You have provided no argument for the above assumption. (bold) My argument is that a woman knowing that she will not get support from a man is going to influence her decision. To what degree is something that would need to be studied. This really does not have much bearing on the primary argument though which is simply that one person should not be made responsible for the consequences of another persons actions.
His actions were having sex without ensuring he wouldn't cause a pregnancy. I really do not see what is so hard to understand about that. Women have birth control choices that men cannot have for obvious reasons. A man can take no action that will end a pregnancy.
If you need an argument that men (and women) have a responsibility for their children, there is no helping you. Until it has been, it has no place influencing policy decisions. Which is still not the case. The responsibility can be removed if there is an abortion but it can't be created by the simple decision not to have one. After all, many pregnant women will never even consider the possibility of having an abortion. By your principle, how would the man's responsibility come in to being in those cases?
For one thing that's impossible. Condoms can fail. Even vasectomies can fail. More importantly, a man can't legally have sex without using a condom unless the other party consents to it. If the decision of a woman to end a pregnancy only affected the woman and what was inside her body, that would be one thing. But the reality is that under the current laws that decision also has legal consequences that can impact the livelihood of a person outside her body, without them having any legal recourse. I really do not see what is so hard to understand about that. Do you believe that biological differences justify giving one person unequal power to affect the livelihood and freedom of another?
When condoms are used with spermicidal jelly, they are extremely reliable. The other party isn't responsible for the choices made by the man. He should insist on using a condom and spermicidal jelly, then the chances of causing a pregnancy are virtually zilch. A woman cannot become pregnant on her own. Pregnancy is not caused by the action of one person. Men don't have birth control options after sex. Women do.That's all there is to it. A man cannot take any action that will prevent his potential child being born. Not because he is prevented legally, but because it's a physical impossibility. No. Men should legally have the right to use any adequate birth control method that is available to them. They do, so I'm satisfied.
I am claiming nothing, you are the one claiming not me, all I have done is ask you to provide evidence for the claims you are making . .so far you haven't, and despite you saying it is "blatantly obvious" you are still trying to pass off anecdotal things as facts. You have said that I made a claim that I have not - "Your claim that no women will be influenced by the fact that they know some man will have to pay them if they have a child is disingenuous ignorance and a denial of human nature. " - so show me where I claim such a thing please? All you have done so far is provide guilt by association (your girl with the bag logo) and generalization. If what you are saying is true then you should have no problem coming up with the evidence to support it, should you?
Sometimes pregnancy happens even though preventative actions were taken. While it is possible that laws could be made that would give men a choice and allow them to take action to end a pregnancy. I disagree with such laws in favor of individual rights and freedoms. With these rights and freedoms comes responsibility. The woman has the freedom to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and with that freedom comes the responsibility for the consequences of that choice.
The fact of the matter is that you have not shown how the man has a responsibility for his "genetic progeny". Do you think sperm donors should be responsible for their genetic progeny ? The only obvious thing here is that you have given no argument that backs up your claim. Of course responsibility can be removed. If a woman will not consider abortion as an option then the man should be informed of this prior to his agreement to engage in sex. The act of sex is not consent to a child. People have sex all the time for reasons other than having a child. In fact most of the time people are having sex it is not for procreation. If the woman unilaterally decides to procreate then it is her unilateral responsibility to deal with the consequences of procreation.
If you want to deny that the sky is blue ... go ahead. That I would make such a claim does entail that I provide proof. Forgive me for not wanting to be bothered to prove the obvious to some one just because they said "prove it"
No, but I believe that parents should be responsible for their children......I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
But you don't believe that "men" have any responsibility to deal with the consequences of procreation.
I would say that the man has a responsibility for what he had a part in. If two people decide to have sex this is not a decision to "procreate" unless both parties have agreed. Sex is most often for the purpose of pleasure. Both parties understand however that the possibility of pregnancy exists as an unintended consequence. The man should take part of the responsibility for this unintended consequence. If the condom breaks he should be willing to take the girl to the pharmacy to purchase (and pay for) the morning after pill. If it is a case where the accident is not realized right away the man should be willing to pay for an abortion. The man is partially responsible for an unintended pregnancy. He is not responsible for the unilateral decision of a woman to turn that pregnancy into a baby.
And I bet you still haven't written your Congressman yet asking to pass a law that will give "men" the freedom from responsibility to their children.... Why not? 'Fraid you'll cause that politician to die laughing ???
Not often. Such a law would never be passed as it would involve a serious assault on a woman. Yeah. A man has the freedom to choose to have sex while fully knowing it could result in a pregnancy. He can reduce the odds significantly by insisting he uses a reliable brand of condom.
He's only responsible for supporting his children. He does not have to pay for an abortion or the morning after pill, unless he chooses to do so. He doesn't even have to cover any of the costs associated with pregnancy.
When you start playing fast and loose with individual rights and freedoms such a law could be passed. Would a law banning abortion not be just as much of a serious assault ? What is your argument here ... That because a man chooses to have sex with a woman he is consenting to having a child ? So what if people know that sex can result in pregnancy. Boating can result in death. Does this mean that the driver of the boat is de facto responsible for the deaths of the others in the boat regardless of the circumstances because the driver knew that boating can result in death ? Make an argument please. It is hard to respond to the contents of an argument when you do not even state what your argument is ?!
I guess the utter ridiculousness of your "poor men having to support their very own children" platform escapes you....but no one else...
You making an unsupported claim does not make that claim true. First off, can we really say they are "his" children" this implies ownership. Does a sperm donor have rights to and/or obligations to the offspring resulting from his sperm ? This is an assumption on your part. This certainly does not hold true for a sperm donor.
You are using a term of ownership which does not really apply. We left slavery some time ago. You have not made an argument showing why a man should be responsible for someone else's decision to produce a child from his genetic material.
No, and I never intended to, nor want to, nor care to.... (BTW, he isn't responsible for their decision, he's responsible for his CHILDREN but you are incapable of understanding that) . YOU have not made an argument showing why "men" shouldn't have to support their own children.
If I was anti-abortion, I'd like all your posts. They're a perfect caricature of how many anti-abortionists see the most extreme, hypocritical example of the pro-choice position. By the way, telling people they're "incapable" of understanding your arguments is flame bait.
And you speak for the "many" and how they see things? No, you only have your own opinion and your opinion and their's have no importance to me. You may put me in a position of the spokesperson for Pro-Choice but that hardly makes me their spokesperson. I note you think that men taking responsibility to support their own children is a terrible crime....which puts you in the court of rabid Anti-Choicers who have never shown any concern for actual living children. And if you think it's flame bait to tell someone what my view is for the tenth time because he obviously just does not understand it and obviously never will, , go ahead with the pettiness and report it..
Not a physical assault, but an assault on women's bodily sovereignty. He's consenting to the possibility there will be a child. The odds of that happening can be reduced significantly. It's not about boating. What was that rubbish about? My argument is simply that men have fewer birth control choices than women, because of the way human reproduction works and no law can change that.
Then you really are no different than the pro-lifers you keep questioning about "proving" that a fertilized ovum is a 'person' .. you keep spouting the same thing without actually providing anything to support it.
