying shitty parents exist and they have a hand in raising their kid in a shitty environment, without a proper role model, angry and I don't doubt it messes up them a lot either.

But what is your suggestion to do when a woman gets pregnant but the man don't want it? Having a parent that hates you for being born is worse than not having a parent that hates your existence. Just my opinion. (and safer. Especially for the kid. You never know what a person /parent that hates your existence will do to you..maybe they think you're the reason they're living a shitty life..that's a person you would rather not want around you ,especially as a guardian. Damn, people are so selfish these days)

Okay, I'm sick to fucking death of this. If both parties have not got absolutely every possible base covered before stuff goes into or comes out of their genitals, they both forfeit any and all rights to complain about anything and have to either put up with having a bastard kid or abort it. No half-measures where one of them gets to quietly slink away because they feel inconvenienced, how the fuck does the child have to feel when that happens? If someone gets knocked up, guess what, it's not just one person's fault, and unless your parents locked you in the damn basement for your first 18 years, you've got no fucking excuse not to know full well what the repercussions of your actions can, and more often than not, will be. "Oh, you're anti-abortion? Shit! I shouldn't have fucked you, especially not unprotected!" I cannot possibly sympathize with anyone who would ever have reason to utter that sentence. Since the man isn't fucking anchored to the kid for 10 months I don't see how it's the least bit unfair or unreasonable for them to have to undergo certain legal rigors like negotiating for or against custody (I'm not saying they have to be involved but they absolutely need to be positively identified, and able to be located at any and all times), negotiating a reasonable shared means of supporting the child (so if one or both of them aren't going to pull their weight they have months and months to get their fucking shit together), and obviously paternity testing to make sure he's actually the one culpable. I know that's probably unrealistic and a lot of work but what we've currently got happening is so much fucking worse. No child should have to see only one parent name on their birth certificate, period. It's really a fucking crying shame that so many people ignore the goddamn needs and feelings of the child in this whole thing. You'd think grown adults who are creating life and facing decisions of such magnitude would be more fucking mature than to be such big babies about it themselves. But if they're too stupid to go into it with the best possible compatibility and contingencies set, well, what can anyone expect.

[The Grand Nudger]

This would require more taxes of course. Like disability payments or unemployment cheques. As a society we'd have to accept that one day we might find ourselves in this situation. The small fees of the many financing those relative few who actually find themselves in the position.

Why would it require more taxes rather than better use of existing taxes that already dwarf the entirety of what;s used at present for the same purpose?  I agree that it;s not workable unless we improve the system...but I can't imagine why our refusal or failure to improve the system justifies a unidirectional lack of parity for the consequences of a unilateral decision.   In that case..it's not the father who failed..but society.  

I'm not sure I agree a potential parent, male or female, made their choice at conception, though. Especially not if they take necessary precautions but they fail somehow, from ripped condom to forgetting to take the pill.

-Or just doesn't want a kid.  A female doesn't have to establish that she tried super hard not to have a kid...not to have a kid.  No one should have to, it's not a legitimate qualifier.

---

Okay, I'm sick to fucking death of this. If both parties have not got absolutely every possible base covered before stuff goes into or comes out of their genitals, they both forfeit any and all rights to complain 

-edited for brevity.

Okay, put that on a posterboard and go picket an abortion clinic? The point is that both parties -don;t- forfeit such a "right" - only one party does..apparently, the party of penis, because penis, and bad men™, and "my daddy left me".

The failure to see past our manufactured puritan biases and personal tragedies..on proud display in this thread, is breathtaking.

[bennyboy]

I think this asymmetry in choice is made up for by the fact that women have to do about 1000% more, even in a healthy married relationship, when it comes to childrearing.  The man may have to cough up a portion of his wages; the woman is going to give up the next 18 years of her life, almost 24/7.

Sexist, untrue, and irrelevant.  If she doesn't want any part of that she can opt out.   

So now you're a champion of free will, huh? See, I think that society, family and instinct are heavily stacked against the girl "opting" out. . . except when she's lucky enough for them not to be.

It's not a sentence, she decided to have the child, and could have decided otherwise - again..not a choice open to the male or even one he has any say in.  Still slut shaming.  No one "created a human being" they had sex...jesus, lol?

It's surprising how many human beings were created by sex. I mean. . . must be like 60% at least, hey? It's almost like. . . sex does that.

Having sex is not choosing to have a child, I really can't add anything to that and nothing you can say can change it.

Driving super fast isn't choosing to end up with your brains on the road, either. And yet it's almost like they seem connected in some subtle, abstract way. Hmmmm. . .

 The consequence of sex is orgasm, not parenthood.  Maybe, just maybe, nobody should have that child..or at the very least, whomever is willing to do so should have to "do it".......not those who are unwilling.  Basic stuff.

And now you're dropping evolution, too? Sex feels good because of a strong relationship to reproductive fitness. . . apparently. If only someone could figure out the relationship, we'd be set. Oh wait. . . I think I might have it. It seems like. . . sex is HOW people reproduce. Go figure.

Honestly, anybody who wants to engage in this..before they do so..needs to ask themselves if what they're about to say is the argument that they'd feel comfortable with if it were aimed at the female - telling them why they should have no reproductive choice.  That has to be step one, because I'm going to take it there every single time, and it -needs- to be taken there.

In order to exercise this free will of which you are suddenly champion, there has actually to BE a choice. If for whatever reason the girl decides to keep her baby, then where does that leave the society? Who's gonna foot the bill? The girl alone? Almost impossible. The society-- fuck that, the kid's not mine. The other person involved in the reproductive act? Yeah. . . you might want to protect his rights, but I'd rather protect myself and everyone else from having to pay $400,000 so some punk can get his rocks of on Saturday night.