fortyninethousand322 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 they always do stuff you don't agree with. the bottom line is you don't get to choose. you are not an island. you live in a society you have to follow that society's rules. and a government is required to make those rules. Let's be honest here, wouldn't societies be much better if they were voluntary? If you want to be in a more progressive society you can go do that. If you want a more traditional kind, go there. Etc. The US is a collection of different values, it does no service to people to hold a vote and hold everyone in the US accountable to only one set of those values. 1
Chocolat Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 If someone is so afraid of unwanted pregnancy, they should abstain from having sex with people they don't trust. It's that simple. People in trusting relationships can still have different views on whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy. Granted, as people get older, there tends to be more thought (and discussion) about these events ahead of time. Younger couples may well have trust but completely disparate views about what should happen in the case of an unintended pregnancy. There are too many exceptions to trust, including partners who deliberately lie; those who, through ignorance, forget to take a pill or re unaware of drug interactions that cause the pill to be ineffective; or those who experience acidents (recalled pills, broken condms, etc.). Just as it takes two to get pregnant, it should take two to make the decision to become parents.
dasein Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 That's all good and lovely in theory, but in practice, it would leave more children with even less support than they have now. If a woman chooses to carry to term, the child's interests are paramount. This is a logically consistent position, provided the person holding it is prolife and not prochoice. If a person can conceive of a fetus as disposable, not a human being with attached human rights, at any point in gestation, why then can they suddenly shift to "save the children?" when it's time to get child support? If it can be fit to be sucked out and disposed of one minute, how can it become a precious child that demands 18 years of involuntary servitude the next on a cultural scale? The BEST outcome of allowing men to opt out would likely be more women deciding NOT to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and disadvantage children in that way. But of course the dialogue never approaches that point. Currently, single motherhood is a cottage industry over much of the U.S. Just by pumping out several otherwise unwanted babies, women can secure a pretty good lifestyle for themselves on the backs of the taxpayers and dumb men. Whole Section 8 apartment complexes go up in my area, brand new, very nice, pools, gates, you would never know they are public housing, full of single mothers paying $300 a month rent for two bedroom apartments. There is a line to get the apts. Men need not apply. I went to one and asked if I could rent one of those apartments. The social worker in charge looked at me like I was a Martian. Had I a "little cash cow" in a stroller, and been a woman, I would have been welcome, "Come right in!!" Now it's funny that as "child this and child that" as the left is, it never wants to talk about the incarceration rate among people from single mother households, nor about just how good an upbringing a child can get while being used as a cash cow to secure benefits. No, it's all about "men should pay" always "men should pay." It's really about "give me your money," and always has been.
verhrzn Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Agreed. Just not from the government. Free the market, and more birth control options will be available and affordable. Yes, because freeing the market works so awesome for things like regulation, labor standards... I would much rather give my control to a democratic government than the business world. Why? Because at least in a government, I have SOME control... I can campaign and vote for policies and politicians who support my voice. In business, I have NO voice.
Chocolat Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 The choice men have is to wear a condom, or avoid sex with women they feel would not respect their wishes via reproduction. Why is this such a terrible option? Why is this a terrible option? Because it is ridiculously naive. What if the man wears a condom and it breaks? What if a woman who previously declared she would never want a baby now, changes her mind once the reality of a pregnancy set in? What if, what if, what if.... Why do you skip this step and go right to legislating women's bodies? Who said anything about legislating women's bodies in this thread?
fortyninethousand322 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Yes, because freeing the market works so awesome for things like regulation, labor standards... I would much rather give my control to a democratic government than the business world. Why? Because at least in a government, I have SOME control... I can campaign and vote for policies and politicians who support my voice. In business, I have NO voice. And you will continue to have these big fights then. Even a "landslide" election results in 60% super majority. That means 40% are unhappy with the outcome. Do you expect them to just accept the result and say they're wrong? In the government you have hardly any "control", you have the illusion of control. In the business world, you frequent the businesses you want reject those you don't. You have no option with government policies you don't like. Get rid of the regulations and patent laws regarding women's birth control and you get affordable BC very quickly. 1
somedude81 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Why is this a terrible option? Because it is ridiculously naive. What if the man wears a condom and it breaks? What if a woman who previously declared she would never want a baby now, changes her mind once the reality of a pregnancy set in? What if, what if, what if.... One thing I'm scared of is if I'm with a steady GF and we've gotten to the point where we stopped using condoms because she's on the pill. And somehow she gets pregnant. What are my options?
Kamille Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 People in trusting relationships can still have different views on whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy. Granted, as people get older, there tends to be more thought (and discussion) about these events ahead of time. Younger couples may well have trust but completely disparate views about what should happen in the case of an unintended pregnancy. They can have disparate views - and a set of my friends had disparate views. It was really hard on them but they figured it out (because they trusted each other). I think people are talking about this issue as if the people who find themselves confronted to unwanted pregnancy hooked in a bar and fundamentally hate each other. I'm sure that happens. But let's consider this: it takes couple who are trying to get pregnant an average of one year to acheive it. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people who face an unwanted pregnancy have an on-going form of relationship. Similarly, the majority of child-support cases are the result of broken marriages, not unwanted pregnancies. It's important not to muddle these issues. Just as it takes two to get pregnant, it should take two to make the decision to become parents. Yes. Agreed 100%. I never said anything to the contrary.
dasein Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Behind every corrupt, unethical businessman is a corrupt, unethical politician. One cannot exist without the other. Competition in the marketplace sorts things out otherwise very well. When entrenched central bureaucracy is added to the mix, though, corrupt businessmen pay corrupt politicians to protect their interests and crush out any looming legitimate competition. They laugh at all of us while pitting us against each other and selling us a bill of goods. This is how all regulations and laws work in the U.S., despite how they are sold to the the public, when you take the time to understand them, look beneath the surface, and see what's really going on. This is the reason we have a 14,000 page tax code. The more voluminous the law, the more subject to corruption and the more expensive and discouraging to rising competition. Entrenched bureaucrats get rich, entrenched corporate interests get rich, lawyers and accountants get rich. The other 99% of us suffer. That your vote has any impact on this process is an illusion, other than a vote to dismantle government. Wake up, open your eyes.
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 22, 2012 Author Posted March 22, 2012 ... Which is why women should have more access to contraception, and not be required to have another person's permission or road blocks for an abortion. Again, I point to the fun house mirror logic of this mindset: that women shouldn't have access to contraception or abortion because of how it affects the men (men don't like condoms, men don't want to pay for birth control, men might want the babies!) but then men should also get to decide to not support the child they are partially responsible for. If it were my choice everyone would be required to use birth control and nobody would be allowed to be a parent without a license. However, as it stands today... nobody has the right to force others to pay for their personal healthcare needs. 99% of businesses will do so because it makes financial sense. Those who don't are already being economically punished for their choice. Look... the issue of abortion and birth are never going to be "equal" because of biology. Until men can carry the fetus and experience the pain of pregnancy and labor, the decision to continue the pregnancy or not is the woman's choice because it is her freaking body. It is not right, and never will be right, to control what someone else does with their body. The choice men have is to wear a condom, or avoid sex with women they feel would not respect their wishes via reproduction. Why is this such a terrible option? Why do you skip this step and go right to legislating women's bodies? It's blatant hypocrisy no matter how you try to spin it. You want the choice, but your not willing to extend that right to men. I'm sorry but you are saying a man needs to be responsible for his actions... and yours too.
FitChick Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 many of us can just get a vasectomy (I'm actually considering it) that would solve the problem pretty well. I'll never understand why more men don't do this. You spend a little money to save a LOT of money later. I can't believe men are such babies (!) about two tiny incisions in their scrotum. Most of the men I date have had vasectomies and say it was less painful than going to the dentist. Interestingly, it's the educated upper and upper middle class of both sexes who opt for sterilization more so than the uneducated working class. Men who are sterile are more likely to get more sex since the women won't have any pregnancy worries. Men who worry about a woman getting pregnant to get money out of him no longer have that worry. Win-win!
Crusoe Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Forcing people to do something they don't want is never the solution. That is the opposite of freedom. Freedom is acceptance of all responsibilty. The more people don't accept responsibilty, the more freedom will be taken away from us.
somedude81 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I'll never understand why more men don't do this. You spend a little money to save a LOT of money later. I can't believe men are such babies (!) about two tiny incisions in their scrotum. Most of the men I date have had vasectomies and say it was less painful than going to the dentist. Interestingly, it's the educated upper and upper middle class of both sexes who opt for sterilization more so than the uneducated working class. Men who are sterile are more likely to get more sex since the women won't have any pregnancy worries. Men who worry about a woman getting pregnant to get money out of him no longer have that worry. Win-win! That's because a vasectomy is not a temporary solution. But if it was, and could be undone if I eventually get married, then I would get it done ASAP.
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 22, 2012 Author Posted March 22, 2012 Yes, because freeing the market works so awesome for things like regulation, labor standards... I would much rather give my control to a democratic government than the business world. Why? Because at least in a government, I have SOME control... I can campaign and vote for policies and politicians who support my voice. In business, I have NO voice. Think about it. The average company has less than 50 employees... our government 350 million subjects. Where are you going to be able to exert the most control? Huh? Fact is that you support the government in this just because you agree with it. We will have another Bush come to office... and at that point I expect you to sit quietly and take your just deserts. If you beg for authoritarian control of your life... then you live with what you get! Let's be honest here, wouldn't societies be much better if they were voluntary? If you want to be in a more progressive society you can go do that. If you want a more traditional kind, go there. Etc. The US is a collection of different values, it does no service to people to hold a vote and hold everyone in the US accountable to only one set of those values. This is pretty much it. Welcome to the Libertarian party. 1
joystickd Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 This whole argument is ridiculous. Two people in this before hand can do want people have done for a long time is COMPROMISE. Everyone on the sex and reproduction issues points the finger at the other gender to avoid having some personal accountability. Man you wear the condom or woman you take the pill. WTF! Hell do both. If you got to bitch that much about that issue I wouldn't want you to bring a damn baby in the world. 1
TheBigQuestion Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 This is how all regulations and laws work in the U.S., despite how they are sold to the the public, when you take the time to understand them, look beneath the surface, and see what's really going on. This is the reason we have a 14,000 page tax code. The more voluminous the law, the more subject to corruption and the more expensive and discouraging to rising competition. Entrenched bureaucrats get rich, entrenched corporate interests get rich, lawyers and accountants get rich. The other 99% of us suffer. Lawyers get rich? Hey now. Ain't nothin' wrong with that 1
Author Untouchable_Fire Posted March 22, 2012 Author Posted March 22, 2012 Behind every corrupt, unethical businessman is a corrupt, unethical politician. One cannot exist without the other. Competition in the marketplace sorts things out otherwise very well. When entrenched central bureaucracy is added to the mix, though, corrupt businessmen pay corrupt politicians to protect their interests and crush out any looming legitimate competition. They laugh at all of us while pitting us against each other and selling us a bill of goods. This is how all regulations and laws work in the U.S., despite how they are sold to the the public, when you take the time to understand them, look beneath the surface, and see what's really going on. This is the reason we have a 14,000 page tax code. The more voluminous the law, the more subject to corruption and the more expensive and discouraging to rising competition. Entrenched bureaucrats get rich, entrenched corporate interests get rich, lawyers and accountants get rich. The other 99% of us suffer. That your vote has any impact on this process is an illusion, other than a vote to dismantle government. Wake up, open your eyes. You will never be able to convince people to stop sacrificing their freedom for small benefits. Do you know how much birth control costs? I sell depo-provera and It's about $15 a shot. A woman could buy birth control for the same price as 2 packs of cigarettes. I really struggle to believe that price is cost prohibitive. It's human nature to sit on your butt and ask a king to come fix all your problems. Europeans lived under kings for 2000 years... they have never truly tasted freedom. Let's not fall into their trap.
Anela Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 This is precisely the kind of attitude that gives feminism such a bad image. Woggle, that's a troll. He's been signing up with different names. Oops. Sorry. I hadn't seen Silvermercy's post.
Anela Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 To be fair many women on here have been very supportive. I don't think all feminism is like what you describe but the fact that they don't seem to do anything to distance themselves from the misandrists really hurts their cause. I haven't seen anyone involved with misandrists, though. You once accused me of being one, when I'm not. Sorry to kill your thread elsewhere. Nice to know that you feel better after opening up to your wife.
Woggle Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I haven't seen anyone involved with misandrists, though. You once accused me of being one, when I'm not. Sorry to kill your thread elsewhere. Nice to know that you feel better after opening up to your wife. I am sorry if I accused you of being one. I am not saying anybody on here is one but if you go to any feminist board or if you research modern feminism you will see that it attracts many women that just flat out hate men I have yet to see too many prominent feminists denounce even the Scum Manifesto which is blatant misandry. I really do believe that most men want mutual respect and equality for men and women but nobody with an ounce of self respect is going to support something that they believe hates them and sadly that is what the image of feminists today are and the image the media loves to promote. They do to feminism what religious right has done to christianity.
Kamille Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 I really do believe that most men want mutual respect and equality for men and women but nobody with an ounce of self respect is going to support something that they believe hates them So true no matter what the issue is. Word to Woggle!
somedude81 Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 You will never be able to convince people to stop sacrificing their freedom for small benefits. Do you know how much birth control costs? I sell depo-provera and It's about $15 a shot. A woman could buy birth control for the same price as 2 packs of cigarettes. I really struggle to believe that price is cost prohibitive. Seriously? It's that cheap? Something has to be wrong or every woman who is sexual active but doesn't want to get pregnant should be on it.
verhrzn Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Seriously? It's that cheap? Something has to be wrong or every woman who is sexual active but doesn't want to get pregnant should be on it. i don't know where he's getting his information (sources please) but the ones I'm finding say it's more along the lines of $35-75, along with doctor's fees. You also need to take the shot every 12 weeks. (So every 3 months.) The side effects include weight gain, a higher chance of depression, decreased sex drive, and nausea. Math time... the shot is an average of $45, 4 times a year. That's about $180 a year, without exam and doctor fees. If your insurance doesn't cover it (mine doesn't), that's entirely out of pocket. When you only make 20k a year, and might also be supporting a family on that income, that expensive of a procedure can actually break the budget. (Sources: Depo Provera – What is Depo Provera Depo-Provera - Birth Control Shot Depo-Provera (Birth Control Shot) Effectiveness, Risks, & More) 1
zengirl Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 It's blatant hypocrisy no matter how you try to spin it. You want the choice, but your not willing to extend that right to men. Personally, I'd extend it in one direction but not the other. I'd never say men can determine whether an abortion should be had, but they should be given the choice within a short timeframe (as short as the window you have for legal abortion, starting from the date they first know) whether they want paternal rights or not. No backsies after that period. In that case, they'd be obligated to pay for half the cost of an abortion, whether the woman had one or not. Of course, since some women would then have children that they could not support on their own, it would increase the social burden slightly. Which is why people won't agree to it -- but I'd have no issue with it, FWIW. What I cannot abide is someone telling me what to do -- either way -- with my own body. This is a logically consistent position, provided the person holding it is prolife and not prochoice. If a person can conceive of a fetus as disposable, not a human being with attached human rights, at any point in gestation, why then can they suddenly shift to "save the children?" when it's time to get child support? It's logically consistent if you look at it scientifically. (First of all, we abort both embryos and fetuses, more commonly embryos. Let's get the terminology right, as it does matter.) I believe you gain human rights when you have all the biological qualities of a living homo sapien. An embryo or a fetus do not --- in fact they are still going through biological stages that mimic evolution. They are living, like a parasite, completely dependent upon another living organism (biologically, not metaphorically or situationally). They are simple not people --- not in the scientific sense of what it means to be human. A baby is a person. A late-term fetus that can be delivered early (become a baby) and live outside the body, even with modern technology being necessary, I'll even accept as a person. A fertilized embryo or early term fetus has a long way to go before it becomes a person. If it can be fit to be sucked out and disposed of one minute, how can it become a precious child that demands 18 years of involuntary servitude the next on a cultural scale? The "preciousness" of a child is relative, of course. Nobody is suggesting you must see the child as precious. It's just that society doesn't want to support other people's children to that degree. And just as it's cruel to use a woman as a human incubator, it's cruel to insist she get an abortion. Both are actually physical trauma. Just as someone cannot and should not be able to mandate you get get any operation or prevent you from one you feel is necessary and is considered medically sound. The BEST outcome of allowing men to opt out would likely be more women deciding NOT to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and disadvantage children in that way. But of course the dialogue never approaches that point. It's interesting, but as I said above, still cruel. I don't see single motherhood as a "cash cow" industry as you say -- most single mothers I've met live FAR below my standard of living, regardless of how hard they work. A few meet my standard of living and support themselves. If they receive child support, it's through a divorce settlement and because the husband did not want joint custody. Women would and should also be mandated to pay child support under such circumstances. However, I actually would have no problem removing children from mothers who prove unfit by refusing to be a productive member of society. The thing is, you have to have a good place to take them that is better than that environment. That generally costs more than the social programs that support "welfare Moms" which certainly cost very little today, actually. We spend a LOT more on many other things.
zengirl Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 i don't know where he's getting his information (sources please) but the ones I'm finding say it's more along the lines of $35-75, along with doctor's fees. You also need to take the shot every 12 weeks. (So every 3 months.) The side effects include weight gain, a higher chance of depression, decreased sex drive, and nausea. Math time... the shot is an average of $45, 4 times a year. That's about $180 a year, without exam and doctor fees. If your insurance doesn't cover it (mine doesn't), that's entirely out of pocket. When you only make 20k a year, and might also be supporting a family on that income, that expensive of a procedure can actually break the budget. (Sources: Depo Provera – What is Depo Provera Depo-Provera - Birth Control Shot Depo-Provera (Birth Control Shot) Effectiveness, Risks, & More) Depo is free at many PPs these days (subsidized), but a lot of women cannot handle the side effects. I know I cannot. I get violently ill from regular-dose BC -- when I asked about the shot once, my doctor was extremely alarmed. It can be very dangerous for thin women, apparently. Most doctors don't bother advising because most of the people who get the shot are so down-on-their-luck they cannot afford hormonal BC. So they go through massive pain and screw their bodies up to save a few bucks. Sad.
Recommended Posts