But the key to your story, Charlie, is that you CHOSE. You and your girlfriend CHOSE to continue with her pregnancy. Picture that exact same scenario, two reckless, unprepared teenagers, with the regime now sanctioned by the court and the Republican legislatures: the state tells you that you MUST. Forcing a woman who doesn't wish to be p…
But the key to your story, Charlie, is that you CHOSE. You and your girlfriend CHOSE to continue with her pregnancy. Picture that exact same scenario, two reckless, unprepared teenagers, with the regime now sanctioned by the court and the Republican legislatures: the state tells you that you MUST. Forcing a woman who doesn't wish to be pregnant to continue to be pregnant, to subject her to the physical arduousness that is pregnancy and childbirth - for the state to compel her to that is monstrous.
Agree totally! And the choice of my paternal grandmother & grandfather, married with 2 children under 4, to have an abortion done by their family doctor back in 1918 because they couldn’t afford another child, was just as valid as the choice of Charlie & his girlfriend.
It’s important to remember that abortions have been performed legally & illegally since the beginning of time. And they will continue to take place, one way or another. Choices like the ones Charlie & his girlfriend made & my grandparents made happen every day. The people involved should be able to make these choices with their families, their doctor & their god. The government - be it state or federal - should have no say in the matter.
Is that true? I learned about birth control in high school health. That would be terrible if true. Love how the poorest states are the red states with the least sex Ed and now no choice
There's only 13 states that provide comprehensive sex education. Like you, I learned about contraception, STIs, how pregnancy happens, the stages, and the risks (like an ectopic pregnancy) in high school. If you couldn't get contraception thru your doc, cause you didn't want your parents to know, you could see a doc at the county health dept. for $10.
It is quite ironic that the poor, red states in the bible belt have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. And being that Wisconsin is the state above me, I think our docs here should be prepared.
I don't actually recall ANY sex education from school. Of course that was in the 60's and early 70's.
If they did any, it didn't make any impression. I tend to think that there really wasn't any other than a brief "discussion" of the biological facts of human reproduction.
I was in a Catholic HS from 65-69. With birth control not allowed ours was similar - so lots of stories about boys and the lies they told to get a girl into bed. Still we were aware of the pill and rubbers - our teachers (nuns) were actually quite progressive.
We had abstinence-only sex-ed at my suburban Memphis, TN high school.
It included workbooks and graphs about the "danger zone" between holding hands and kissing, along with helpful slogans like "pet your dog, not your date" and "don't be a louse, wait for your spouse."
Eighth graders did not have a comedy field day with that material.
Women have been forcing men to pay child support through the courts for decades now, even while stating loudly out the other side of their mouths that it was fully THEIR choice to bring the pregnancy to term. So why is a man FORCED to pay for the child even though it was 100% her choice through the pro-choice movements own words? Were you guys forcing men to pay up through the courts? If you can force men to pay through court systems, turnabout is fair play no?
Well, well. Tell us how you really feel. Women, for thousands of years, have been under the rule and authority of men. Women couldn't even have their own checking account until the 1970s. Men have held all the power for decision making for most of everything in women's lives until the last few decades. Women can't have any power more than you. Even over their OWN bodies. Women in the work force STILL don't have the same money making power than men. On average women make 84% of what men earn. The second you came out of your momma you had more earning potential than me. You started the race with advantages that I will never have, regardless of who may or may not be more intelligent. You have the advantage of physical strength as well. You are blind to your privileges which your gender has had for thousands of years. Grow up.
Travis, I've heard this argument many times before. I understand that it has a sort of appeal as an approximation of gender-equality in an inherently unequal situation. We do our best to create a world of equal agency and responsibility between genders. But sometimes the asymmetries imposed upon us by the unavoidable difference in men's and women's biologies introduce conflicts of personal rights and responsibilities that simply can't be smoothed out.
It is the woman whose body must bear whatever burdens (the oft reported joys notwithstanding) a pregnancy imposes per se. That means to whatever extent we deem abortion acceptable, it has to be her choice and nobody else's. The right of bodily autonomy outweighs anyone else's freedom to choose, even regarding matters highly relevant to their potential future.
However, once a baby is born (assuming all goes well), the overriding rights are now those of the child. Everyone must bear the attendant responsibilities (which are still unequal since the man isn't required to physically attend to the child).
Ultimately, Travis, all of this is rooted in the freedom to make a certain choice - knowing beforehand that the outcome of that choice will bear consequences unequal in kind and magnitude for both parties (and all things considered, they certainly don't favor the woman, in my opinion) is the best "fairness" we can provide in this case. Our modern society likes to forget that sex can have consequences, but nobody is owed the right to pursue casual sex without risk. Restricting sex to the boundaries of committed relationships prepared to respond to an unwanted pregnancy in a mutually acceptable manner is always an option (the best option, in my opinion).
If it is a woman's choice to endure the burdens of pregnancy is it not? She CAN get an abortion can she not? The burdens of pregnancy are a burden the woman *chooses* to take on *herself*. Society has *nothing* to do with it. Don't want the burden? Don't keep the pregnancy!
"Once the baby is born...." once the baby is born the woman has already made her choice to take on the financial burdens because she wanted to bring a child into the world. Buy the ticket, take the ride. Don't buy the ticket and then force others to co-pilot for you.
Your are entirely ignoring the male's choice in this matter - the choice to have casual sex, most likely without the proper precautions. Someone could just as easily say to you - "Don't want the risk of a baby? Don't have casual sex without a condom!" Why should anyone accept that the woman's choice not to have an abortion should be the only one that matters? Both choices contribute in unique and significant ways to a child being born.
You are also ignoring the interests of the child. You are objecting on the liberal principles of people being responsible for the outcomes of their own decisions, when this case involves the introduction of another human being who will be indirectly held responsible for the outcomes of decisions *others* made. While it's true that this is an inevitability with children, it makes no moral sense to remand their fate to the consequences of their parents' decisions any more than the realities of an inegalitarian world would require.
And finally, Travis, whether you like it or not, society *does* have an entirely relevant interest with regard to seeing that children are adequately provided for. Many of society's ills boil down to children being raised in various kinds and degrees of poorly nurturing environments, so it makes complete sense to require fathers to contribute to the care of a child, regardless of whether or not the mother had an option to abort. What you seem to want is society to value a man's ability to engage in casual sex over the welfare of people who may be born as a result of that sex and the subsequent burden they may impose upon society if not properly cared for. In fact, it seems you want society to *guarantee* completely risk-free sex - for males. That's a value judgement, and one I think few reasonable, healthy societies would be inclined to make.
That's one option, Terry. I'm a liberal, so I believe in people being allowed to structure their relationships as they see fit.
But I do think that in our libertarian zeal and desire to oppose strict religious authority, we have lost sight of the importance of relationships and sexual discretion. Not sexual morality, but simply having the good judgment not to regard sex as something that requires so little forethought that hopping into bed with someone you just met is now regarded as relatively normal.
Don't get me wrong; I'm no prude - far from it. And I'm absolutely not a stranger to sex outside of marriage, as I've only been married for about two out of my 30 years of adulthood yet have probably spent about as much time not living or heavily cohabitating with a girlfriend (I'm really kind of pathetically lost without one). But sex outside *some* kind of relationship is not for me. I can't imagine having sex with someone you didn't even want to call the next day.
None of that was dreadfully wrong. Thinking sex is only for marriage is dreadfully wrong. It's the same logic that had people living under sexual oppression for CENTURIES. People like you thinking you get to define what sex is and isn't for for everyone else.
People like me? I have not once thought or said I get to define what sex is and isn't for everyone else. Since the beginning of time, "people like you" have put the burden for the outcomes of sex on the woman. My point is that refraining from sex outside of marriage does indeed prevent a whole host of problems, including your responsibility problem.
We're not in "since the beginning of time" anymore and there are distinct differences between now and then. That was a time period when mifepristone didn't exist in a pre-Dobbs/post-Roe world. We were just in a time when women had widespread access to abortion and the freedom to use it. Up until the time period 1973-2022, that shit *didn't exist*. What I'm saying is that once we decided in 1973 that women had the choice to legally terminate pregnancies across the nation, they shouldn't have been allowed to sign men up for the financial burdens of their individual choices.
While your position is logically sound and rational, it runs against general perceptions (based upon traditional behavior and emotion).
I think that, as a matter of theory and principle, you are correct.
Theoretically, in a regime of choice, where choice is strictly the purview of the woman (and, frankly, I believe that it should be) then the outcomes of that choice should strictly be the responsibility of the woman. Anything else would be neither fair nor just.
In real life, this is problematic in a number of ways and the variety of contexts that can arise (the simple example being a question of marriage status and the role and power of the spouse in that choice, for example) make this a fraught question... and one that is largely ignored in the binary context of choice or treated as an ancillary. It is also still entrained in a lot of older societal values and beliefs.
I could launch into a long examination of this here... but not really in the mood and it actually requires more thought than I have given it.
If a married woman who planned a birth with her husband decided while pregnant that she didn't want to have the baby any more and wanted to terminate the pregnancy, you'd 100% support her decision right? So what does marriage status have to do with the woman's choice and subsequent responsibilities?
"It is also still entrained in a lot of older societal values and beliefs" sounds EERILLY close to "the only rights we respect here are the ones firmly rooted in the history of the country"--which is exactly how they arrived at their decision that abortion is not covered by the constitution and therefore women don't have an inalienable right to abortions. Precedents of tradition hold no weight in this debate. If they did, we could arbitrarily move the goal posts to when the tradition of women NOT having a right to choose was the tradition at hand. By appealing to tradition, you risk introducing new precedents that undermine your own in this case.
The thing is that overcoming social and cultural inertia is a real world problem. It is why (despite it being both reasonable and rational) that we did not get things like civil rights, homosexual sex not being illegal or same sex marriage until recently.
While something might be reasonable and rational, the reasonability aspect of the issue is not (strictly speaking) rational in and of itself in that the qualifier there is often, sadly to say, what is culturally acceptable (which, as you note) brings us back to the "standard" set by the Court.
The impediment is, in most of these cases, not one of law but one of (not necessarily rational) mores... and it is not the mores of the past that are determining, but the mores of the present (or that is what SHOULD be determinant).
And, in theory, even THAT should not play a role--but it does and will, regardless of what we think and believe SHOULD be the case.
Alito is full of shit. The tradition of this country, until sometime in the 1800s when states started passing laws against abortion, was that this was no one's business except the woman's.
Now I think you are deliberately missing the point. Within marriage, no man would get away with arguing that the woman's decision to keep the baby means that the financial responsibility for that child falls solely on the woman.
You're right! You know why? Because they probably planned that marriage together or decided on the abortion together right? Did you know that over 40% of abortions pre-Dobbs were done by married couples? Fuckin wild right? My point is, a woman shouldn't be able to rope in a guy from a tinder date pregnancy financially based on her personal decision to retain.
It is logically sound and rational only when reduced to the P and Q elements of a logical syllogism. But in the real world, it is just a version of "men should be free to sow their oats and the responsibility for the results are on the woman."
I mean, that's one way of looking at it. The other is that in a pre-Dobbs world, a woman should have been made wholly financially responsible for a decision to retain a pregnancy that is 100% her own, and that she shouldn't be able to use the courts to force a man to pay for a decision that wasn't up to him at all.
The point was that the man has a responsibility for the child, no mater what happened, and especially to avoid them having to get social service help to raise the child
Whether you wanted the child or not, you took part in what created it...you are responsible
Travis says he refuses to read the link. I know he understands what a citation is. Honestly he is reminding me of all those Trump supporters who refuse to watch the hearings. "Intellectual laziness" is just an empty excuse.
You obviously know what a citation is too. You have to actually present the argument you are citing and the logic it is based on. You can't just say "the key to reducing abortion or child support obligations comes well before the choice to carry or abort," drop a fuckin link and then walk off. That shit would never get published in a peer-reviewed journal and YOU know that. Again, intellectual laziness on full display here folks.
I most certainly can make an assertion and drop a citation to support that assertion. Just like the Brookings Institute did here with "Trump on Trial." https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Trump-on-Trial.pdf Some pages have a citation for just about each and every sentence. The intellectual laziness or worse is on your part.
Are you angry? You sound angry. Did a woman "force you" to pay child support for a child you didn't want? Would you rather the woman have an abortion? Or would you rather the woman give birth but not ask for child support from the child's father?
I'm not angry, just principled. I accept responsibility for the choices that are 100% mine to make. Women like you just can't seem to understand that part. I'd rather that pro-choice women be un-hypocritical. Disagreeing with pro-choice women because of their blatant hypocrisy when it comes to accepting responsibilities doesn't mean I hate women. I've never been forced to pay anything to anyone by the courts.
We don't know each other. That's why I genuinely wanted to know what you thought. Don't presume to say "women like you" because you don't know me. You also didn't answer my question. Would you prefer the woman get an abortion or have the baby and not ask for child support?
No, the upshot is that men who don't have any say in the decision don't get forced to take on the woman's responsibilities for her choice.
You apparently believe in choices that other people bear consequences for. If I murder somebody, should you be made to serve out half my sentence? Okay then! If a woman is the one who decides if a pregnancy becomes a life then she's the one who bears out those responsibilities! Not somebody who doesn't have a say in whether or not a pregnancy becomes a life! See how that works yet?
People get sentenced for murders they didn't choose all the time.
For example, you're the lookout for a gang of bank robbers. During one heist a guard is killed. You don't get to argue you shouldn't go down for murder because hey, someone else made the decision to murder the guard.
Your analogy is faulty because your "100%" premise is faulty. Because of your contribution, the need for the woman to make either decision arose. Read the link I gave you.
I only respond to arguments people make themselves, not ones people who lazily post the arguments of others for someone else to read offer up. Use your own words. Don't rely on me reading someone else's. Make your case. Politicians debating don't get to just drop a damn article link and then walk away and say "the audience and my opponent should read this" lol. Like, don't be intellectually lazy my dude. Put in the work.
So you won't read the link, ok. Sounds like you might be afraid the truth in that link will speak to you. Read it, and then come back. Without your specific contribution, there is no need for the woman to make any decision, one way or another.
I would prefer *either* of those options to a state of play where women get 100% of the decision to abort or retain, but then don't get 100% of the responsibility that comes with either decision.
It sounds like you would prefer that the default option for any unwanted pregnancy is abortion. Saying you wouldn't pay for a child you had a part in making and thereby forcing an unwanted abortion is coercive. In that case, you're not pro-choice. You're pro-abortion.
"Saying you wouldn't pay for a child you had a part in making" No no no no no no.
Men do NOT have a hand in making children. Only women do that. Men have a hand in making *pregnancies*, women have the full 100% choice of whether or not to make that pregnancy into a child or to terminate that pregnancy. I am saying that women shouldn't be allowed to use the courts to force men to pay for the financial responsibilities of their decisions. Men can still give money to the mother *outside* the boundaries of the court at their own discretion. I would personally offer whatever I could if it were me, I just don't agree with women being able to force those responsibilities onto men if it's "their body, their choice." If it's YOUR choice then it is YOUR responsibility. Name me any other avenue in life where you make 100% of a decision but someone else gets to be 50% responsible for the outcome. It doesn't exist! Deciding whether or not to terminate or keep a pregnancy doesn't get some kind of special pleading fallacy logic to wiggle a woman out of responsibilities for decisions that were 100% hers.
I really don't see how that's coercive. Can you please give me your working definition of coercive behavior so that I can tell where the disconnect is? Because for me, coercive behavior is threatening someone with personal consequences if they don't choose a certain act that the other party wants. Having to take on the full consequences of your decisions isn't coercion. Passing *even a fraction of the buck* onto someone else even though the decision was 100% yours IS coercion on the other hand. You are using the courts to coerce the man into forking over mandatory child support, otherwise he gets jailed and/or faces fines. THAT is coercion. Not making someone take on the responsibilities of their own choices.
I understand that you think it's 100% the woman's choice, but that is true only insofar as she has the decision-making authority to proceed with the pregnancy. That doesn't mean she can actually, in practical terms, proceed to term and keep the child if the man won't step up. It's coercive because without the male partner's financial and personal investment in the raising of the child, it is very difficult for her to do so (unless the would-be mother is wealthy, has lots of family support, etc). If the default position is that no man should be obligated to pay or invest otherwise in the raising of a child he fathers, then the mother has to consider that and may well not be able to raise a child she otherwise would want to bring into the world (all things being equal). So her decision is coerced by the economic necessity of going it alone, caused by the father's lack of responsibility. "You can do what you want but I want no part of it" does not really mean that when it takes both parties to make it work. It means, "You can't do it, because I refuse to participate."
He probably didn't technically consent to sex. She overcame him with her womanly wiles and he was incompetent to resist. Therefore, not his problem. /s
That used to be the excuse for drunk drivers, too: they were drunk when they had the accident, so it didn't count. Grow up and take responsibility for your actions.
Yea, there is that. My initial opinion wasn't a joke though. I firmly believe that if someone has 100% of the decision to either keep or terminate a pregnancy, they should hold 100% of the responsibility for that decision in the aftermath of it.
Hey, even people you generally agree with get to occasionally be wrong. I feel the same way about you with respect to making men pay for a woman's choice they had no say in.
I get that my opinion is unpopular. The nice thing about being principled is that you don't change your opinions based on how popular or unpopular they are. To do otherwise, would be to live a lie. I'll change my position when someone's logic on the exact matter convinces me to, not because of how many likes or dislikes I get. That kind of amorphism is the reason we have a such a pliable GOP for Trump to manipulate. Why hold onto principle when you can just shift position alongside the winds of popularity?
Have an unpopular, that's great. But maybe try not to post it dripping with contempt towards women right after they've just experienced a 2x4 to the uterus.
If we're going to talk about a woman's right to choose, should we not talk about the responsibilities that come with those individual choices? Does a man's right not to be looped into a women's responsibilities get trampled in the name of a woman's right to choose? We could avoid the problem entirely by ensuring that the system holds responsible *only* the individual making the choice. I don't like kettles calling pots black, forgive me for being like this.
Agree TCinLA, T's comments left a bad taste in my mouth that will hang around. I'm left a bit sadder/disappointed today after catching up with the comments. You catch more flies with sugar than you do vinegar. Peace be with everyone.
Both parties have the gate-keeping burden of consenting to sex. She is just as responsible for taking a dude's sperm shots as he is for her shooting his sperm into her (or a condom, etc.). It's her body, her choice. The dude has 0% to do with her decision to abort or retain. That is 100% on her. We just have a system that unjustly forces dudes who have no say in the decision to pay money if she decides to retain. The woman did the deed too, but she's somehow allowed to shirk the responsibilities of her decisions while dudes are mandated to take on the same responsibilities the women shirked? Get the fuck out of here. Find me any other instance where the logic of me paying money for a decision someone else 100% made for themselves holds up. I dare you to find an instance where that same logic is enforced on something other than decisions on pregnancy retention.
Dude....seriously? We're not talking about a tractor that you regret buying here. No, things are not looked at the same way as "pregnancy retention" (this makes me think you're being sarcastic, but I bit anyway) because nothing is the same. What in the world happened to you that you've come up with an argument like this?
So, in order for you to pay child support you think the decision to get an abortion should rest with the man? If the man decided for an abortion you think the state should force it to happen? Or vice versa? And if you're not able to make your choice happen...oh well! You're off the hook? And you think child support pays 100% of the expenses for a kid's life?
Not at all. I'm just saying that if it's 100% a woman's choice then it's 100% her financial responsibility if she chooses to retain the pregnancy. I did not say the decision should rest with the man, that's a straw man you're building. I said it should stay with the woman as it was in the pre-Dobbs world, but that she shouldn't be allowed to use the courts to force child support if it is indeed her choice. Freedom to choose comes with the consequences of those choices yes? A woman's choice to retain a pregnancy in the pre-Dobbs world is a choice to bear the burden of the financial responsibilities. I don't agree with roping the dude into the financial responsibilities for the decisions the woman made *herself*. Call me fuckin crazy I guess (shrugs).
Jesus Christ, man. My advice to whiny guys in that situation? Cowboy the fuck up and handle your business. There have been far worse state injustices imposed on better people for worse reasons. It's not that much to ask for a man to contribute to the support of his kid. I guess you can call me crazy too.
I suggest you carry a PreCoitus Agreement with you. A woman can consent to have sex with you only after she signs away the possible child's right to child support from their biological father. And get it notarized, you know, just in case.
You would end up with a dry run everytime. NO woman would agree to sign that. So just use an escort service or adopt celibacy. No responsibility! Yaaay!
Actually, while Travis apparently misses that this ruling will primarily be a tragedy for low income women living in chaos--in other words, not necessarily women (I'm assuming) like the apparent mother of his child--he still has a point, if angrily and inelegantly expressed. Both men and women of reproductive age do have a responsibility to understand what heterosexual vaginal can lead to, regardless of birth control status, since those sometimes fail. And the conversation about how to handle an unwanted pregnancy should happen before sex, and if there is disagreement, the sex should not happen. Yes, schools should teach sex education, but they should also teach people to beware moments of passion. The left has some responsibility here to question its own assumptions about sex and morality.
For what it's worth, I'm dating a low-income woman, unlike most of the post-college liberals who don't give a shit about lifting low-income women up. That's what's really sad to me. All these dudes be out here wanting low-income women to have the right to choose, but so many of them would never marry below their income threshold because that would mean not enjoying the same level of decadence those post-college men are used to. They would rather marry a post-college woman, have more money, and just vote for the policies that help low-income women. It's a lot like when the billionaire class donates a dollar here or there to charity. If they actually gave a shit about those causes, they wouldn't have the billionaires that they hold onto for capital gains.
I don't know what you mean by "low-income woman." It's an imprecise term but I don't know how else to put it. You seem articulate, so I imagine if your girlfriend wanted to terminate, you'd help her get the abortion pill or take her to Colorado (if you live in a red state) or whatever. I'm talking about desperately poor women, homeless women, addicts, in some cases girls who have been forced to become their own fathers' mistresses. The stuff of nightmares.
But I think you and I can agree that the "left" is long overdue for an attitude overhaul. "Choice" is often framed as some kind of magic panacea that will allow an American female--any American female--to pursue some unnamed dreamed career that has something to do with nice resumes, awards, "leadership," some kind of bright "future," gold stars of all kinds, the end game being the financial freedom to go to the Bahamas whenever she wants, and maybe down the road have the inconvenience of family, just to say she did it, with the assistance of IVF (because she waited too long) and nannies, all while she lectures coal miners' daughters about "climate change" just before she hops on a plane to go skiing. So yes, your guy friends may flippantly assert that a homeless teenager should have "choice" so that maybe she can improbably win the technocracy lottery and become the type of woman he'd want to marry. In other words, "Let them have choice" sometimes sounds like the new "Let them eat cake." I say this as a woman who was criticized by my left wing friends for choosing to become a mother at the childish age of, drum roll, 27!
By "low-income women" I meant women who live below the poverty line on their own income, with or without children. I personally am dating a woman who is not legally allowed to work until her work permit gets renewed because she is an immigrant, she has no income, and she has an amazing 10-year-old daughter. Most dudes in my position--post-graduate school, solid tech job, no prior kids--would pass on her in favor of someone with more money, a job, and no children. I've seeeeeen these dudes not just in real life, but in the data. Look at the rates of women with a degree "marrying down" vs rates of men with a degree "marrying down" since the 70's in those key 20's/30's family-building years. You will see what I saw. You will see women with degrees marrying pretty evenly up as much as they do down. But you will also see men with degrees increasingly only marrying women with degrees, leaving women without degrees increasingly fucked in trying to get by economically:
I suggest that you carry a pre-coitus agreement with you. A man con consent to giving you his sperm only after he has signed away his rights to have a say in whether or not that pregnancy comes to term along with his agreement to pay half the bills if YOU make the personal decision not to get an abortion.
It's sad that y'all need to rely on the courts to absolve you of the responsibilities that you 100% make. I wish the courts gave men the right to make women pay for our decisions. Shit must be nice over there in freedom from the full consequences land.
So you don't want to be responsible for an egg that you fertilized. That's fine. So let's put that decision you want to make to avoid responsibility back on you. From the genesis of the problem. Keep it in your pants and you will never face responsibility for your actions.
Your argument is a ridiculous as telling women to keep their knees together so there is no need for an abortion.
Consent is a thing remember? Women are consenting to have that sperm inside of them and then using the courts to force bills onto men for their consent *and* birthing decisions. That's having it both ways. Don't want to be responsible for the sperm you allowed a dude to squirt onto your eggs? Don't have the sex then. Don't have the pregnancy then. Don't make the dude pay for your decisions both during and after the sex. Your body, your consent, your choice, your bills.
Obvious troll garbage, or seriously deluded madman? I can’t even tell what you’re arguing for or against, only that you hate women in general because you either were forced to pay child support or because you’ve been radicalized by incels and MGTOW garbage.
I mean, I don't hate women at all, but if that's your takeaway you do you I guess. I've never been forced to pay child support, I've been single way too little to be an incel, and I don't know wtf MGTOW is.
The woman is *equally* responsible in the joint decision--and she IS the gatekeeper via offering consent. We just had a whole #MeToo movement about this remember? Women were SO quick to talk about consent during #MeToo, but now seem so hesitant to talk about that same consent during the accepting responsibilities for their decision to not terminate argument. You consented to the sex as a 50% party. You consented to birthing the child as a 100% party. You own 150% of the consequences, not 50%.
I think you were meaning to reply to my comment on using men's DNA to be held responsible? I agree with you, Travis. But, since everything seems to be up for grabs now, I thought I'd throw that male DNA bit into the morass to see where it might fit. And, yes many outspoken women will use "Our Bodies Ourselves". But please know that other, less outspoken, women may think as I do: the man is half the deal and he has a right AND an obligation. Sure, the mother has always been able to sue the father or the deadbeat dad, but I'm talking about the issue of the State now penalizing women. By that same token, if they're gonna lock up a mother, why aren't they gonna lock up the dad, that sort of thing. It might a good time to bring up men's rights in these decisions. What's to lose, right?
The *state* forces men to pay child support. If the state can force undue consequences onto men for decisions they didn't make, then I don't see why men can't use the court to deny women the choice they are abusing. Women unfairly use the court to force men to pay for children they didn't decide to have, men used the courts to deny choice to women who were abusing it. Turnabout is fair play. If those women didn't want unfair court decisions, they shouldn't have pushed for them in the first place. They set that precedent.
Women get to decide to keep the baby of a man who does not want to have children and use the courts to make that man pay child support to the woman to help raise the child he didn't want. So far so good?
You then gloat (a bit) that men taking the decision on whether or not to have the child from the woman through this court action is fair play. Yes?
Even though the decision these men made will now result in more children being born needing more child support that will be paid for, in part, by more men.
Your complaint that the woman made the choice to have the child is gone now because that choice has been taken away from her by the court and state legislatures. Will that stop your complaint about court-mandated child support?
"Even though the decision these men made will now result in more children being born..." Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
It's "Even though the decision these WOMEN made will now result in more children being born." THAT is the answer. What is all this shouting of "my body, my choice" if y'all won't even take 100% responsibility for a choice y'all 100% have? It's YOUR choice to bring that child into the world. It is YOUR responsibility to rear and pay for it. Don't want the heat that comes with having sole say in that decision? THEN DON"T TAKE ON THE DECISION ALL BY YOURSELF. Y'all are 100% making the decision of bringing the child into the world via your own words. YOUR words. IT's "my body. MY CHOICE." Therefor, it's YOUR responsibility.
Now women in a whole bunch of states don't have that choice and you expect us to have sympathy for them when they cut us out of the decision process entirely and then forced us to shoulder the burden? Get fucked and have fun watching irresponsible women cry about losing the choice they never fully took up the responsibilities for. You reap what you sow. You couldn't be bothered with making a joint decision before forcing joint payments, now you lost the right to that decision. Boo hoo. Freedom of choice absent responsibility is no freedom at all for everyone else.
"'Even though the decision these men made will now result in more children being born...' Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong"
Uh, the men I was talking about were the men on the Supreme Court and the men that control the state legislatures passing bills outlawing abortion.
So yeah, your slut-shaming aside, it is men taking the choice away from women and now the ones who would have aborted will be forced to have birth which will result in more children being born that will need more child support from more men.
In TX alone they are estimating 5,000 additional children being born this year because of their abortion laws. 5,000 more kids that need to be supported.
Okay, I missed that part I guess. Yea, I don't at all agree with the SCOTUS decision and I'm pro-choice. How many times do I have to say this out loud here? Pointing out that women have an equal share in sexual consent and 100% share in pregnancy decisions doesn't make me a slut-shamer. Sluts are just people who have more sex than you do. That's literally the definition and I have nothing against people who have more sex than me. Good for them in fact. Just own your choices is all. I would rather Texas have the 5l+ abortions this year. That would be 5k+ men not potentially being forced to pay for a woman's choice.
That applies to women just as much as it does men. Y'all have consent. That's 50% of the sex decision and 100% of the birthing decision. Men are a 50% deciding party at best in this situation, women make 150% of the decisions.
"The deed" and the decision to keep a pregnancy are two entirely separate things. Stop conflating the consent women give to take sperm shots inside of their bodies with their decision as to whether or not to get an abortion. They are two entirely separate choices. The woman has a choice in both. The man only has half the say in the sex. Women have 100% of the choice in deciding to terminate or keep a pregnancy. If you don't want the responsibility of paying a lot of money for a kid that is 100% your choice to bring into this world, then get a fucking abortion instead of making someone else pay for your lifestyle choices.
This is one of the top reasons I'm pro-life. I don't like the idea of courts forcing people to do things against their will (outside of criminals). I just also extend that position to the courts not forcing men to pay for a woman's choice. You don't. That's the difference.
I think I hear you. If there is choice, shouldn't the man have some of that choice too? If laws exist completely separate from morality, then maybe yes. But really it would drive abortion way up, which is bad to almost everyone. Also wouldn't it be hard for most men to use that as a defense? Standing up and saying "for the record, I wanted her to abort this child, therefore I am not required to support he/she."
Wouldn't be hard for me to stand up and say that if I didn't want the child but she did. Perhaps because I am principled. Choice comes with responsibility for said decisions. What is choice without responsibility? If one choses an act and then absolves themselves of the responsibilities of their actions--or foisting them onto someone else--then is that *really* choice as we understand it in most contexts?
I've read a lot of Bulwark comments but never contributed my self. I feel compelled to in this instance because I'm really disappointed in how vitriolic and cruel the reactions to Travis have been here. I think JVL would say "No. Stop this." I know emotions are high, for good reason. But I also know that we're all better than this. Travis is not trolling. He's not being intentionally offensive. He's being honest. And if the rest of us are being honest...his comments are utterly rational and reasonable. Women shouldn't be forced into parenthood just like men shouldn't be forced into parenthood. "BUT MEN AREN'T THE PREGNANT/BIRTHING ONES!!" I know this. But raising and being responsible for a child is a whole 'nother ball of wax. I know it's just a fact that in our society we expect a man to play a part in a child's life, even if the mother carried it to term against his wishes. But that doesn't make it "right", necessarily. We all agree that women have just as much agency as men. I don't think anyone would have disagreed so vehemently to this idea a week ago. No? Can we all just remember ourselves and practice a little grace? Travis has pretty well proven himself to be a Bulwark community member of good standing and high insight. Lastly: good GOD can we retire the "don't have sex if you don't want a baby" argument?! We're adults. Adults have been known to enjoy having sex just for the fun of having sex. Abstinence isn't an argument.
That's not the point. Travis is upset that women who get pregnant can seek child support. He wants them to abort the child so the father can avoid responsibility. If that is his issue, he needs to avoid sex or assure that he cannot impregnate the woman.
Kathe, first-off, you always make great points on these Bulwark discussions. But I honestly think everyone just reacted to the tone of Travis’s comment more than the content. It came-off a little contemptuous and I don’t think he meant it that way. I don’t think he was arguing that women shouldn’t *be able* to seek child support from deadbeat dads. I’m a single-mom-raised kid who benefited from child support. I think his point was that a situation in which a woman and man accidentally create a pregnancy together, and one of them then wants a birth to happen but the other one doesn’t, that’s a very tough situation for both parties. That’s a very nuanced, not simple situation. So please give me grace when I say this: it doesn’t seem fair that if I don’t agree to having that woman in my life, for the rest of my life, and also being emotionally and financially responsible for a child at this point in my life, that that woman can just disregard all of that, have the baby anyway, then take me to court for not wanting to do what I made clear to her I did not agree to BEFORE the baby was even viable. I hope that doesn’t sound insensitive. I’ve just personally known people who’ve gone through this kind of situation, including women being the ones who didn’t want the birth to happen but were pressured or shamed by men, and it’s just so heart wrenching to see that kind of gigantic life altering thing be forced on someone, male or female. Keep up your awesome contributions here, Kathe. Sincerely.
Sorry, I don't think I have been any more negative or harsh in my statements than Travis; I have merely countered his statements. Unfortunately, babies happen sometimes when all the other parties involved wanted to have was uncomplicated sex. If Travis doesn't want to deal with those ramifications, he needs to assure that the woman isn't impregnated. That's not being harsh or judgmental, that's being realistic. Maybe the answer is a written contract so the issue is addressed prior to the act. Not very romantic, but neither are the consequences.
I agree with you, and I supported Travis’s viewpoint elsewhere in the comments. Your contribution is thoughtful, well stated, and sensitive in presentation. Exactly why I stay with The Bulwark.
So, Travis, I wrote in a comment that doesn’t seem to appear yet, that I see your point after having raised a male and a female offspring all the way to adulthood. The teen years were conceptually (no pun intended) scary when contemplating teen pregnancy, and much more so for my son than for my daughter for exactly the reasons you have been defending; with my daughter we’d have had options, but with my son it would be up to the family of the girl.
My question for you is, given today’s new reality of an abortion ban, how should the fathers of the ”forced birth” be accountable, both financially and in terms of custodial care? The expenses of raising the unplanned child are only part of the cost to the (single) mother. Her career opportunities are diminished; her retirement funds will likely be truncated because of lack of opportunity created by limited education and an inability to devote herself to a career the way a non-custodial man can do.
The reason there’s a blood lust to go after the sperm donors in our new reality is to try to induce them to be as passionate as forced mothers in fighting for reproductive freedom, IMO. And also, obviously, to level the huge price of not having any freedom in the situation.
In those states where abortion is illegal, the men should 100% be responsible for paying half. You vote to curtail a woman's choice, you pay half the bills.
My only thing is that if we agree to give women 100% the choice on whether a pregnancy becomes a life or not in blue states, then they 100% get the responsibilities in blue states as well. Having the choice with only a fraction of the responsibility--even if a majority fraction--is having it both ways. It's hypocrisy built directly into the system.
Would you really be able to say that after the child is old enough to know who you are? Would you really say, on the public record, that you never ever want anything to do with that child? I can hear you about women "coming after" men for money after making their own choice, but would you really say to a living person, who you helped create, who understands your words, that you never wanted them born and that you still don't want to have anything to do with them? That you don't care a thing about their life, opportunities, even basic nutrition? I gotta say, I am very pro-choice and also pretty big on responsibility, but believe me when I say that birth changes EVERYTHING. If you can look at your child, and see only the mother "coming after" you for money, then there is a little something missing in your make-up. I'm not trying to fight you. Just think carefully if a pregnancy comes into your life.
I wouldn't do so personally. I just also don't agree with the courts forcing men to pay for a woman's decision. I would personally pay out of the goodness of my heart, but I wouldn't go forcing other men to do so. It's not rational in my mind and it rewards irresponsibility.
The child being an adult has ZERO factor in this argument. We are talking about a WOMAN'S CHOICE. The child doesn't have a choice there. The man doesn't have a choice there. Only the WOMAN has a say in initiating that life. If the woman has 100% of the choice, she should carry 100% of the burdens and responsibilities of that choice. This bullshit where women get to claim 100% of the decision and then a fraction of the responsibility doesn't hold up logically. It has ZERO to do with the relationship between a father and child *because the child being there in the first place is only based upon the decision of the woman*. Asking me how I would act after the child is born is a red herring that has ZERO to do with the relationship between a woman's choice and her subsequent responsibilities.
I live in a state where women still have that choice, and happily so! Again, sex may lead to pregnancies, but only women decide if those pregnancies become children. Take responsibility for your choices and stop passing responsibilities on to men who had no choice in the matter of retaining or terminating the pregnancy.
You are acting like the decision whether to abort or carry to term are of equivalent weight. For many women, abortion is murder. For them choosing whether to carry to term or murder is no choice at all.
There was a time when introducing someone as your girlfriend or boyfriend was not the same as saying,"this is the person I'm having sex with regularly." A lot of men won't have anything to do with a woman who wants to wait until marriage. You are making great arguments for the traditional no sex outside of marriage ethic.
That may be true that some women will view abortion as being equivalent to murder. It is also irrelevant. Their beliefs are *their* beliefs. She could simply choose not to believe that terminating a pregnancy is the equivalent to murdering a fully-developed human. That is a belief system *she* chooses to hold onto, not me. It's "no choice at all" *by* choice of belief system. That's a choice. People choose what they believe. Do the Jan 6th participants get out of jail sentences because they genuinely believed the election had been stolen? Fucking OF COURSE not lol. The same logic applies here with that "sincerely-held religious beliefs" bullshit. Sincerely-believing shit that isn't true does not absolve one of their choice to believe in it. Decisions to believe in things---> consequences of actions based on said beliefs ---> your own damn responsibility, not someone else's. That's the universal order of logic here.
Also, the financial part of raising a child is far from the only responsibility for raising a child. It is like taking on a 24/7 job for the next 6 years while trying to work an 8/5 job too. And then you get a little relief from school, but that also opens a whole can of worms that doesn't stop for the next 12 years.
I don't give a shit if it's only 1% of the burden. Women have 100% of the choice to retain or abort, so the logic follows that they should have 100% of the responsibility of said choice. The man isn't made to be responsible if the woman decides to abort right? But yet he holds the same share of responsibility for that decision (0%). Should he be made to pay for 50% of the abortion too in cases where WOMEN choose termination? Why do we pay for a decision we had no part in? There's no logic to it.
The default consequence of sex is pregnancy. The default choice for a woman is life. The default responsibilty is shared. Whether or not a woman has a choice for abortion does not change the man's default shared responsibility. When a man is forced to pay, it is not paying her; it is paying for a child, a life that would not exist without you. You may want men to have a say, and I agree men should have some say because they have responsibility. But the responsibility is there regardless. Saying you prefer an abortion because you don't want the responsibility does not absolve responsibility. Some males don't see it this way because they haven't grown up yet. Some won't ever grow up. And some women act like assholes and make it more about "making a man pay" instead of providing for the life they made together.
No it is not. Know how many times I've had unprotected sex sans-pregnancy? The default state of sex is *no* pregnancy.
If pregnancy was the default state of sex, then why are so many women using the pullout method sans-pregnancies? Holy shit, did you just invent an "alternative fact" or something? The default state of sex is NOT pregnancy. More on those FACTS here:
And this is why I taught my children to be 100% with prevention methods, and assume the other person is a careless or ignorant or simply doesn't take the possibility of pregnancy seriously.
Anyone with plans for their life should not rely on the "pullout method."
That has nothing to do with my argument. Sexual intercourse requires consent of both parties to be legal, but birthing is a 100% woman's decision. Did y'all forget about that birthing condom called abortions? Don't make men pay bills because you were too squeamish to terminate.
But Travis, in 26 states that will no longer be an option!
Also, do you support the concept of robust 'social safety net' to support the children of single women? If the State wants more babies born, perhaps ( getting into the slightly facetious here) mens' groups could work together to increase taxes/welfare support that would then decrease child support?
Right, so at least the system makes sense logically in 26 states. It doesn't make sense to me that the other 24 states have a system in place where women make 100% of the decision to abort/retain but only get a fraction of the burden--even if it's a majority fraction. If it's 100% a woman's choice it should 100% be a woman's responsibility. I'd be 100% happy in a system where women have a universal right to choose in all 50 states but ALSO had 100% of the responsibility to support the decision they made instead of passing percentages of the responsibility onto sexual partners who had no say in the keep/terminate choice.
Why is it okay for women to force a man to pay the bills that she 100% decided were hers to bring into this world? Women seem to care only about themselves in this regard. If it were about their choices, they would also take up the responsibilities. Instead, they want the child to be born, but they only want to assume half of the responsibility of paying for their choice. That's having your cake and eating it too.
And I *do* care about women and children, I'm just not about people having things both ways. Your choice, your bills. If I crash a car while you're riding inside of it, do I get to make you pay for half of the collision total?
I don't agree with forcing men to pay mandatory financial support for a decision that is 100% a woman's. In my own case I would 100% pay of my own accord (you wouldn't NEED a court for me to make that commitment on my own accord), but I don't support the courts forcing that support onto men who don't have a choice in the matter of whether or not a pregnancy gets carried to term or terminated.
Yeah, so weird that a hot take about wanting to have more control over a woman just a couple of days after the Supreme Court took control of their bodies away from them fell flat.
Who said anything about controlling a woman's body? I've said since the beginning I'm pro-choice. I just don't support women having control over a man's finances because she decided not to get an abortion. My positions are 100% in accordance with not using the courts to force people to do things against their will. You cut your opposition to courts forcing things on people that they didn't incur as soon as it's about a man's finances instead of a woman's body. Why the hypocrisy?
Okay, whatever! I just NEVER said I wanted to have more control over women, just that I want women to have more responsibility for their decisions. You're building a straw man and putting words in my mouth by saying that I wanted control over a woman's body. "a hot take about wanting to have more control over a woman"--my dude, where did I say I wanted more control over a woman? I'm *pro-choice*
Remember what consent means? We just had this whole #MeToo movement about it. The whole point of responsibility is accepting that you are the one who made the decision and who was in control. In this case, women are the gatekeepers on sex who give the man consent *and* they are the gatekeepers of childbirth having 100% of the decision. They just don't want to own the responsibilities that come with 100% of the choice. If it is "their body, their consent, their choice" then it's also their responsibility. You can't accept the burden of choice without simultaneously accepting the burden of consequence.
Know what it's called when there's sex that the woman *didn't* consent to?
Plenty of pregnancies result from sex that wasn't quite rape, but wasn't quite consensual. Anytime, a man says, 'You would if you loved me," that sex is not quite consensual, but there is no rape case either.
"You would if you loved me" is NOT force or threats! It's not even close to coming to force or threats! If Trump told Pence "if you loved me, you wouldn't certify those votes" does that absolve Pence of his decisions if he chose not to certify the votes? OKAY THEN. Can we STOP with this bullshit about "you would if you loved me" somehow being a legitimate erasure of a woman's agency? It's childish and unreal. Wouldn't apply to ANY other instance of what people decide to do on their own regardless of who told them to do what for why.
Lol, I got through two no-child divorces without ever paying alimony--mostly because those women had a high enough opinion of me after the separation to not be spiteful. In fact, in the second one, I was giving her $2k/month on my own accord until she got up on her feet again 15 months later and then we initiated the divorce. No lawyers necessary. Straight from the goodness of my heart. How many women-haters have that kind of back-story? I ain't the one guy. This ain't about anger, it's about principle.
Enticed consent is still consent. If he's not threatening her with violence or intimidation, he's not coercing her. Enticement is not intimidation.
Shaming someone isn't coercing them via threats or force, no matter how much you pretend it is. Ever seen a rape conviction based on post-shaming voluntary actions taken? There has to be a threat of violence or a threat of physical loss for it to be coercion.
Another great argument for no sex outside of marriage. You also keep arguing for the best of both worlds. Abortion--Father has no responsibility. Birth-Father has no responsibility.
That's not "the best of both worlds," that's *not holding someone else financially responsible for a single individual's choice*. Both men and women have a say in the sex that potentially creates a pregnancy. Only the woman has a choice in whether to take that pregnancy to term or to terminate that pregnancy. The man has zero(0) stake in that decision, and therefore should have zero(0) stake in the responsibilities that come out of that decision.
In fact, women demanding the right to be the sole decider and then doling out apportionments of the financial responsibilities for that decision to parties not involved in said decision is having it both ways. You get to have your freedom to choose, but only need to be partially-responsible for the responsibilities that come with that choice. THAT is having "the best of both worlds."
For having zero stake, men sure want to exert an awful lot of control. over women. All you have done is written a version of "the woman should have just kept her legs closed," Then there is no decision to be made either way. Again, it goes both ways. No sex outside marriage. There---problem solved.
So, consensual sex with a woman is similar to being a passenger in a car? Was the male forced into sexual intercourse by the woman? If a woman was able to get pregnant all by herself you'd have point. ( I think all women who chose to have a child via sperm donors DO bear all responsibilities, willingly, but when there's an in- person sperm not so much.)
Both situations involve consent of both parties. If you want to enter my vehicle, I have to consent to you entering, otherwise it is unlawful entry. If I want to enter your vagina, you also have to give me consent, otherwise it is rape. The difference is that when an accident happens in my car after I let you into it, I don't force you to pay the accident bills now do I?
Why is it okay for women to own 100% of the choice on an issue, but get to face only a fraction of the responsibilities of that choice while forcing financial burdens onto the other party who has 0% choice in the decision? How about you deal with that argument instead. What other instance does *anyone* get to consent to recreational activities with another party, and then force the consequences of her choices onto the other party? Did women sign a fuckin waiver of liability before giving consent for sex? No. Therefore, your body, your choice, your bills. Don't want to live with the potential consequences of *your* personal choices regarding sexual consent? Then don't make them.
The choice to accept responsibility was assumed by both parties when they had sex that could result in pregnancy. There are other forms of sex. The mother in this "hypothetical" scenario has not evaded her responsibilities, you can be sure. But she insists on shared responsibility for both of the parties involved.
No it wasn't. If it was, then the woman would have no say in the matter once she was pregnant. The courts would say "nope, both of you consented to sex that could result in a pregnancy YOU MUST BRING THE PREGNANCY TO TERM NOW."
If men can be forced into paying child support because they consented to the possibility of an accident when they agreed to sex, then women can be forced into bringing a child to term because SHE consented to the possibility of pregnancy when she consented to sex.
Again, you can't have this shit both ways. If the dude assumes responsibility for accidents in the eyes of the court than so does the woman. She doesn't get to terminate the same way that the man doesn't get to opt out of payment. You're basically making a case that women shouldn't be able to hold sole decision power in abortions because they already accepted the potential responsibilities of getting pregnant by agreeing to sex.
Two to tango bud. Her decision just as equally to fuck, especially in a culture where a woman's consent is the backbone of the law. She consented, understanding that pregnancy is a possibility, even when protection is used. She took the same risks, and then had 100% of the deciding power as to whether or not to take on the consequences. Then she forces the dude to pay up through the courts. Now they don't have the choice they were so often dodging the consequences on. "Tough shit" turnabout is fair play too. "Tough shit." - SCOTUS
Basically you are saying that the man gets to escape responsibility regardless of the women's choice. Abortion--no child to be responsible for. Child--still not my problem. Really?
I am saying that a man should not be held responsible for decisions he had no stake in. That is literally all.
I was saying that there's no logic in the courts forcing a man to pay for a child when he had no say in determining if that pregnancy should or should not have been terminated while simultaneously letting him off the hook for abortion expenses if the woman chooses to terminate. If the logic that men should be made to pay for children they didn't create, then they should be made to pay for abortions they didn't decide to have too right? Since the courts are all about forcing men to pay for a woman's choice, why aren't they making them pay for half the abortion if she goes that route?
They probably should be paying partly for the abortions. In fact, they often pay the whole cost of the abortion. Some politicians have faced criticism for paying for the abortions of their mistresses while advocating anti-abortion.
If the "dude" was honorable it wouldn't require a court order. And since he has proved himself dishonorable then take him to court.
Men accept their responsibilities and don't abandon their children. "Dudes" piss and moan about how unfair life is that they are being held accountable for helping bring a kid into the world.
I am in favor, now, of State mandated vasectomies if it's proven that you've fathered children you refuse to support.
Ah, so making women shoulder the burdens of the choices they 100% make is "dishonorable." Makes sense. Can you think of ANY other instance where a choice someone else 100% makes for their lives becomes your financial responsibility?
You can't say that dudes are abandoning their children when it is 100% a woman's choice to make. If the dude had a choice in bringing the pregnancy to term, you'd have a point about abandonment. Her choices, her consequences. You can't take 100% credit for being the decider and then blame parties uninvolved in the decision for refusing to support that decision.
Do you see a MANDATED role at all for the man in bringing up the child and sharing responsibilities (financial & otherwise) after the child in born? Or is your argument that the woman is always responsible for everything, because it is her choice (& hers alone)?
Perhaps you are advocating for the choice to be a joint-choice between the guy and the gal? (even then note the woman takes on a much higher burden in carrying the pregnancy to term as well as the post-pregnancy complications they have to deal with).
Yes. Courts can order men to pay child support. That IS a mandate.
I'm saying that if women want 100% of the choice to bring a life into the world, then they need to own 100% of the responsibilities. If they want the dude to pay for it, then they ought to bring him into the decision-making process. If instead they insist that they have 100% of the decision, then they should own 100% of the responsibilities of making that decision. Anything in between is just having your cake and eating it too.
ok, it looks like you are advocating for the sliver of men who either (1) don't know that sex can lead to pregnancy or (2) don't care & still go ahead with the act or (3) know & take precautions, which fails. The first 2 categories of men are stupid and/or reckless and should absolutely be made responsible. Only the last category of men deserve any say in the matter but only limited to supporting any decision the woman takes.
Also, being a father is not just a financial obligation but more important is the owning the responsibility of becoming a parent who nurtures and takes care of the kid and spends the time, energy to support them as he/she grows. You seem to be emphasizing the financial aspect as if that is the be-all & end-all of being a dad. Frankly men who want to shirk that responsibility should be glad the law allows them to pay their way out of the taking that responsibility.
Oh we 100% know that sex can lead to pregnancy. We just also 100% know that it's 100% a woman's choice to either keep or terminate that pregnancy, and therefore men hold no stake in that decision and should bear no stake in the responsibilities. "Being a father" is NOT part of this conversation because what I'm talking about is a woman's decision in relation to her responsibilities. If it's 100% a woman's choice to terminate or retain, then it is 100% her responsibility for raising the child is she chooses to retain the pregnancy. The dad can give money if he wants to, but it shouldn't be mandated by the courts. If it's a woman's choice to retain/terminate then it's a woman's burden to raise and pay for that child. None of this passing burdens to other people for decisions you made entirely nonsense.
1) In a sense, possession is 9/10 of the law so it's kind of natural the the woman has the final decision. 2) If it were to become a joint decision. what happens if the woman and the man disagree? How should that be settled?
The child, once born, is the responsibility of both parents. While the "baby" is a fetus in the womb, the woman is solely responsible, as it is only her physical body on the line and at risk.
If the decision to birth the child is 100% the woman's, then the responsibility is 100% the woman's. I don't get to lump you into my bills when I make a decision about my life that carries financial consequences, why do women get some special privileges to do that to men in the case of their decision to birth children? It's special pleading fallacy bullshit that wouldn't apply to any other financial decision in an individual's life choices.
Right, but the decision to birth the child is the woman's entirely, therefor the responsibility to *raise* the child falls onto her entirely. Your choice, your responsibilities.
And your self-centered view of having a choice and then forcing financial burdens onto men instead of assuming your responsibility is particularly galling to this man. If you want that child to have support, you marry the father. If you don't, move the fuck on and don't bother him. Don't go forcing bills onto people who don't have the choice you're entitled to. Your body, your choice, your bills.
I can see that you’re very angry about this. Might I suggest that your particular case is unusual if true and not the issue? We’re talking about abortion, not child support payments by fathers and might I add, what a swell father you must be. You see your offspring as a financial liability. What a guy.
Although I’m shocked at your earlier statement, I do see some logic in what you say here. I parented children of both sexes. Early on, I assumed that an unplanned teen pregnancy would be worse for my female child than my male child. When the teen years arrived, I was terrified to realize that if my son caused a pregnancy, we would have zero input in the outcome, whereas if my daughter became pregnant, I knew what we would choose.
To think that now our family wouldn’t even have that choice makes me terrified in both scenarios.
I'll reiterate that I WANT women to have that choice, I just also want them to have the *responsibility* that comes with the choice they fought so hard to have in the first place. I don't know of any other context where a decision that is 100% an individuals--as was the case with pre-Dobbs abortion, but the responsibility is shared with someone who didn't have a say in that decision. Maybe I'm just dumb, but I can't think of any other situation where that line of logic plays out and everyone shakes their heads yes in agreement with the principles.
Yes, I had read in your comments that you are pro-choice. (I’m now calling it pro-freedom, in an attempt to reclaim the word, that the Right seems to have confused with unlimited license).
You raise a conundrum that to me, falls in the category of “moral dilemma”, because it explores beyond the obvious surface issues. I think it would be an interesting topic to ask an ethicist to weigh in on.
It’s a part of what makes the abortion issue so fraught; there are a whole lot of branches with different angles on “rights”, and whose rights supersede the rights of others.
I thank you for your consistency throughout this thread. I’m a bit surprised at the vitriol in some responses. Emotions are very raw. I know mine are.
That negates the whole pregnancy decision that happens in between the sex and the child. That decision is 100% removed from the decision made beforehand. You don't get to skip choices made in between and go right from sex to child. The woman has a 100%-hers decision in between. Men play a 0% role in that decision. Is she doesn't want to have to hit up the dude and the courts to get money for the child she chose to have, she should have gotten an abortion instead. This isn't the 1800's. Women have more options now than forcing their life choices onto unwilling men.
If you are unprepared for the responsibility of taking care of a child, then don't engage in the activity with the potential to produce a child. "Marry the father." What if the father doesn't want to get married? Or takes off. Lots of women get abandoned by the fathers. especially soldier fathers overseas.
Okay, but sex doesn't result in a child. Sex (sometimes) results in a *pregnancy*. A woman's choice determines what happens to that pregnancy. A pregnancy is NOT a child, no matter how many times you keep pretending it is.
Sex results in pregnancies. Women's choices about said pregnancies result in children (or none). The choice isn't in a man's hands my dude. Zero. No stake. Nothing.
Choosing to have sex results in pregnancies. Women's decisions result in babies or abortions. Getting an abortion is always an option if you don't think you have enough money to be responsible for your decisions. At least it WAS their choice before Dobbs anyway. Now things are different.
Remember all those times I told people with opinions on the war on terrorism to fight it themselves before they told us how to fight that war? Remember all the cops who told the public that they didn't get to have an opinion until they did the job themselves? That's what I think about with respect to your little "call us when you can get pregnant" bit. If I'm not allowed to have an opinion on pregnancies I can't have, then people like you aren't allowed to comment on politics because you've never been a politician. Does that same logic make sense to you now?
My point was that people who haven't done a thing or are incapable of doing a thing don't automatically get their opinions silenced on the subject. Lots of people had opinions about the war I fought while having never served in one. I didn't go around telling them that they couldn't have an opinion on my war because they didn't serve in it. That'd be a bullshit argument right? Same with telling me I can't have an opinion on abortion because I'm not capable of giving birth.
Travis, we've seen how smart you are and how much you enjoy putting your smart to good use. At this time it seems like maybe your anger is messing with your smart, or visa versa. I used to tell my kids that anger is a way-station, not a destination. Stop there, figure out how and why you got there, then you can move along to where you want to be. Best wishes.
I'm not angry so much as I see systematic hypocrisy here. I support abortion and always have. I don't think it's right for the state to force a woman to bring a pregnancy to term. I just ALSO don't support women using their choice to force men to pay for the responsibilities of their own elective choices not to terminate. Why is it that if someone like me points out the hypocrisy here, that I accused of being angry or hating women or some such shit? I'm really not.
I agree wholeheartedly! The problem is less about the act of abortion than about removing yet another layer of the Human Experience. The State, with the help of technology, is becoming our moral "conscience".
But the key to your story, Charlie, is that you CHOSE. You and your girlfriend CHOSE to continue with her pregnancy. Picture that exact same scenario, two reckless, unprepared teenagers, with the regime now sanctioned by the court and the Republican legislatures: the state tells you that you MUST. Forcing a woman who doesn't wish to be pregnant to continue to be pregnant, to subject her to the physical arduousness that is pregnancy and childbirth - for the state to compel her to that is monstrous.
Agree totally! And the choice of my paternal grandmother & grandfather, married with 2 children under 4, to have an abortion done by their family doctor back in 1918 because they couldn’t afford another child, was just as valid as the choice of Charlie & his girlfriend.
It’s important to remember that abortions have been performed legally & illegally since the beginning of time. And they will continue to take place, one way or another. Choices like the ones Charlie & his girlfriend made & my grandparents made happen every day. The people involved should be able to make these choices with their families, their doctor & their god. The government - be it state or federal - should have no say in the matter.
I
I don't think that Charlie's point was that his choice was the only valid one.
Since under-50 year old men are polled at even higher percentages of women, I sure wish they'd be included in more of the discussion. .
When some worlds are lost, others are created in their stead.
Wisconsin is one of 19 states with abstinence-only sex education. Just sayin’
abstinence only... yes that works!
Is that true? I learned about birth control in high school health. That would be terrible if true. Love how the poorest states are the red states with the least sex Ed and now no choice
There's only 13 states that provide comprehensive sex education. Like you, I learned about contraception, STIs, how pregnancy happens, the stages, and the risks (like an ectopic pregnancy) in high school. If you couldn't get contraception thru your doc, cause you didn't want your parents to know, you could see a doc at the county health dept. for $10.
It is quite ironic that the poor, red states in the bible belt have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. And being that Wisconsin is the state above me, I think our docs here should be prepared.
I don't actually recall ANY sex education from school. Of course that was in the 60's and early 70's.
If they did any, it didn't make any impression. I tend to think that there really wasn't any other than a brief "discussion" of the biological facts of human reproduction.
Me neither. You had to go to the library and hope you could find a book.
I was in a Catholic HS from 65-69. With birth control not allowed ours was similar - so lots of stories about boys and the lies they told to get a girl into bed. Still we were aware of the pill and rubbers - our teachers (nuns) were actually quite progressive.
We had abstinence-only sex-ed at my suburban Memphis, TN high school.
It included workbooks and graphs about the "danger zone" between holding hands and kissing, along with helpful slogans like "pet your dog, not your date" and "don't be a louse, wait for your spouse."
Eighth graders did not have a comedy field day with that material.
Ohio here, it was a similar experience with a healthy dose of fear included
Women have been forcing men to pay child support through the courts for decades now, even while stating loudly out the other side of their mouths that it was fully THEIR choice to bring the pregnancy to term. So why is a man FORCED to pay for the child even though it was 100% her choice through the pro-choice movements own words? Were you guys forcing men to pay up through the courts? If you can force men to pay through court systems, turnabout is fair play no?
Well, well. Tell us how you really feel. Women, for thousands of years, have been under the rule and authority of men. Women couldn't even have their own checking account until the 1970s. Men have held all the power for decision making for most of everything in women's lives until the last few decades. Women can't have any power more than you. Even over their OWN bodies. Women in the work force STILL don't have the same money making power than men. On average women make 84% of what men earn. The second you came out of your momma you had more earning potential than me. You started the race with advantages that I will never have, regardless of who may or may not be more intelligent. You have the advantage of physical strength as well. You are blind to your privileges which your gender has had for thousands of years. Grow up.
You clearly put zero value on the effort she puts in to rase that child.
Travis, I've heard this argument many times before. I understand that it has a sort of appeal as an approximation of gender-equality in an inherently unequal situation. We do our best to create a world of equal agency and responsibility between genders. But sometimes the asymmetries imposed upon us by the unavoidable difference in men's and women's biologies introduce conflicts of personal rights and responsibilities that simply can't be smoothed out.
It is the woman whose body must bear whatever burdens (the oft reported joys notwithstanding) a pregnancy imposes per se. That means to whatever extent we deem abortion acceptable, it has to be her choice and nobody else's. The right of bodily autonomy outweighs anyone else's freedom to choose, even regarding matters highly relevant to their potential future.
However, once a baby is born (assuming all goes well), the overriding rights are now those of the child. Everyone must bear the attendant responsibilities (which are still unequal since the man isn't required to physically attend to the child).
Ultimately, Travis, all of this is rooted in the freedom to make a certain choice - knowing beforehand that the outcome of that choice will bear consequences unequal in kind and magnitude for both parties (and all things considered, they certainly don't favor the woman, in my opinion) is the best "fairness" we can provide in this case. Our modern society likes to forget that sex can have consequences, but nobody is owed the right to pursue casual sex without risk. Restricting sex to the boundaries of committed relationships prepared to respond to an unwanted pregnancy in a mutually acceptable manner is always an option (the best option, in my opinion).
If it is a woman's choice to endure the burdens of pregnancy is it not? She CAN get an abortion can she not? The burdens of pregnancy are a burden the woman *chooses* to take on *herself*. Society has *nothing* to do with it. Don't want the burden? Don't keep the pregnancy!
"Once the baby is born...." once the baby is born the woman has already made her choice to take on the financial burdens because she wanted to bring a child into the world. Buy the ticket, take the ride. Don't buy the ticket and then force others to co-pilot for you.
Your are entirely ignoring the male's choice in this matter - the choice to have casual sex, most likely without the proper precautions. Someone could just as easily say to you - "Don't want the risk of a baby? Don't have casual sex without a condom!" Why should anyone accept that the woman's choice not to have an abortion should be the only one that matters? Both choices contribute in unique and significant ways to a child being born.
You are also ignoring the interests of the child. You are objecting on the liberal principles of people being responsible for the outcomes of their own decisions, when this case involves the introduction of another human being who will be indirectly held responsible for the outcomes of decisions *others* made. While it's true that this is an inevitability with children, it makes no moral sense to remand their fate to the consequences of their parents' decisions any more than the realities of an inegalitarian world would require.
And finally, Travis, whether you like it or not, society *does* have an entirely relevant interest with regard to seeing that children are adequately provided for. Many of society's ills boil down to children being raised in various kinds and degrees of poorly nurturing environments, so it makes complete sense to require fathers to contribute to the care of a child, regardless of whether or not the mother had an option to abort. What you seem to want is society to value a man's ability to engage in casual sex over the welfare of people who may be born as a result of that sex and the subsequent burden they may impose upon society if not properly cared for. In fact, it seems you want society to *guarantee* completely risk-free sex - for males. That's a value judgement, and one I think few reasonable, healthy societies would be inclined to make.
Or more simply put, no sex outside marriage.
That's one option, Terry. I'm a liberal, so I believe in people being allowed to structure their relationships as they see fit.
But I do think that in our libertarian zeal and desire to oppose strict religious authority, we have lost sight of the importance of relationships and sexual discretion. Not sexual morality, but simply having the good judgment not to regard sex as something that requires so little forethought that hopping into bed with someone you just met is now regarded as relatively normal.
Don't get me wrong; I'm no prude - far from it. And I'm absolutely not a stranger to sex outside of marriage, as I've only been married for about two out of my 30 years of adulthood yet have probably spent about as much time not living or heavily cohabitating with a girlfriend (I'm really kind of pathetically lost without one). But sex outside *some* kind of relationship is not for me. I can't imagine having sex with someone you didn't even want to call the next day.
Something went dreadfully wrong when introducing someone as your "girlfriend" became understood as "this is the person I have sex with regularly."
Well, I guess I'd located the problem more around the part where people decided the "sex" part came before the "girlfriend" part. 😏
None of that was dreadfully wrong. Thinking sex is only for marriage is dreadfully wrong. It's the same logic that had people living under sexual oppression for CENTURIES. People like you thinking you get to define what sex is and isn't for for everyone else.
People like me? I have not once thought or said I get to define what sex is and isn't for everyone else. Since the beginning of time, "people like you" have put the burden for the outcomes of sex on the woman. My point is that refraining from sex outside of marriage does indeed prevent a whole host of problems, including your responsibility problem.
We're not in "since the beginning of time" anymore and there are distinct differences between now and then. That was a time period when mifepristone didn't exist in a pre-Dobbs/post-Roe world. We were just in a time when women had widespread access to abortion and the freedom to use it. Up until the time period 1973-2022, that shit *didn't exist*. What I'm saying is that once we decided in 1973 that women had the choice to legally terminate pregnancies across the nation, they shouldn't have been allowed to sign men up for the financial burdens of their individual choices.
Hmmmmm.
While your position is logically sound and rational, it runs against general perceptions (based upon traditional behavior and emotion).
I think that, as a matter of theory and principle, you are correct.
Theoretically, in a regime of choice, where choice is strictly the purview of the woman (and, frankly, I believe that it should be) then the outcomes of that choice should strictly be the responsibility of the woman. Anything else would be neither fair nor just.
In real life, this is problematic in a number of ways and the variety of contexts that can arise (the simple example being a question of marriage status and the role and power of the spouse in that choice, for example) make this a fraught question... and one that is largely ignored in the binary context of choice or treated as an ancillary. It is also still entrained in a lot of older societal values and beliefs.
I could launch into a long examination of this here... but not really in the mood and it actually requires more thought than I have given it.
If a married woman who planned a birth with her husband decided while pregnant that she didn't want to have the baby any more and wanted to terminate the pregnancy, you'd 100% support her decision right? So what does marriage status have to do with the woman's choice and subsequent responsibilities?
"It is also still entrained in a lot of older societal values and beliefs" sounds EERILLY close to "the only rights we respect here are the ones firmly rooted in the history of the country"--which is exactly how they arrived at their decision that abortion is not covered by the constitution and therefore women don't have an inalienable right to abortions. Precedents of tradition hold no weight in this debate. If they did, we could arbitrarily move the goal posts to when the tradition of women NOT having a right to choose was the tradition at hand. By appealing to tradition, you risk introducing new precedents that undermine your own in this case.
The thing is that overcoming social and cultural inertia is a real world problem. It is why (despite it being both reasonable and rational) that we did not get things like civil rights, homosexual sex not being illegal or same sex marriage until recently.
While something might be reasonable and rational, the reasonability aspect of the issue is not (strictly speaking) rational in and of itself in that the qualifier there is often, sadly to say, what is culturally acceptable (which, as you note) brings us back to the "standard" set by the Court.
The impediment is, in most of these cases, not one of law but one of (not necessarily rational) mores... and it is not the mores of the past that are determining, but the mores of the present (or that is what SHOULD be determinant).
And, in theory, even THAT should not play a role--but it does and will, regardless of what we think and believe SHOULD be the case.
Alito is full of shit. The tradition of this country, until sometime in the 1800s when states started passing laws against abortion, was that this was no one's business except the woman's.
Now I think you are deliberately missing the point. Within marriage, no man would get away with arguing that the woman's decision to keep the baby means that the financial responsibility for that child falls solely on the woman.
You're right! You know why? Because they probably planned that marriage together or decided on the abortion together right? Did you know that over 40% of abortions pre-Dobbs were done by married couples? Fuckin wild right? My point is, a woman shouldn't be able to rope in a guy from a tinder date pregnancy financially based on her personal decision to retain.
It is logically sound and rational only when reduced to the P and Q elements of a logical syllogism. But in the real world, it is just a version of "men should be free to sow their oats and the responsibility for the results are on the woman."
I mean, that's one way of looking at it. The other is that in a pre-Dobbs world, a woman should have been made wholly financially responsible for a decision to retain a pregnancy that is 100% her own, and that she shouldn't be able to use the courts to force a man to pay for a decision that wasn't up to him at all.
Women didn't write those laws, men did
The point was that the man has a responsibility for the child, no mater what happened, and especially to avoid them having to get social service help to raise the child
Whether you wanted the child or not, you took part in what created it...you are responsible
That is why I also said the other things that I said ;}
Truth: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1040363431893725184.html The key to reducing abortion or child support obligations comes well before the choice to carry or abort.
Gabrielle Blair is factually correct. Truth.
Travis says he refuses to read the link. I know he understands what a citation is. Honestly he is reminding me of all those Trump supporters who refuse to watch the hearings. "Intellectual laziness" is just an empty excuse.
You obviously know what a citation is too. You have to actually present the argument you are citing and the logic it is based on. You can't just say "the key to reducing abortion or child support obligations comes well before the choice to carry or abort," drop a fuckin link and then walk off. That shit would never get published in a peer-reviewed journal and YOU know that. Again, intellectual laziness on full display here folks.
I most certainly can make an assertion and drop a citation to support that assertion. Just like the Brookings Institute did here with "Trump on Trial." https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Trump-on-Trial.pdf Some pages have a citation for just about each and every sentence. The intellectual laziness or worse is on your part.
I hope Travis reads it.
I assure you, I did not. As stated below, I don't support intellectual laziness in policy or philosophical debates.
Are you angry? You sound angry. Did a woman "force you" to pay child support for a child you didn't want? Would you rather the woman have an abortion? Or would you rather the woman give birth but not ask for child support from the child's father?
I'm not angry, just principled. I accept responsibility for the choices that are 100% mine to make. Women like you just can't seem to understand that part. I'd rather that pro-choice women be un-hypocritical. Disagreeing with pro-choice women because of their blatant hypocrisy when it comes to accepting responsibilities doesn't mean I hate women. I've never been forced to pay anything to anyone by the courts.
We don't know each other. That's why I genuinely wanted to know what you thought. Don't presume to say "women like you" because you don't know me. You also didn't answer my question. Would you prefer the woman get an abortion or have the baby and not ask for child support?
The upshot is that either way men get to have sex without responsibility.
No, the upshot is that men who don't have any say in the decision don't get forced to take on the woman's responsibilities for her choice.
You apparently believe in choices that other people bear consequences for. If I murder somebody, should you be made to serve out half my sentence? Okay then! If a woman is the one who decides if a pregnancy becomes a life then she's the one who bears out those responsibilities! Not somebody who doesn't have a say in whether or not a pregnancy becomes a life! See how that works yet?
People get sentenced for murders they didn't choose all the time.
For example, you're the lookout for a gang of bank robbers. During one heist a guard is killed. You don't get to argue you shouldn't go down for murder because hey, someone else made the decision to murder the guard.
Your analogy is faulty because your "100%" premise is faulty. Because of your contribution, the need for the woman to make either decision arose. Read the link I gave you.
I only respond to arguments people make themselves, not ones people who lazily post the arguments of others for someone else to read offer up. Use your own words. Don't rely on me reading someone else's. Make your case. Politicians debating don't get to just drop a damn article link and then walk away and say "the audience and my opponent should read this" lol. Like, don't be intellectually lazy my dude. Put in the work.
So you won't read the link, ok. Sounds like you might be afraid the truth in that link will speak to you. Read it, and then come back. Without your specific contribution, there is no need for the woman to make any decision, one way or another.
Make your own arguments, don't just drop links and expect others to do your work for you. You're being intellectually lazy. Sorry, but you just are.
I would prefer *either* of those options to a state of play where women get 100% of the decision to abort or retain, but then don't get 100% of the responsibility that comes with either decision.
It sounds like you would prefer that the default option for any unwanted pregnancy is abortion. Saying you wouldn't pay for a child you had a part in making and thereby forcing an unwanted abortion is coercive. In that case, you're not pro-choice. You're pro-abortion.
"Saying you wouldn't pay for a child you had a part in making" No no no no no no.
Men do NOT have a hand in making children. Only women do that. Men have a hand in making *pregnancies*, women have the full 100% choice of whether or not to make that pregnancy into a child or to terminate that pregnancy. I am saying that women shouldn't be allowed to use the courts to force men to pay for the financial responsibilities of their decisions. Men can still give money to the mother *outside* the boundaries of the court at their own discretion. I would personally offer whatever I could if it were me, I just don't agree with women being able to force those responsibilities onto men if it's "their body, their choice." If it's YOUR choice then it is YOUR responsibility. Name me any other avenue in life where you make 100% of a decision but someone else gets to be 50% responsible for the outcome. It doesn't exist! Deciding whether or not to terminate or keep a pregnancy doesn't get some kind of special pleading fallacy logic to wiggle a woman out of responsibilities for decisions that were 100% hers.
I reiterate, what you are suggesting is coercive toward the choice to abort.
I really don't see how that's coercive. Can you please give me your working definition of coercive behavior so that I can tell where the disconnect is? Because for me, coercive behavior is threatening someone with personal consequences if they don't choose a certain act that the other party wants. Having to take on the full consequences of your decisions isn't coercion. Passing *even a fraction of the buck* onto someone else even though the decision was 100% yours IS coercion on the other hand. You are using the courts to coerce the man into forking over mandatory child support, otherwise he gets jailed and/or faces fines. THAT is coercion. Not making someone take on the responsibilities of their own choices.
I understand that you think it's 100% the woman's choice, but that is true only insofar as she has the decision-making authority to proceed with the pregnancy. That doesn't mean she can actually, in practical terms, proceed to term and keep the child if the man won't step up. It's coercive because without the male partner's financial and personal investment in the raising of the child, it is very difficult for her to do so (unless the would-be mother is wealthy, has lots of family support, etc). If the default position is that no man should be obligated to pay or invest otherwise in the raising of a child he fathers, then the mother has to consider that and may well not be able to raise a child she otherwise would want to bring into the world (all things being equal). So her decision is coerced by the economic necessity of going it alone, caused by the father's lack of responsibility. "You can do what you want but I want no part of it" does not really mean that when it takes both parties to make it work. It means, "You can't do it, because I refuse to participate."
He probably didn't technically consent to sex. She overcame him with her womanly wiles and he was incompetent to resist. Therefore, not his problem. /s
I was drunk when I gave consent so it didn't count :-) #buyersremorse
That used to be the excuse for drunk drivers, too: they were drunk when they had the accident, so it didn't count. Grow up and take responsibility for your actions.
Clearly you can't tell when somebody is joking. See the smiley face and the hashtag? It denotes irony.
Yea, there is that. My initial opinion wasn't a joke though. I firmly believe that if someone has 100% of the decision to either keep or terminate a pregnancy, they should hold 100% of the responsibility for that decision in the aftermath of it.
Hey, even people you generally agree with get to occasionally be wrong. I feel the same way about you with respect to making men pay for a woman's choice they had no say in.
I get that my opinion is unpopular. The nice thing about being principled is that you don't change your opinions based on how popular or unpopular they are. To do otherwise, would be to live a lie. I'll change my position when someone's logic on the exact matter convinces me to, not because of how many likes or dislikes I get. That kind of amorphism is the reason we have a such a pliable GOP for Trump to manipulate. Why hold onto principle when you can just shift position alongside the winds of popularity?
Have an unpopular, that's great. But maybe try not to post it dripping with contempt towards women right after they've just experienced a 2x4 to the uterus.
Yep.
If we're going to talk about a woman's right to choose, should we not talk about the responsibilities that come with those individual choices? Does a man's right not to be looped into a women's responsibilities get trampled in the name of a woman's right to choose? We could avoid the problem entirely by ensuring that the system holds responsible *only* the individual making the choice. I don't like kettles calling pots black, forgive me for being like this.
Agree TCinLA, T's comments left a bad taste in my mouth that will hang around. I'm left a bit sadder/disappointed today after catching up with the comments. You catch more flies with sugar than you do vinegar. Peace be with everyone.
Dude, you put it in her and did the deed. You gave her the decision to make the call
Both parties have the gate-keeping burden of consenting to sex. She is just as responsible for taking a dude's sperm shots as he is for her shooting his sperm into her (or a condom, etc.). It's her body, her choice. The dude has 0% to do with her decision to abort or retain. That is 100% on her. We just have a system that unjustly forces dudes who have no say in the decision to pay money if she decides to retain. The woman did the deed too, but she's somehow allowed to shirk the responsibilities of her decisions while dudes are mandated to take on the same responsibilities the women shirked? Get the fuck out of here. Find me any other instance where the logic of me paying money for a decision someone else 100% made for themselves holds up. I dare you to find an instance where that same logic is enforced on something other than decisions on pregnancy retention.
Dude....seriously? We're not talking about a tractor that you regret buying here. No, things are not looked at the same way as "pregnancy retention" (this makes me think you're being sarcastic, but I bit anyway) because nothing is the same. What in the world happened to you that you've come up with an argument like this?
So, in order for you to pay child support you think the decision to get an abortion should rest with the man? If the man decided for an abortion you think the state should force it to happen? Or vice versa? And if you're not able to make your choice happen...oh well! You're off the hook? And you think child support pays 100% of the expenses for a kid's life?
Not at all. I'm just saying that if it's 100% a woman's choice then it's 100% her financial responsibility if she chooses to retain the pregnancy. I did not say the decision should rest with the man, that's a straw man you're building. I said it should stay with the woman as it was in the pre-Dobbs world, but that she shouldn't be allowed to use the courts to force child support if it is indeed her choice. Freedom to choose comes with the consequences of those choices yes? A woman's choice to retain a pregnancy in the pre-Dobbs world is a choice to bear the burden of the financial responsibilities. I don't agree with roping the dude into the financial responsibilities for the decisions the woman made *herself*. Call me fuckin crazy I guess (shrugs).
Jesus Christ, man. My advice to whiny guys in that situation? Cowboy the fuck up and handle your business. There have been far worse state injustices imposed on better people for worse reasons. It's not that much to ask for a man to contribute to the support of his kid. I guess you can call me crazy too.
Your sperm, you are responsible.
That's not what "my body, my choice" means. You allowed that sperm into your body. You are responsible. Remember what consent means?
I suggest you carry a PreCoitus Agreement with you. A woman can consent to have sex with you only after she signs away the possible child's right to child support from their biological father. And get it notarized, you know, just in case.
You would end up with a dry run everytime. NO woman would agree to sign that. So just use an escort service or adopt celibacy. No responsibility! Yaaay!
Actually, while Travis apparently misses that this ruling will primarily be a tragedy for low income women living in chaos--in other words, not necessarily women (I'm assuming) like the apparent mother of his child--he still has a point, if angrily and inelegantly expressed. Both men and women of reproductive age do have a responsibility to understand what heterosexual vaginal can lead to, regardless of birth control status, since those sometimes fail. And the conversation about how to handle an unwanted pregnancy should happen before sex, and if there is disagreement, the sex should not happen. Yes, schools should teach sex education, but they should also teach people to beware moments of passion. The left has some responsibility here to question its own assumptions about sex and morality.
For what it's worth, I'm dating a low-income woman, unlike most of the post-college liberals who don't give a shit about lifting low-income women up. That's what's really sad to me. All these dudes be out here wanting low-income women to have the right to choose, but so many of them would never marry below their income threshold because that would mean not enjoying the same level of decadence those post-college men are used to. They would rather marry a post-college woman, have more money, and just vote for the policies that help low-income women. It's a lot like when the billionaire class donates a dollar here or there to charity. If they actually gave a shit about those causes, they wouldn't have the billionaires that they hold onto for capital gains.
I don't know what you mean by "low-income woman." It's an imprecise term but I don't know how else to put it. You seem articulate, so I imagine if your girlfriend wanted to terminate, you'd help her get the abortion pill or take her to Colorado (if you live in a red state) or whatever. I'm talking about desperately poor women, homeless women, addicts, in some cases girls who have been forced to become their own fathers' mistresses. The stuff of nightmares.
But I think you and I can agree that the "left" is long overdue for an attitude overhaul. "Choice" is often framed as some kind of magic panacea that will allow an American female--any American female--to pursue some unnamed dreamed career that has something to do with nice resumes, awards, "leadership," some kind of bright "future," gold stars of all kinds, the end game being the financial freedom to go to the Bahamas whenever she wants, and maybe down the road have the inconvenience of family, just to say she did it, with the assistance of IVF (because she waited too long) and nannies, all while she lectures coal miners' daughters about "climate change" just before she hops on a plane to go skiing. So yes, your guy friends may flippantly assert that a homeless teenager should have "choice" so that maybe she can improbably win the technocracy lottery and become the type of woman he'd want to marry. In other words, "Let them have choice" sometimes sounds like the new "Let them eat cake." I say this as a woman who was criticized by my left wing friends for choosing to become a mother at the childish age of, drum roll, 27!
By "low-income women" I meant women who live below the poverty line on their own income, with or without children. I personally am dating a woman who is not legally allowed to work until her work permit gets renewed because she is an immigrant, she has no income, and she has an amazing 10-year-old daughter. Most dudes in my position--post-graduate school, solid tech job, no prior kids--would pass on her in favor of someone with more money, a job, and no children. I've seeeeeen these dudes not just in real life, but in the data. Look at the rates of women with a degree "marrying down" vs rates of men with a degree "marrying down" since the 70's in those key 20's/30's family-building years. You will see what I saw. You will see women with degrees marrying pretty evenly up as much as they do down. But you will also see men with degrees increasingly only marrying women with degrees, leaving women without degrees increasingly fucked in trying to get by economically:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-gender-gap-in-marriages-between-college-educated-partners
I suggest that you carry a pre-coitus agreement with you. A man con consent to giving you his sperm only after he has signed away his rights to have a say in whether or not that pregnancy comes to term along with his agreement to pay half the bills if YOU make the personal decision not to get an abortion.
It's sad that y'all need to rely on the courts to absolve you of the responsibilities that you 100% make. I wish the courts gave men the right to make women pay for our decisions. Shit must be nice over there in freedom from the full consequences land.
So you don't want to be responsible for an egg that you fertilized. That's fine. So let's put that decision you want to make to avoid responsibility back on you. From the genesis of the problem. Keep it in your pants and you will never face responsibility for your actions.
Your argument is a ridiculous as telling women to keep their knees together so there is no need for an abortion.
Consent is a thing remember? Women are consenting to have that sperm inside of them and then using the courts to force bills onto men for their consent *and* birthing decisions. That's having it both ways. Don't want to be responsible for the sperm you allowed a dude to squirt onto your eggs? Don't have the sex then. Don't have the pregnancy then. Don't make the dude pay for your decisions both during and after the sex. Your body, your consent, your choice, your bills.
Obvious troll garbage, or seriously deluded madman? I can’t even tell what you’re arguing for or against, only that you hate women in general because you either were forced to pay child support or because you’ve been radicalized by incels and MGTOW garbage.
I mean, I don't hate women at all, but if that's your takeaway you do you I guess. I've never been forced to pay child support, I've been single way too little to be an incel, and I don't know wtf MGTOW is.
So the woman is solely responsible for a joint decision? The man consented to squirt his semen onto those eggs.
The woman is *equally* responsible in the joint decision--and she IS the gatekeeper via offering consent. We just had a whole #MeToo movement about this remember? Women were SO quick to talk about consent during #MeToo, but now seem so hesitant to talk about that same consent during the accepting responsibilities for their decision to not terminate argument. You consented to the sex as a 50% party. You consented to birthing the child as a 100% party. You own 150% of the consequences, not 50%.
I think you were meaning to reply to my comment on using men's DNA to be held responsible? I agree with you, Travis. But, since everything seems to be up for grabs now, I thought I'd throw that male DNA bit into the morass to see where it might fit. And, yes many outspoken women will use "Our Bodies Ourselves". But please know that other, less outspoken, women may think as I do: the man is half the deal and he has a right AND an obligation. Sure, the mother has always been able to sue the father or the deadbeat dad, but I'm talking about the issue of the State now penalizing women. By that same token, if they're gonna lock up a mother, why aren't they gonna lock up the dad, that sort of thing. It might a good time to bring up men's rights in these decisions. What's to lose, right?
The *state* forces men to pay child support. If the state can force undue consequences onto men for decisions they didn't make, then I don't see why men can't use the court to deny women the choice they are abusing. Women unfairly use the court to force men to pay for children they didn't decide to have, men used the courts to deny choice to women who were abusing it. Turnabout is fair play. If those women didn't want unfair court decisions, they shouldn't have pushed for them in the first place. They set that precedent.
Your complaint is:
Women get to decide to keep the baby of a man who does not want to have children and use the courts to make that man pay child support to the woman to help raise the child he didn't want. So far so good?
You then gloat (a bit) that men taking the decision on whether or not to have the child from the woman through this court action is fair play. Yes?
Even though the decision these men made will now result in more children being born needing more child support that will be paid for, in part, by more men.
Your complaint that the woman made the choice to have the child is gone now because that choice has been taken away from her by the court and state legislatures. Will that stop your complaint about court-mandated child support?
"Even though the decision these men made will now result in more children being born..." Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
It's "Even though the decision these WOMEN made will now result in more children being born." THAT is the answer. What is all this shouting of "my body, my choice" if y'all won't even take 100% responsibility for a choice y'all 100% have? It's YOUR choice to bring that child into the world. It is YOUR responsibility to rear and pay for it. Don't want the heat that comes with having sole say in that decision? THEN DON"T TAKE ON THE DECISION ALL BY YOURSELF. Y'all are 100% making the decision of bringing the child into the world via your own words. YOUR words. IT's "my body. MY CHOICE." Therefor, it's YOUR responsibility.
Now women in a whole bunch of states don't have that choice and you expect us to have sympathy for them when they cut us out of the decision process entirely and then forced us to shoulder the burden? Get fucked and have fun watching irresponsible women cry about losing the choice they never fully took up the responsibilities for. You reap what you sow. You couldn't be bothered with making a joint decision before forcing joint payments, now you lost the right to that decision. Boo hoo. Freedom of choice absent responsibility is no freedom at all for everyone else.
"'Even though the decision these men made will now result in more children being born...' Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong"
Uh, the men I was talking about were the men on the Supreme Court and the men that control the state legislatures passing bills outlawing abortion.
So yeah, your slut-shaming aside, it is men taking the choice away from women and now the ones who would have aborted will be forced to have birth which will result in more children being born that will need more child support from more men.
In TX alone they are estimating 5,000 additional children being born this year because of their abortion laws. 5,000 more kids that need to be supported.
. . . yay? I guess?
Okay, I missed that part I guess. Yea, I don't at all agree with the SCOTUS decision and I'm pro-choice. How many times do I have to say this out loud here? Pointing out that women have an equal share in sexual consent and 100% share in pregnancy decisions doesn't make me a slut-shamer. Sluts are just people who have more sex than you do. That's literally the definition and I have nothing against people who have more sex than me. Good for them in fact. Just own your choices is all. I would rather Texas have the 5l+ abortions this year. That would be 5k+ men not potentially being forced to pay for a woman's choice.
It's pretty simple; keep your pants zipped if you don't want to deal with the consequences.
I'm starting to suspect that Travis might be trolling everyone. he's been posting an avalanche of grievance and hatred here today.
That applies to women just as much as it does men. Y'all have consent. That's 50% of the sex decision and 100% of the birthing decision. Men are a 50% deciding party at best in this situation, women make 150% of the decisions.
And if you want to have 100% control, don't do the deed. Simple.
"The deed" and the decision to keep a pregnancy are two entirely separate things. Stop conflating the consent women give to take sperm shots inside of their bodies with their decision as to whether or not to get an abortion. They are two entirely separate choices. The woman has a choice in both. The man only has half the say in the sex. Women have 100% of the choice in deciding to terminate or keep a pregnancy. If you don't want the responsibility of paying a lot of money for a kid that is 100% your choice to bring into this world, then get a fucking abortion instead of making someone else pay for your lifestyle choices.
In, soon, over half the country the women will not have the choice to have an abortion.
Men better get ready to start paying a whole lot more child support.
This is one of the top reasons I'm pro-life. I don't like the idea of courts forcing people to do things against their will (outside of criminals). I just also extend that position to the courts not forcing men to pay for a woman's choice. You don't. That's the difference.
I think I hear you. If there is choice, shouldn't the man have some of that choice too? If laws exist completely separate from morality, then maybe yes. But really it would drive abortion way up, which is bad to almost everyone. Also wouldn't it be hard for most men to use that as a defense? Standing up and saying "for the record, I wanted her to abort this child, therefore I am not required to support he/she."
Wouldn't be hard for me to stand up and say that if I didn't want the child but she did. Perhaps because I am principled. Choice comes with responsibility for said decisions. What is choice without responsibility? If one choses an act and then absolves themselves of the responsibilities of their actions--or foisting them onto someone else--then is that *really* choice as we understand it in most contexts?
I've read a lot of Bulwark comments but never contributed my self. I feel compelled to in this instance because I'm really disappointed in how vitriolic and cruel the reactions to Travis have been here. I think JVL would say "No. Stop this." I know emotions are high, for good reason. But I also know that we're all better than this. Travis is not trolling. He's not being intentionally offensive. He's being honest. And if the rest of us are being honest...his comments are utterly rational and reasonable. Women shouldn't be forced into parenthood just like men shouldn't be forced into parenthood. "BUT MEN AREN'T THE PREGNANT/BIRTHING ONES!!" I know this. But raising and being responsible for a child is a whole 'nother ball of wax. I know it's just a fact that in our society we expect a man to play a part in a child's life, even if the mother carried it to term against his wishes. But that doesn't make it "right", necessarily. We all agree that women have just as much agency as men. I don't think anyone would have disagreed so vehemently to this idea a week ago. No? Can we all just remember ourselves and practice a little grace? Travis has pretty well proven himself to be a Bulwark community member of good standing and high insight. Lastly: good GOD can we retire the "don't have sex if you don't want a baby" argument?! We're adults. Adults have been known to enjoy having sex just for the fun of having sex. Abstinence isn't an argument.
That's not the point. Travis is upset that women who get pregnant can seek child support. He wants them to abort the child so the father can avoid responsibility. If that is his issue, he needs to avoid sex or assure that he cannot impregnate the woman.
Kathe, first-off, you always make great points on these Bulwark discussions. But I honestly think everyone just reacted to the tone of Travis’s comment more than the content. It came-off a little contemptuous and I don’t think he meant it that way. I don’t think he was arguing that women shouldn’t *be able* to seek child support from deadbeat dads. I’m a single-mom-raised kid who benefited from child support. I think his point was that a situation in which a woman and man accidentally create a pregnancy together, and one of them then wants a birth to happen but the other one doesn’t, that’s a very tough situation for both parties. That’s a very nuanced, not simple situation. So please give me grace when I say this: it doesn’t seem fair that if I don’t agree to having that woman in my life, for the rest of my life, and also being emotionally and financially responsible for a child at this point in my life, that that woman can just disregard all of that, have the baby anyway, then take me to court for not wanting to do what I made clear to her I did not agree to BEFORE the baby was even viable. I hope that doesn’t sound insensitive. I’ve just personally known people who’ve gone through this kind of situation, including women being the ones who didn’t want the birth to happen but were pressured or shamed by men, and it’s just so heart wrenching to see that kind of gigantic life altering thing be forced on someone, male or female. Keep up your awesome contributions here, Kathe. Sincerely.
Sorry, I don't think I have been any more negative or harsh in my statements than Travis; I have merely countered his statements. Unfortunately, babies happen sometimes when all the other parties involved wanted to have was uncomplicated sex. If Travis doesn't want to deal with those ramifications, he needs to assure that the woman isn't impregnated. That's not being harsh or judgmental, that's being realistic. Maybe the answer is a written contract so the issue is addressed prior to the act. Not very romantic, but neither are the consequences.
I agree with you, and I supported Travis’s viewpoint elsewhere in the comments. Your contribution is thoughtful, well stated, and sensitive in presentation. Exactly why I stay with The Bulwark.
Thanks, GG. Cooler heads and all that.
So, Travis, I wrote in a comment that doesn’t seem to appear yet, that I see your point after having raised a male and a female offspring all the way to adulthood. The teen years were conceptually (no pun intended) scary when contemplating teen pregnancy, and much more so for my son than for my daughter for exactly the reasons you have been defending; with my daughter we’d have had options, but with my son it would be up to the family of the girl.
My question for you is, given today’s new reality of an abortion ban, how should the fathers of the ”forced birth” be accountable, both financially and in terms of custodial care? The expenses of raising the unplanned child are only part of the cost to the (single) mother. Her career opportunities are diminished; her retirement funds will likely be truncated because of lack of opportunity created by limited education and an inability to devote herself to a career the way a non-custodial man can do.
The reason there’s a blood lust to go after the sperm donors in our new reality is to try to induce them to be as passionate as forced mothers in fighting for reproductive freedom, IMO. And also, obviously, to level the huge price of not having any freedom in the situation.
In those states where abortion is illegal, the men should 100% be responsible for paying half. You vote to curtail a woman's choice, you pay half the bills.
My only thing is that if we agree to give women 100% the choice on whether a pregnancy becomes a life or not in blue states, then they 100% get the responsibilities in blue states as well. Having the choice with only a fraction of the responsibility--even if a majority fraction--is having it both ways. It's hypocrisy built directly into the system.
Would you really be able to say that after the child is old enough to know who you are? Would you really say, on the public record, that you never ever want anything to do with that child? I can hear you about women "coming after" men for money after making their own choice, but would you really say to a living person, who you helped create, who understands your words, that you never wanted them born and that you still don't want to have anything to do with them? That you don't care a thing about their life, opportunities, even basic nutrition? I gotta say, I am very pro-choice and also pretty big on responsibility, but believe me when I say that birth changes EVERYTHING. If you can look at your child, and see only the mother "coming after" you for money, then there is a little something missing in your make-up. I'm not trying to fight you. Just think carefully if a pregnancy comes into your life.
Lots of men abandon their children. Nothing new.
I wouldn't do so personally. I just also don't agree with the courts forcing men to pay for a woman's decision. I would personally pay out of the goodness of my heart, but I wouldn't go forcing other men to do so. It's not rational in my mind and it rewards irresponsibility.
Travis is going to be that guy in his late-50s that bursts into tears whenever Steve Croce's "Cat's in the Cradle" get played.
lol
Like, genuinely this was pretty fucking funny cuz I hate that fucking song, but for the melody, not for the lyrics.
The child being an adult has ZERO factor in this argument. We are talking about a WOMAN'S CHOICE. The child doesn't have a choice there. The man doesn't have a choice there. Only the WOMAN has a say in initiating that life. If the woman has 100% of the choice, she should carry 100% of the burdens and responsibilities of that choice. This bullshit where women get to claim 100% of the decision and then a fraction of the responsibility doesn't hold up logically. It has ZERO to do with the relationship between a father and child *because the child being there in the first place is only based upon the decision of the woman*. Asking me how I would act after the child is born is a red herring that has ZERO to do with the relationship between a woman's choice and her subsequent responsibilities.
Well no longer is it a woman's choice in many states in this union. Again, keep it in your pants. It will solve that problem.
I live in a state where women still have that choice, and happily so! Again, sex may lead to pregnancies, but only women decide if those pregnancies become children. Take responsibility for your choices and stop passing responsibilities on to men who had no choice in the matter of retaining or terminating the pregnancy.
You are acting like the decision whether to abort or carry to term are of equivalent weight. For many women, abortion is murder. For them choosing whether to carry to term or murder is no choice at all.
There was a time when introducing someone as your girlfriend or boyfriend was not the same as saying,"this is the person I'm having sex with regularly." A lot of men won't have anything to do with a woman who wants to wait until marriage. You are making great arguments for the traditional no sex outside of marriage ethic.
That may be true that some women will view abortion as being equivalent to murder. It is also irrelevant. Their beliefs are *their* beliefs. She could simply choose not to believe that terminating a pregnancy is the equivalent to murdering a fully-developed human. That is a belief system *she* chooses to hold onto, not me. It's "no choice at all" *by* choice of belief system. That's a choice. People choose what they believe. Do the Jan 6th participants get out of jail sentences because they genuinely believed the election had been stolen? Fucking OF COURSE not lol. The same logic applies here with that "sincerely-held religious beliefs" bullshit. Sincerely-believing shit that isn't true does not absolve one of their choice to believe in it. Decisions to believe in things---> consequences of actions based on said beliefs ---> your own damn responsibility, not someone else's. That's the universal order of logic here.
Also, the financial part of raising a child is far from the only responsibility for raising a child. It is like taking on a 24/7 job for the next 6 years while trying to work an 8/5 job too. And then you get a little relief from school, but that also opens a whole can of worms that doesn't stop for the next 12 years.
I don't give a shit if it's only 1% of the burden. Women have 100% of the choice to retain or abort, so the logic follows that they should have 100% of the responsibility of said choice. The man isn't made to be responsible if the woman decides to abort right? But yet he holds the same share of responsibility for that decision (0%). Should he be made to pay for 50% of the abortion too in cases where WOMEN choose termination? Why do we pay for a decision we had no part in? There's no logic to it.
The default consequence of sex is pregnancy. The default choice for a woman is life. The default responsibilty is shared. Whether or not a woman has a choice for abortion does not change the man's default shared responsibility. When a man is forced to pay, it is not paying her; it is paying for a child, a life that would not exist without you. You may want men to have a say, and I agree men should have some say because they have responsibility. But the responsibility is there regardless. Saying you prefer an abortion because you don't want the responsibility does not absolve responsibility. Some males don't see it this way because they haven't grown up yet. Some won't ever grow up. And some women act like assholes and make it more about "making a man pay" instead of providing for the life they made together.
No it is not. Know how many times I've had unprotected sex sans-pregnancy? The default state of sex is *no* pregnancy.
If pregnancy was the default state of sex, then why are so many women using the pullout method sans-pregnancies? Holy shit, did you just invent an "alternative fact" or something? The default state of sex is NOT pregnancy. More on those FACTS here:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120313-sex-in-the-city-or-elsewhere
And this is why I taught my children to be 100% with prevention methods, and assume the other person is a careless or ignorant or simply doesn't take the possibility of pregnancy seriously.
Anyone with plans for their life should not rely on the "pullout method."
You never heard of condoms? You poor innocent man, being forced to fertilize women.
That has nothing to do with my argument. Sexual intercourse requires consent of both parties to be legal, but birthing is a 100% woman's decision. Did y'all forget about that birthing condom called abortions? Don't make men pay bills because you were too squeamish to terminate.
But Travis, in 26 states that will no longer be an option!
Also, do you support the concept of robust 'social safety net' to support the children of single women? If the State wants more babies born, perhaps ( getting into the slightly facetious here) mens' groups could work together to increase taxes/welfare support that would then decrease child support?
Right, so at least the system makes sense logically in 26 states. It doesn't make sense to me that the other 24 states have a system in place where women make 100% of the decision to abort/retain but only get a fraction of the burden--even if it's a majority fraction. If it's 100% a woman's choice it should 100% be a woman's responsibility. I'd be 100% happy in a system where women have a universal right to choose in all 50 states but ALSO had 100% of the responsibility to support the decision they made instead of passing percentages of the responsibility onto sexual partners who had no say in the keep/terminate choice.
I hope you just forgot to put he /s at the end there.
Wow, what a great way to show that you could care less about either women or children. It's all about you, isn't it?
Why is it okay for women to force a man to pay the bills that she 100% decided were hers to bring into this world? Women seem to care only about themselves in this regard. If it were about their choices, they would also take up the responsibilities. Instead, they want the child to be born, but they only want to assume half of the responsibility of paying for their choice. That's having your cake and eating it too.
And I *do* care about women and children, I'm just not about people having things both ways. Your choice, your bills. If I crash a car while you're riding inside of it, do I get to make you pay for half of the collision total?
Boy this comment triggered some folks out there.
You did seem to have a lot of fun with it. Feel better, now?
I actually understood your point. I don’t agree with the ethics of it, but morally you were right.
It doesn’t speak well for you.
I don't agree with forcing men to pay mandatory financial support for a decision that is 100% a woman's. In my own case I would 100% pay of my own accord (you wouldn't NEED a court for me to make that commitment on my own accord), but I don't support the courts forcing that support onto men who don't have a choice in the matter of whether or not a pregnancy gets carried to term or terminated.
Yes, I understood your point the first time.
I have heard Travis’s argument before. It was from Gavin McInnes.
Had to look him up-yuck. Not company I would keep. Nonetheless, it’s a valid point. From a purely transactional point of view.
Yeah, so weird that a hot take about wanting to have more control over a woman just a couple of days after the Supreme Court took control of their bodies away from them fell flat.
Who said anything about controlling a woman's body? I've said since the beginning I'm pro-choice. I just don't support women having control over a man's finances because she decided not to get an abortion. My positions are 100% in accordance with not using the courts to force people to do things against their will. You cut your opposition to courts forcing things on people that they didn't incur as soon as it's about a man's finances instead of a woman's body. Why the hypocrisy?
I didn't say more control over a woman's body. I said more control over a woman.
Okay, whatever! I just NEVER said I wanted to have more control over women, just that I want women to have more responsibility for their decisions. You're building a straw man and putting words in my mouth by saying that I wanted control over a woman's body. "a hot take about wanting to have more control over a woman"--my dude, where did I say I wanted more control over a woman? I'm *pro-choice*
Oh, of course! I bet that the woman in question held a gun on the man demanding sex.
The point of child support is to ensure that the child gets an acceptable upbringing actually.
Remember what consent means? We just had this whole #MeToo movement about it. The whole point of responsibility is accepting that you are the one who made the decision and who was in control. In this case, women are the gatekeepers on sex who give the man consent *and* they are the gatekeepers of childbirth having 100% of the decision. They just don't want to own the responsibilities that come with 100% of the choice. If it is "their body, their consent, their choice" then it's also their responsibility. You can't accept the burden of choice without simultaneously accepting the burden of consequence.
Know what it's called when there's sex that the woman *didn't* consent to?
Plenty of pregnancies result from sex that wasn't quite rape, but wasn't quite consensual. Anytime, a man says, 'You would if you loved me," that sex is not quite consensual, but there is no rape case either.
Key word there: "Pregnancies"
"You would if you loved me" is NOT force or threats! It's not even close to coming to force or threats! If Trump told Pence "if you loved me, you wouldn't certify those votes" does that absolve Pence of his decisions if he chose not to certify the votes? OKAY THEN. Can we STOP with this bullshit about "you would if you loved me" somehow being a legitimate erasure of a woman's agency? It's childish and unreal. Wouldn't apply to ANY other instance of what people decide to do on their own regardless of who told them to do what for why.
I think that Travis had what he thought was an unfair experience in a divorce with children.
Lol, I got through two no-child divorces without ever paying alimony--mostly because those women had a high enough opinion of me after the separation to not be spiteful. In fact, in the second one, I was giving her $2k/month on my own accord until she got up on her feet again 15 months later and then we initiated the divorce. No lawyers necessary. Straight from the goodness of my heart. How many women-haters have that kind of back-story? I ain't the one guy. This ain't about anger, it's about principle.
Enticed consent is still consent. If he's not threatening her with violence or intimidation, he's not coercing her. Enticement is not intimidation.
Shaming someone isn't coercing them via threats or force, no matter how much you pretend it is. Ever seen a rape conviction based on post-shaming voluntary actions taken? There has to be a threat of violence or a threat of physical loss for it to be coercion.
Another great argument for no sex outside of marriage. You also keep arguing for the best of both worlds. Abortion--Father has no responsibility. Birth-Father has no responsibility.
That's not "the best of both worlds," that's *not holding someone else financially responsible for a single individual's choice*. Both men and women have a say in the sex that potentially creates a pregnancy. Only the woman has a choice in whether to take that pregnancy to term or to terminate that pregnancy. The man has zero(0) stake in that decision, and therefore should have zero(0) stake in the responsibilities that come out of that decision.
In fact, women demanding the right to be the sole decider and then doling out apportionments of the financial responsibilities for that decision to parties not involved in said decision is having it both ways. You get to have your freedom to choose, but only need to be partially-responsible for the responsibilities that come with that choice. THAT is having "the best of both worlds."
For having zero stake, men sure want to exert an awful lot of control. over women. All you have done is written a version of "the woman should have just kept her legs closed," Then there is no decision to be made either way. Again, it goes both ways. No sex outside marriage. There---problem solved.
Keep trying.
Remember what Rape means?
So, consensual sex with a woman is similar to being a passenger in a car? Was the male forced into sexual intercourse by the woman? If a woman was able to get pregnant all by herself you'd have point. ( I think all women who chose to have a child via sperm donors DO bear all responsibilities, willingly, but when there's an in- person sperm not so much.)
Both situations involve consent of both parties. If you want to enter my vehicle, I have to consent to you entering, otherwise it is unlawful entry. If I want to enter your vagina, you also have to give me consent, otherwise it is rape. The difference is that when an accident happens in my car after I let you into it, I don't force you to pay the accident bills now do I?
That argument is just beneath you. Even on your worst day, which apparently is today.
Why is it okay for women to own 100% of the choice on an issue, but get to face only a fraction of the responsibilities of that choice while forcing financial burdens onto the other party who has 0% choice in the decision? How about you deal with that argument instead. What other instance does *anyone* get to consent to recreational activities with another party, and then force the consequences of her choices onto the other party? Did women sign a fuckin waiver of liability before giving consent for sex? No. Therefore, your body, your choice, your bills. Don't want to live with the potential consequences of *your* personal choices regarding sexual consent? Then don't make them.
The choice to accept responsibility was assumed by both parties when they had sex that could result in pregnancy. There are other forms of sex. The mother in this "hypothetical" scenario has not evaded her responsibilities, you can be sure. But she insists on shared responsibility for both of the parties involved.
No it wasn't. If it was, then the woman would have no say in the matter once she was pregnant. The courts would say "nope, both of you consented to sex that could result in a pregnancy YOU MUST BRING THE PREGNANCY TO TERM NOW."
If men can be forced into paying child support because they consented to the possibility of an accident when they agreed to sex, then women can be forced into bringing a child to term because SHE consented to the possibility of pregnancy when she consented to sex.
Again, you can't have this shit both ways. If the dude assumes responsibility for accidents in the eyes of the court than so does the woman. She doesn't get to terminate the same way that the man doesn't get to opt out of payment. You're basically making a case that women shouldn't be able to hold sole decision power in abortions because they already accepted the potential responsibilities of getting pregnant by agreeing to sex.
Tough shit, that's the "choice" you made when you decided to fuck her.
Don't want to risk being on the hook for child support? Keep your dick in your pants.
Isn't that the male equivalent of all the "well she should have kept her legs shut! hurr durr!" arguments?
Two to tango bud. Her decision just as equally to fuck, especially in a culture where a woman's consent is the backbone of the law. She consented, understanding that pregnancy is a possibility, even when protection is used. She took the same risks, and then had 100% of the deciding power as to whether or not to take on the consequences. Then she forces the dude to pay up through the courts. Now they don't have the choice they were so often dodging the consequences on. "Tough shit" turnabout is fair play too. "Tough shit." - SCOTUS
Basically you are saying that the man gets to escape responsibility regardless of the women's choice. Abortion--no child to be responsible for. Child--still not my problem. Really?
I am saying that a man should not be held responsible for decisions he had no stake in. That is literally all.
I was saying that there's no logic in the courts forcing a man to pay for a child when he had no say in determining if that pregnancy should or should not have been terminated while simultaneously letting him off the hook for abortion expenses if the woman chooses to terminate. If the logic that men should be made to pay for children they didn't create, then they should be made to pay for abortions they didn't decide to have too right? Since the courts are all about forcing men to pay for a woman's choice, why aren't they making them pay for half the abortion if she goes that route?
They probably should be paying partly for the abortions. In fact, they often pay the whole cost of the abortion. Some politicians have faced criticism for paying for the abortions of their mistresses while advocating anti-abortion.
As they should!
If the "dude" was honorable it wouldn't require a court order. And since he has proved himself dishonorable then take him to court.
Men accept their responsibilities and don't abandon their children. "Dudes" piss and moan about how unfair life is that they are being held accountable for helping bring a kid into the world.
I am in favor, now, of State mandated vasectomies if it's proven that you've fathered children you refuse to support.
Or sooner, at puberty maybe.
Ah, so making women shoulder the burdens of the choices they 100% make is "dishonorable." Makes sense. Can you think of ANY other instance where a choice someone else 100% makes for their lives becomes your financial responsibility?
You can't say that dudes are abandoning their children when it is 100% a woman's choice to make. If the dude had a choice in bringing the pregnancy to term, you'd have a point about abandonment. Her choices, her consequences. You can't take 100% credit for being the decider and then blame parties uninvolved in the decision for refusing to support that decision.
Yep, accidents happen. The price you pay. Boo hoo.
Welp, accidents happened when RGB decided to sit on the court until death. The price you pay. Boo hoo.
Got payments?
Got a SCOTUS?
Yes, did Girl Scouts.
Do you think child support equals half the responsibility of raising a child?
I think paying 100% of the child support goes to the person who makes 100% of the decision to birth the child. Your choice, your bills.
Do you see a MANDATED role at all for the man in bringing up the child and sharing responsibilities (financial & otherwise) after the child in born? Or is your argument that the woman is always responsible for everything, because it is her choice (& hers alone)?
Perhaps you are advocating for the choice to be a joint-choice between the guy and the gal? (even then note the woman takes on a much higher burden in carrying the pregnancy to term as well as the post-pregnancy complications they have to deal with).
The woman also takes on a much higher burden for the abortion as well.
Yes. Courts can order men to pay child support. That IS a mandate.
I'm saying that if women want 100% of the choice to bring a life into the world, then they need to own 100% of the responsibilities. If they want the dude to pay for it, then they ought to bring him into the decision-making process. If instead they insist that they have 100% of the decision, then they should own 100% of the responsibilities of making that decision. Anything in between is just having your cake and eating it too.
ok, it looks like you are advocating for the sliver of men who either (1) don't know that sex can lead to pregnancy or (2) don't care & still go ahead with the act or (3) know & take precautions, which fails. The first 2 categories of men are stupid and/or reckless and should absolutely be made responsible. Only the last category of men deserve any say in the matter but only limited to supporting any decision the woman takes.
Also, being a father is not just a financial obligation but more important is the owning the responsibility of becoming a parent who nurtures and takes care of the kid and spends the time, energy to support them as he/she grows. You seem to be emphasizing the financial aspect as if that is the be-all & end-all of being a dad. Frankly men who want to shirk that responsibility should be glad the law allows them to pay their way out of the taking that responsibility.
Oh we 100% know that sex can lead to pregnancy. We just also 100% know that it's 100% a woman's choice to either keep or terminate that pregnancy, and therefore men hold no stake in that decision and should bear no stake in the responsibilities. "Being a father" is NOT part of this conversation because what I'm talking about is a woman's decision in relation to her responsibilities. If it's 100% a woman's choice to terminate or retain, then it is 100% her responsibility for raising the child is she chooses to retain the pregnancy. The dad can give money if he wants to, but it shouldn't be mandated by the courts. If it's a woman's choice to retain/terminate then it's a woman's burden to raise and pay for that child. None of this passing burdens to other people for decisions you made entirely nonsense.
1) In a sense, possession is 9/10 of the law so it's kind of natural the the woman has the final decision. 2) If it were to become a joint decision. what happens if the woman and the man disagree? How should that be settled?
The child, once born, is the responsibility of both parents. While the "baby" is a fetus in the womb, the woman is solely responsible, as it is only her physical body on the line and at risk.
If the decision to birth the child is 100% the woman's, then the responsibility is 100% the woman's. I don't get to lump you into my bills when I make a decision about my life that carries financial consequences, why do women get some special privileges to do that to men in the case of their decision to birth children? It's special pleading fallacy bullshit that wouldn't apply to any other financial decision in an individual's life choices.
Because once the child is born, it is not about the woman's life, but finally the life of the child.
Right, but the decision to birth the child is the woman's entirely, therefor the responsibility to *raise* the child falls onto her entirely. Your choice, your responsibilities.
Go back to /pol/.
Go back to defending the special pleading fallacy when it comes to choice and responsibilities.
Not sure if that's directed at me or Travis. If it's me, I am sorry, but his self-centered view of the issue is particularly galling to this woman.
And your self-centered view of having a choice and then forcing financial burdens onto men instead of assuming your responsibility is particularly galling to this man. If you want that child to have support, you marry the father. If you don't, move the fuck on and don't bother him. Don't go forcing bills onto people who don't have the choice you're entitled to. Your body, your choice, your bills.
I can see that you’re very angry about this. Might I suggest that your particular case is unusual if true and not the issue? We’re talking about abortion, not child support payments by fathers and might I add, what a swell father you must be. You see your offspring as a financial liability. What a guy.
Although I’m shocked at your earlier statement, I do see some logic in what you say here. I parented children of both sexes. Early on, I assumed that an unplanned teen pregnancy would be worse for my female child than my male child. When the teen years arrived, I was terrified to realize that if my son caused a pregnancy, we would have zero input in the outcome, whereas if my daughter became pregnant, I knew what we would choose.
To think that now our family wouldn’t even have that choice makes me terrified in both scenarios.
I'll reiterate that I WANT women to have that choice, I just also want them to have the *responsibility* that comes with the choice they fought so hard to have in the first place. I don't know of any other context where a decision that is 100% an individuals--as was the case with pre-Dobbs abortion, but the responsibility is shared with someone who didn't have a say in that decision. Maybe I'm just dumb, but I can't think of any other situation where that line of logic plays out and everyone shakes their heads yes in agreement with the principles.
Yes, I had read in your comments that you are pro-choice. (I’m now calling it pro-freedom, in an attempt to reclaim the word, that the Right seems to have confused with unlimited license).
You raise a conundrum that to me, falls in the category of “moral dilemma”, because it explores beyond the obvious surface issues. I think it would be an interesting topic to ask an ethicist to weigh in on.
It’s a part of what makes the abortion issue so fraught; there are a whole lot of branches with different angles on “rights”, and whose rights supersede the rights of others.
I thank you for your consistency throughout this thread. I’m a bit surprised at the vitriol in some responses. Emotions are very raw. I know mine are.
No. You’re talking about $$$. Keep your pants zipped and maybe you won’t have this problem in the future. Again, you sound like a swell Dad.
It's quite simple and the same for both men and women. Don't have sex if you don't want to be responsible for a child. See, equal choices for both.
That negates the whole pregnancy decision that happens in between the sex and the child. That decision is 100% removed from the decision made beforehand. You don't get to skip choices made in between and go right from sex to child. The woman has a 100%-hers decision in between. Men play a 0% role in that decision. Is she doesn't want to have to hit up the dude and the courts to get money for the child she chose to have, she should have gotten an abortion instead. This isn't the 1800's. Women have more options now than forcing their life choices onto unwilling men.
I thought that most sex was consensual. If men are being raped at that high a percentage, they should go to the police and report a crime.
What is this in reference to?
If you are unprepared for the responsibility of taking care of a child, then don't engage in the activity with the potential to produce a child. "Marry the father." What if the father doesn't want to get married? Or takes off. Lots of women get abandoned by the fathers. especially soldier fathers overseas.
Okay, but sex doesn't result in a child. Sex (sometimes) results in a *pregnancy*. A woman's choice determines what happens to that pregnancy. A pregnancy is NOT a child, no matter how many times you keep pretending it is.
The apparent haplessness of men who had sex that somehow resulted in a child.
Sex results in pregnancies. Women's choices about said pregnancies result in children (or none). The choice isn't in a man's hands my dude. Zero. No stake. Nothing.
Call us back when you can get pregnant, bud.
I will as soon as you pay for my sex change operation, Frank.
News flash - you still won’t be able to get preggers, Trav.
Travis if you want to play and will not use protection yourself well you will have to pay honey. Vasectomies is always an option.
Choosing to have sex results in pregnancies. Women's decisions result in babies or abortions. Getting an abortion is always an option if you don't think you have enough money to be responsible for your decisions. At least it WAS their choice before Dobbs anyway. Now things are different.
Hell, I’d volunteer to do it myself. Just sharpened up all my kitchen knives.
OMG. Best laugh in...at least since Friday.
Remember all those times I told people with opinions on the war on terrorism to fight it themselves before they told us how to fight that war? Remember all the cops who told the public that they didn't get to have an opinion until they did the job themselves? That's what I think about with respect to your little "call us when you can get pregnant" bit. If I'm not allowed to have an opinion on pregnancies I can't have, then people like you aren't allowed to comment on politics because you've never been a politician. Does that same logic make sense to you now?
I have been a politician. Even won my election.
The politics of your position is terrible and I hope the Republican party takes it runs with it. I'm sure some of them already are.
Politicians have won higher office on much much worse positions. This isn't the "grab em by the pussy" you think it is Kev.
What makes you so sure I’m not a politician?
My point was that people who haven't done a thing or are incapable of doing a thing don't automatically get their opinions silenced on the subject. Lots of people had opinions about the war I fought while having never served in one. I didn't go around telling them that they couldn't have an opinion on my war because they didn't serve in it. That'd be a bullshit argument right? Same with telling me I can't have an opinion on abortion because I'm not capable of giving birth.
Travis, we've seen how smart you are and how much you enjoy putting your smart to good use. At this time it seems like maybe your anger is messing with your smart, or visa versa. I used to tell my kids that anger is a way-station, not a destination. Stop there, figure out how and why you got there, then you can move along to where you want to be. Best wishes.
I'm not angry so much as I see systematic hypocrisy here. I support abortion and always have. I don't think it's right for the state to force a woman to bring a pregnancy to term. I just ALSO don't support women using their choice to force men to pay for the responsibilities of their own elective choices not to terminate. Why is it that if someone like me points out the hypocrisy here, that I accused of being angry or hating women or some such shit? I'm really not.
(shrugs) I've been judged before
I agree wholeheartedly! The problem is less about the act of abortion than about removing yet another layer of the Human Experience. The State, with the help of technology, is becoming our moral "conscience".