Reproductive rights vs. individual rights

[Nessus]

First of all: I am not pregnant, no one I know is pregnant, no one has been impregnated with my genetic material and this is not about any forum member's pregnancy

So I read a discussion awhile back about the seeming disparity in parental rights. See, the thing is, a woman has absolute control over her body in any reasonable society. And for the record, any fucking jack-ass who wants to restrict abortion is, morally, on the same fucking level as the pimp who feeds dog shit to his 11-year-old new purchase to make her have sex with men, and these people can safely be ignored and ridiculed. The unfortunate corollary to this, however, is that a woman also has the absolute right to tell a man to fuck off, she is destroying his potential baby and he can't do dick about it.

In the mind of an Internet lolbertard, this evokes a call for an equal right for a man to perform a financial abortion: Give boys the right to say, during pregnancy, for the woman to fuck off, he is financially aborting this baby, and he cannot be held liable for their upbringing and life. Conversely, he would have zero legal rights towards the child. This would, supposedly, right the disparity between reproductive rights; a man cannot force a woman to bear his child, but a woman could also not force a man to any responsibility towards a child he did not want.

Personally, I think I'm against such an idea. The real-world result of such a policy would result in un-educated, dumber than average and ethnically challenged women to have even more children who are not supported, who will have a shitty education and will most likely wind up living shitty ghetto lives. It's a free-for-all for dumb, shitty guys to fuck women without fear of repercussion (how sad it is that we can equate children to HIV) willy-nilly.

One solution suggested in the discussion was a functioning wel-fare state which takes care of all children equally, where the role of child support is diminished to a triviality, but obviously this flies right in the face of our current culture of FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE!!!

Anyone have any ideas or silly cartoons on the subject?

[Omega]

a woman has absolute control over her body in any reasonable society.

[Wraith]

Personally, I think I'm against such an idea. The real-world result of such a policy would result in un-educated, dumber than average and ethnically challenged women to have even more children who are not supported, who will have a shitty education and will most likely wind up living shitty ghetto lives. It's a free-for-all for dumb, shitty guys to fuck women without fear of repercussion (how sad it is that we can equate children to HIV) willy-nilly.

One solution suggested in the discussion was a functioning wel-fare state which takes care of all children equally, where the role of child support is diminished to a triviality, but obviously this flies right in the face of our current culture of FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE!!!

These two paragraphs seem to contradict. You don't like that men could have unprotected sex without fear of repercussion, so you want to remove the repercussions? The idea you're suggesting is just the same one as the policy you're against, but on a larger scale. Also seems to help the "FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE" mentality by saying society will pay for however many children people too stupid to use a condom can pop out.

Also, why isn't this in D&D?

[Dreadnaught]

I see another contradiction -- if men can't financially disengage from an unwanted child, it will give more women a sort of "incentive" to still have a child that's unwanted by at least it's father. Plus an expensive court system clogged with deadbeat dads reneging on financial commitments.

It seems like the implicit goal, Nessie, should be to encourage as many people as possible to get abortions if they aren't ready to have a child (and make them understand when they aren't ready to have a child). Right?

[Loki]

Why not just get rid of child support except in cases of divorce and have the government give each mother who makes less than x amount of dollars just enough money to raise the child (i.e. so there's not enough left over to benefit the mother). That would get rid of most of the incentive for having children just to get money (whether from a "father" or the government). Of course this avoids the moral issue of women being able to abort a fetus that a man wants to be their child. I'm not sure if there's any easy answer there, but it doesn't seem right to give the potential father absolutely no say.

[Catgrrl]

If we could just implant some sort of sterility chip that can only be removed when two people actively decide to have a child, that would really be a nice solution. Only after taking extensive parenting classes and seeing a financial advisor.

I know that sounds crazy, but it actually would be a great invention for the future.

[Being]

If we could just implant some sort of sterility chip that can only be removed when two people actively decide to have a child, that would really be a nice solution. Only after taking extensive parenting classes and seeing a financial advisor.

I know that sounds crazy, but it actually would be a great invention for the future.

The first sentence sounds great but the second sentence doesn't sound as crazy as it does repressive. In effect that would limit child-rearing to a certain class of people.

[Catgrrl]

That's true. Maybe just a parenting/childcare class offered by the department of health or something.

[Omega]

That's true. Maybe just a parenting/childcare class offered by the department of health or something.

do you live in america? the crazy anarchists here will not comply with those requirements. I saw we poison the food supply at 99 cent stores with compounds affecting spermicidal secretion or whatever girls have. just as efficient.

[GGT]

More equality (or parity) to me would mean more birth control choices for men beyond what they have now (not having sex, using a condom, vasectomy).

[Nessus]

These two paragraphs seem to contradict. You don't like that men could have unprotected sex without fear of repercussion, so you want to remove the repercussions? The idea you're suggesting is just the same one as the policy you're against, but on a larger scale. Also seems to help the "FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE" mentality by saying society will pay for however many children people too stupid to use a condom can pop out.

Also, why isn't this in D&D?

I suspect un-educated, lower class males will fuck willy-nilly either way, but with child support (or a big ol' wel-fare state) we're making sure that the kiddy-winks will have enough cash to eat and get a sub-par education, instead of being fed dog shit to make them prostitute themselves. And certainly any society willing to dole out the necessary cash to keep kiddy-winks from eating dog shit isn't one that's content with 'fuck you, I got mine', that society would be quite content with the forced feeding of dog shit.

It's not in D&D because I cuss a lot.

I see another contradiction -- if men can't financially disengage from an unwanted child, it will give more women a sort of "incentive" to still have a child that's unwanted by at least it's father. Plus an expensive court system clogged with deadbeat dads reneging on financial commitments.

It seems like the implicit goal, Nessie, should be to encourage as many people as possible to get abortions if they aren't ready to have a child (and make them understand when they aren't ready to have a child). Right?

I'm not going to dig around for figures for this, but I'm going to out-right call bull-shit on the idea of a woman who has a kid to entrap a man. Especially just for the financial "gain". If there was a woman somewhere in America who did so, and fed the child dog-food and dog shit, and bought herself clothes with the child support money, okay, we'd read about her in the news, but I don't think an aberration like that should get in the way of legislation. Of course the FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE society will ensure that she's not an aberration for long, but never mind that.

The goal is that women (and men) take fucking care of contraceptives and use a fucking condom or something! I speak passionately for abortions only because hundreds of thousands of women in the US have little practical possibility of obtaining one, and these unwanted, uncared-for brats grow up to vote Republican. Who will usher in the Apocalypse in the form of a nuclear Holocaust because rar rar taxes. No one wants that.

[GGT]

It's not in D&D because I cuss a lot.

I'm not going to dig around for figures for this, but I'm going to out-right call bull-shit on the idea of a woman who has a kid to entrap a man. Especially just for the financial "gain". If there was a woman somewhere in America who did so, and fed the child dog-food and dog shit, and bought herself clothes with the child support money, okay, we'd read about her in the news, but I don't think an aberration like that should get in the way of legislation. Of course the FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE society will ensure that she's not an aberration for long, but never mind that.

I'm not gonna dig around for stats, either. But it's a cyclical problem in poorer communities, mostly with teenaged pregnancies. They're not doing it for financial gain, but I recall studies showing many (1) don't use birth control, because our sex-ed isn't very effective, and/or (2) young girls want to keep their baby "for someone to love". Almost a baby-doll type syndrome, because they don't have nurturing love at home from adults, or any better role model. So we end up with kids having kids, pregnant teens in HS, young girls in HS with their infants.

The goal is that women (and men) take fucking care of contraceptives and use a fucking condom or something! I speak passionately for abortions only because hundreds of thousands of women in the US have little practical possibility of obtaining one, and these unwanted, uncared-for brats grow up to vote Republican. Who will usher in the Apocalypse in the form of a nuclear Holocaust because rar rar taxes. No one wants that.

That's why I think a better future would be in better male birth control. Nip it in the bud, so to speak. No longer having (the young teen) females carry both the responsibility for BC and pregnancy, and raising the child, but to include the other half of the equation just as much; males with a shared responsibility that isn't just child-support.

[Wraith]

I suspect un-educated, lower class males will fuck willy-nilly either way, but with child support (or a big ol' wel-fare state) we're making sure that the kiddy-winks will have enough cash to eat and get a sub-par education, instead of being fed dog shit to make them prostitute themselves. And certainly any society willing to dole out the necessary cash to keep kiddy-winks from eating dog shit isn't one that's content with 'fuck you, I got mine', that society would be quite content with the forced feeding of dog shit.

The kind of assholes would prostitute a child, what on earth makes you think they'd stop because it was cheaper and less risky to keep a kiddy harem?

[Nessus]

I don't understand the question.

[Wraith]

I don't understand the question.

All the problems you're trying to address with your solution, you're actually making worse. Although I don't believe it's at all common currently, you're creating further financial incentive for child prostitution. More applicable to reality, you're removing consequences to unprotected sex for would-be deadbeats. While I know you probably won't care about this next point, you're also heaping on more burden on society as a whole to do this.

[Nessus]

Wait, what exactly is 'my' solution here? I don't think I provided one.

[Wraith]

You're not supporting the expanded child support payouts/"big ol' wel-fare state" then? It sounded like you were, but alright then!

[Ominous Gamer]

I've been down the abortion path
the "oh shit, I'm a parent" path
and the child support path (via Brandy's ex).

They're all broken, but especially so for the way we currently handle child support payments.

[Nessus]

I'd like to live in a society where it wouldn't matter whether Johnny was born into a rich family or a poor one, but the US cultural hegemony ruined that for everybody, so now we're shooting for the next best thing. Do we penalize dead-beat dads with child support, or penalize everyone with taxes? The hurf durf FUCK YOU I GOT MINE society favours child support.

[rumrunner]

If we could just implant some sort of sterility chip that can only be removed when two people actively decide to have a child, that would really be a nice solution. Only after taking extensive parenting classes and seeing a financial advisor.

I know that sounds crazy, but it actually would be a great invention for the future.

What time period do you live in? Though not a "chip" there are many contraceptive methods available today. If a woman willingly has unprotected sex and becomes pregnant as a result, why then should she be the only voice in whether or not that child should be born? I am not against abortion, but if no one forced her to be a stupid fucker (literally), she can't then tell her accomplice you have no right to raise your own progeny. A slippery slope here. What about the case where the man believes the woman when she says she's on the pill, gets pregnant, and then tells the poor fool he's gonna pay for life? Too many variables for a single school of thought.

[Catgrrl]

Er, there isn't a pill for men.

And I've been on birth control for 9 years minus the portion I went off to have a planned pregnancy, so yes I know what the fuck birth control is. I agree women should be more careful with their own bodies, but it takes two to tango.

So, to preplant a chip into all people would be a nice sci-fi solution. Keep in mind my original post was only half-serious since this isn't in D&D so I can get away with it.

[Omega]

First of all: I am not pregnant, no one I know is pregnant, no one has been impregnated with my genetic material and this is not about any forum member's pregnancy

Da fuk, weren't you a girl?

[Timbuk2]

This is the 'internet', where everyone is male.

[GGT]

Er, there isn't a pill for men.

There ought to be. Plus a sub-dermal implant, and a temporary vas deferans device, and monthly injections. Just like women's options. Then BC would be more effective, more equal, with shared responsibility beyond wearing a condom. Unintended pregnancies would plummet.

[Timbuk2]

Er, there isn't a pill for men.

There ought to be.

There soon will be.

28/06/2010
Until now all attempts to develop a male pill have failed with scientists working on a contraceptive jab for men given by doctors.

But researchers in Israel have finally been able to create a oral pill that deactivates sperm before they reach the womb.

And theyve developed a version that means it only needs to be to be taken once every three months.

The breakthrough pill could be available in as little as three years, according to the scientist behind the discovery.

Unlike the jab form of the male pill it doesnt use a combination of the male hormone testosterone and the female hormone progesterone to block pregnancy.

The scientist behind the male pill discovery has developed a tablet that removes a vital protein in sperm that is required for a woman to conceive.

So while sperm still get through to the uterus they are unable to fertilise an egg.

Using this approach, researchers believe they have a pill that is 100 pc effective at stopping pregnancy.

Not only is it long lasting but it also has other pluses. There are no side effects as suffered by women who take the contraceptive pill.

Men on the male equivalent hormone jabs, which are still undergoing trials report feelings of moodiness, depression and loss of sex drive.

[Catgrrl]

That's great news!

Pills aren't 100% effective (had a coworker get pregnant while on the pill) so it would be nice to have something that might be 100%. (I'm curious, do guys know that women still have a minute chance of getting pregnant while on birth control? It seems like I hear alot of people say, "It's ok, she's on the pill" and not know that you're not completely protected. Actually, alot of women probably believe the same thing.)

I'd still urge a woman to be on the pill at the same time as a man would because you can't be too careful. There's always a chance something might not work as intended. Always look out for yourself; don't assume that the other person is taking their meds as directed or knows what the hell they are doing when it comes to safe sex.

[Hazir]

I personally think that the idea of child-support is rather useless if it's not volunteered by the father. The costs of simply awarding some sort of benefit to a child whose parent has an income under a certain level to me seems a whole lot more sensible.

Unlike some people in this thread I do not think that women who have children and stay at home to take care of said children are evil monsters that need to be punished with some severe sort of poverty.

[LittleFuzzy]

That's great news!

Pills aren't 100% effective (had a coworker get pregnant while on the pill) so it would be nice to have something that might be 100%.)

Any claim to be 100% effective is largely hype, not reality.

[Dreadnaught]

I'm not going to dig around for figures for this, but I'm going to out-right call bull-shit on the idea of a woman who has a kid to entrap a man. Especially just for the financial "gain". If there was a woman somewhere in America who did so, and fed the child dog-food and dog shit, and bought herself clothes with the child support money, okay, we'd read about her in the news, but I don't think an aberration like that should get in the way of legislation. Of course the FUCK YOU, I GOT MINE society will ensure that she's not an aberration for long, but never mind that.

The goal is that women (and men) take fucking care of contraceptives and use a fucking condom or something! I speak passionately for abortions only because hundreds of thousands of women in the US have little practical possibility of obtaining one, and these unwanted, uncared-for brats grow up to vote Republican. Who will usher in the Apocalypse in the form of a nuclear Holocaust because rar rar taxes. No one wants that.

Madam you completely misunderstand me. My point was wrapped in the idea that society probably has a compelling interest in minimizing the number of babies born to parents who aren't able/willing/ready to raise a child. Not allowing potential fathers to opt-out of financial parental responsibilities gives some encouragement for women to have children without the advantages of a two-parent household.

My corollary to that is a question: if society has an interest in minimizing the number of "unwanted" babies, is there an abortion ratio that we would consider "too high"?

[rumrunner]

Er, there isn't a pill for men.

And I've been on birth control for 9 years minus the portion I went off to have a planned pregnancy, so yes I know what the fuck birth control is. I agree women should be more careful with their own bodies, but it takes two to tango.

So, to preplant a chip into all people would be a nice sci-fi solution. Keep in mind my original post was only half-serious since this isn't in D&D so I can get away with it.

It takes two to tango is true, but only one partner gets to choose the tune, and can force the other to keep dancing. I'm merely stating that once the decision that both parties made results in a pregnancy, only one of them has control of the consequences. In my own clumsy manner I'm trying to say that, ideally, this decision should made before being sexually active. That each person is responsible for making their desires clear to the other. Not very romantic I admit, but neither is an unwanted pregnancy. Sorry ladies, but that is the cost for sexual equality.
Edit: I assumed you, like most people in developed countries, knew about BC. I was being intentionally asinine to make the point that better contraception is not the answer.