I'd argue that the whole point of societal evolution is to allow us to override the inherent unfairness of biology.
Also, why intercourse? Seriously. Why must intercourse, a simple act of pleasure, automatically bestow all this culpability on someone, especially as it by no means always carries with it lasting aftereffects? I'd think that the act that confers culpability would be the birth, and who was involved in the birth. If the man has no wish to be a part of that, I see forcing it as a definitely bad thing.
a fetus, while not a person, of course has the potential to become one and therefore the man deserves an equal say in whether or not that potential is realized.
That's actually the opposite of what I was saying. I don't think the man should have any say in whether or not the fetus becomes a child. But as he has no say, I don't think the results of the decision should have any kind of legal weight on him.
If we accept this argument, as I think we should, since it is obviously the reasoning behind the pro-lifers' crusade to close down clinics, then the proposal to allow men to opt out of child support surely will, in effect, result in fewer real choices for women.
Please explain the logical link here. I'm really not seeing how you got from "No abortion clinics means it's unreasonably hard to get an abortion" to "Not shoving a lifelong responsibility on a man for a choice he has nothing to do with is evil to women."
Meredithea: That the woman might feel she can't support a child on her own doesn't really justify forcing a man to raise and support a child he doesn't want, though.
And really, nobody is holding a gun to her head and forcing her to have an abortion. If she doesn't think she can support a child by herself, there are a lot of viable options. Abortion. Adoption. Finding another partner, who does want a kid. Scrimping and saving and managing to make it work.
How does the reverse turn out, I wonder? The man wants to keep the child, but the woman doesn't want to have it, or even bear it to term. Can the man prevent her from having an abortion, and force her to give birth and then pay child support. I kinda don't think so. As it stands, when the man and woman are in conflict as to how they want a pregnancy to turn out, the man automatically loses. This is not fair. I don't see how, if the woman has the sole choice over whether or not she has to raise or support a child (which, by the way, I don't think anyone is arguing against), then the woman should also have the sole choice over whether or not the man has to raise or support that same child. And I don't think the method of birth control used, if any, is at all a factor in that.
Maybe I just hate children - it's not outside the realm of possibility - but it seems to me that if the child in question is at an age where it can be sedated without gross physical harm, then there's no excuse for it making noise. If a child can't deal with a little ear pain without screaming, or a long flight without running up and down the aisles bothering the rest of the passengers, drug it. If the parents of the child are not willing to do that, then they shouldn't take the child on a damn plane. Same thing for movie theaters, restaurants, and other such public places. Unless I am intentionally paying attention to your child, I shouldn't ever have to know it's there.
Slap-boxing the one-eyed chimp.
posted by kafziel 18 years ago
In "Curious Monkey Uncle George"
Whatever you send, include a coat hanger in the box. And try to work "Whatever you choose" into the card somehow.
posted by kafziel 18 years ago
In "Child Support!"
I'd argue that the whole point of societal evolution is to allow us to override the inherent unfairness of biology. Also, why intercourse? Seriously. Why must intercourse, a simple act of pleasure, automatically bestow all this culpability on someone, especially as it by no means always carries with it lasting aftereffects? I'd think that the act that confers culpability would be the birth, and who was involved in the birth. If the man has no wish to be a part of that, I see forcing it as a definitely bad thing. a fetus, while not a person, of course has the potential to become one and therefore the man deserves an equal say in whether or not that potential is realized. That's actually the opposite of what I was saying. I don't think the man should have any say in whether or not the fetus becomes a child. But as he has no say, I don't think the results of the decision should have any kind of legal weight on him. If we accept this argument, as I think we should, since it is obviously the reasoning behind the pro-lifers' crusade to close down clinics, then the proposal to allow men to opt out of child support surely will, in effect, result in fewer real choices for women. Please explain the logical link here. I'm really not seeing how you got from "No abortion clinics means it's unreasonably hard to get an abortion" to "Not shoving a lifelong responsibility on a man for a choice he has nothing to do with is evil to women."
posted by kafziel 18 years ago
Meredithea: That the woman might feel she can't support a child on her own doesn't really justify forcing a man to raise and support a child he doesn't want, though. And really, nobody is holding a gun to her head and forcing her to have an abortion. If she doesn't think she can support a child by herself, there are a lot of viable options. Abortion. Adoption. Finding another partner, who does want a kid. Scrimping and saving and managing to make it work. How does the reverse turn out, I wonder? The man wants to keep the child, but the woman doesn't want to have it, or even bear it to term. Can the man prevent her from having an abortion, and force her to give birth and then pay child support. I kinda don't think so. As it stands, when the man and woman are in conflict as to how they want a pregnancy to turn out, the man automatically loses. This is not fair. I don't see how, if the woman has the sole choice over whether or not she has to raise or support a child (which, by the way, I don't think anyone is arguing against), then the woman should also have the sole choice over whether or not the man has to raise or support that same child. And I don't think the method of birth control used, if any, is at all a factor in that.
posted by kafziel 18 years ago
In "Should all men be treated as paedophiles by default?"
Maybe I just hate children - it's not outside the realm of possibility - but it seems to me that if the child in question is at an age where it can be sedated without gross physical harm, then there's no excuse for it making noise. If a child can't deal with a little ear pain without screaming, or a long flight without running up and down the aisles bothering the rest of the passengers, drug it. If the parents of the child are not willing to do that, then they shouldn't take the child on a damn plane. Same thing for movie theaters, restaurants, and other such public places. Unless I am intentionally paying attention to your child, I shouldn't ever have to know it's there.
posted by kafziel 18 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)