My apologies. I have been bogged down.
Ignoramus wrote:Nice lack of context. Namely the fact that it was minor in comparison of the 9 months of pregnancy vs the 18 years thereafter. I stand by my assertion that most women who choose to have an abortion do so because of reasons other than because they have concerns about the 9 months of pregnancy.
If the chance of death (In the US, that's about 650 per year out of 4 million live births or 0.016%), or other health complications are truly the primary driver, then I expect you'd support a law limiting abortions only to cases where the mother's health is a risk correct?
The chance of death is not the primary concern. The woman's overall health is, the side-effects of pregnancy itself in terms of her career are. A woman who is pregnant or could become pregnant is often denied employment or let go--there are laws to prevent this, but they are trivially easy to circumvent. Then there is physical morbidity--nor mortality, but morbidity. Complications from pregnancy are not just a binary "death/just fine" switch.
Then we get into issues regarding who the default primary care giver not just in our society, but most societies happens to be. When push comes to shove, deadbeat fathers who abrogate the actual raising of their children are far more common than deadbeat moms. Single mothers are over and above more common than single fathers. Moreover, single fathers are held in higher regard than single mothers due a sexual double standard and the sexist notion that men who are single fathers are taking on a particularly difficult burden due to their strong character...while single mothers are often held in some degree or another of contempt for being sluts.
Given all that, does it not make sense that that--biological reality aside--the mother should have wider latitude in her choices? That she--who has more to lose by becoming pregnant--should have more say in what happens with regard to a pregnancy and resultant offspring?
As much as we might wish that both parents are equal stakeholders, the fact remains that they are not, and in fact there are very few species where they are equal stakeholders.
The woman can opt out of raising a child by choosing to have an abortion. If she chose not to do so, obviously, she most likely wanted to keep the child. That makes the statistics in this case wholly irrelevent. If you are unable to comprehend this, let me know and I'll try to go slower.
Are you really that stupid? Really?
An abortion is not a trivial up-front cost. Nor is access to abortion universal thanks to the efforts of pro-life groups. For that matter, many women hold themselves to ethical and religious beliefs that are incompatible with abortion.
So what's your point? That Women get a raw deal in other aspects of society? I'm not defending the inequality of that situation. No statements from me saying "Tough shit! She should get her tubes tied if she wants to be paid like a man" or "Well it sucks she's not paid like a man, but life isn't fair!". If society's ultimate goal is gender equality, then the "Tough shit! Life isn't fair" statements shouldn't be tossed around like they have been in this thread.
The point is, until that situation changes, the woman having a disportionate say in whether the offspring is born is perfectly justified, even if we completely discount the bodily integrity issue.
Just because we want the world to be other than it is, does not mean we should not cope and deal with the world as it is.
No shit she has a wider option set dumbass. Woman can choose to take responsibility, men have it thrust upon them regardless of what they would choose. Which is precisely the point.
First of all, you have just proven that you have either not read, or not comprehended, what I have said in this thread. My saying this does not imply that I am shocked precisely. That would be absurd given what is presently known about your intellectual faculties--limited as we all know they are. That said, I suppose I should explain.
Both parties assume a risk of pregnancy when they mate. Both MUST take responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make with regard to their mating. Having an abortion is a way in which a woman--and only a woman by nature of biology and her carrying the resulting fetus, having an interest in her bodily integrity and even discounting that issue, empirically if not ideally sharing the majority of the burden of parenthood--may take responsibility for the consequences of her actions. It is not a get out of jail free card. She is not abrogating her responsibility. That is your problem. You think that abortion is a way out of responsibility, and thus it is unfair that women have a way to not take said responsibility while men do not. It is no such thing. It is a different means for taking responsibility.
If a child is born, that child has an absolute right to be provided and cared for. The child may be raised--either by both parents or one with the other providing financial assistance. The child may be adopted out by mutual agreement. Or, in special cases, one parent may abnegate their parental responsibilities if the other parent marries and another individual is willing to step in and take their place by formally adopting the child.
Those are the options. Once the child exists, no notion of fairness applies because the right of that child to be provided and cared for is absolute. It overrides any concern either parent has, and the initial conditions under which the child was born are, frankly, irrelevant. A parent who is unable to provide adequately for the child may have to take the long road with regard to the fulfillment of said responsibilities (for example, they may have to get an education and gainful employment before they can pay child support in arrears). However, that does not eliminate those responsibilities.
Context matters. Clearly I was referring to responsibility for raising/supporting a child. Women can choose to take that responsibility. Men have no choice in the matter. So yes they do have it thrust upon them.
Not in this case, because Dread Not is right. You are missing the point. Probably intentionally because you are in fact an intellectually dishonest pustule. A swollen oozing abscess on humanity.
You dont get to define your way out of the counter-argument by shifting the goal posts down the causal chain.
Terralthra wrote:Depending on your position on the legal cases I've mentioned, your position broadens to "If you don't want to pay for child support, be abstinent, don't ever get drunk, don't get raped, and don't masturbate such that someone can get to your semen afterward."
With regard to the use of birth control, condoms etc, there is still the matter of assumption of risk. Think of it in terms of tort law (sort of). Once reasonable precautions are taken you might still be liable for damages in say... a car accident. Accidents happen, that does not mean that due to the assumed risk, one should not be held liable for the outcome thereof. The drunkeness thing is... tricky, as it may have been rape. Depends on the exact nature of the event in question. As for rape or...theft of semen (am I the only one who would think that is just surreal to consider?), ideally the state would step in as it does for natural disasters for which no person can be considered liable. In such a case, the ideal condition is of course that the mother would not have parental rights either, and the baby would be put up for adoption in their own best interests unless the presumptive father actively chose to raise it. However the laws have not caught up with the...strange nature of reality in that respect--and a child has an absolute right to be cared for by someone once it is born.
