It never fails…

Hmm. Copyright violation there buddy, copying my whole frickin’ post. I really didn’t come here to argue. You are entitled to your own opinions just as I am entitled to mine. Maybe calling you an asswipe without any further proof was a bit harsh. I’ll give ya that. But like I said earlier, it burns my ass to hear men and even women, who have never gone through such a thing, or been faced with something like this, pass judgement about something they know nothing about.

That’s all I meant. I get a little passionate sometimes.

Copyright violation? Blockquotes and links mean nothing, I guess.

Heh. Baby-killer!

Well, I’m not a fence sitter on the issue, but I’ve noticed the same shit here I’ve noticed in the real world. You cannot discuss certain issues and express an opinion.

Somewhere along the line, abortion was added to the constitution. It’s right there next to gay marriage.

Now, owning a gun?

Well hell, that’s nowhere in there.

Same old same old.

I’m jumping between two threads, but I did want to see if I could add my two cents to the debate, as it pertains to being able to have an opinion on the matter of abortion based on what’s between your legs.

I think the point isn’t that you’ve got a cock instead of a pussy, it’s that you don’t have a womb. A man can never get pregnant. It necessarily follows that a man can (probably) never be involved in a pregancy against his will. If young Jack accidentally knocks up pretty Diane, two American kids living in the heartland, Jack has the option to skip town. Every man has that choice. Unwanted preganancy? Just walk away. Even easier, just say “it wasn’t me.”

Now, of course I’m not saying that you, Vinny, would do that, or anybody else here. But it happens all the time. It has happened for thousands of years.

You start to get into the realm of science fiction, but imagine how different societies would have formed, how religions would have been shaped, if both men AND women could get pregnant.

As it stands, though, it has never been against the law for a man to “abort” his ties to his unborn child. That’d be something to behold: if it’s against the law for a woman to abort her pregancy, than it would be also against the law for the father to ignore or walk away from his responsibilities as well.

If young Jack accidentally knocks up pretty Diane, two American kids living in the heartland, Jack has the option to skip town. Every man has that choice. Unwanted preganancy? Just walk away. Even easier, just say ?it wasn?t me.?

Oh boy, that’s one stretch. The reality of the matter is that, as it stands, the men do not have a choice. See, Jack didn’t knock up Diane. Jack and Diane made a choice and as a result of that choice Diane got knocked up. It was a mutual choice. They both got down and knocked knees. In this scenario it is only Diane who has the choice. She can decide that she is neither financially or emotionally ready to have a child and decide to abort the pregnancy even if Jack is willing to take care of the child on his own. Jack has no choice, no say in the matter. Conversely Diane can choose to have the child thus forcing Jack to 18 years of financial servitude to a child he was neither financially or emotionally ready to deal with . . . It?s called hypocrisy.

Nah, it?s only choice if it is her choice. Don?t give me that tired story that the woman has no choice but to carry the child for nine months. Do the math; nine months vs. 18 years . . . It?s called hypocrisy.

Also, in yet another disturbing trend, there are many cases of men finding out through DNA testing that a child they?ve been forced to financially support is not their child. Contrary to the evidence they are still forced to financially support a child that is not theirs. You?d think that you would have every ?right to choose? organization out in force to rectify this most egregious violation of choice yet all you will hear is the empty sound of tumble weeds rolling through a desert ghost-town . . . It?s called hypocrisy.

So, take your so-called right to choose and how it?s the men who have the choice argument and kindly blow it out yer ass.

Now, just to make things clear, I’m not talking about a forced pregnency via rape.

Also, you blather on with: That?d be something to behold: if it?s against the law for a woman to abort her pregancy, than it would be also against the law for the father to ignore or walk away from his responsibilities as well.

Uh, where have you been? It is against the law. Ask any man who is getting his salary garnished up the ass or spending time in jail for failure to own up to his responsibilities.

Wow, Daniel. Such hostility, such a chip on your shoulder. You really must do a better job of explaining how that bitch Diane has such control over poor Jack, how he’s completely and utterly without a choice in the matter.

Jack wants the kid and Diane doesn’t, then Diane’s the bad guy. Jack DOESN’T want the kid, and Diane does, well, hey, guess what — she’s STILL at fault.

It also appears that you equate a monthly cash payment to being a responsible father, and that if poor, choiceless Jack doesn’t WANT to be a father, then he can be extorted out of his good, hard-earned money for 18 years to pay for some damned kid he never wanted in the first place.

So Jack can still run far, far away. You are correct about paternity law, but all that means is that Jack is now buying his freedom.

What can Diane do in a similar situation, assuming that you think abortion should be illegal? Carry to full term, give birth, then give her child up for adoption? What else? How else can she legally escape from a situation she’s not prepared to handle?

(And both you and Vinny are quick to condemn a woman who can’t keep her damn knees closed. It takes two to tango. Where’s your condemnation for the man who can’t slip a rubber onto his dick? You wanna talk about making choices? That’s Jack’s first fucking choice, right there: if he doesn’t want to be making babies, but he wants a little back-seat lovin’, he can certainly do something about it)

And one more thing. I’ve really had it with the whole choice bullshit.

Why is she bestowed the choice to terminate a pregnancy, but not held to a standard of responsibility for chosing to get pregnant in the first place?

Are both not choices?

Last I checked, unless you had it forced upon you, sex was optional.

Hostility? Hardly, just stating the facts. Facts that you seem to twist. When did I ever say Diane is the bad guy? I didn’t. I never said Jack didn’t have any choice in the matter. What I did say is that his choices end after he sticks his dick in Diane. Learn some reading comprehension. The main point I’m making is that the choice is not equal as a matter of law; duh.

No, I don’t equate a monthly cash payment with that of fatherhood but the law does; thatís a fact and in this situation lets stick with facts.

Also, nothing in my argument is concerning the legality of abortion. I only touched on the hypocrisy of the way the law deals with it.

Also, where did I condemn a girl for not keeping her legs closed? I didn’t. I said exactly what you said; it takes two to tango. Therefore the choice should be equal.

In the future, if you want to come across as credible, you should brush up on your reading comprehension and try to use a little logic.

Part One: Allow me to illustrate where I read hostility in your arguments: “conversely Diane can choose to have the child thus forcing Jack to 18 years of financial servitude…” or “take your so-called right to choose and … kindly blow it out yer ass…” or “also, you blather on…” or “ask any man who is getting his salary garnished up the ass.”

Financial servitude? Salary garnished up the ass? Those seems less like “facts” and more like hostile opinions about the perceived injustices of the legal system. Why do you think it’s “financial servitude” if he’s part of the mutual consent that got Diane pregnant in the first place? Wouldn’t he simply be doing the right thing?

“When did I ever say that Diane is the bad guy?” You didn’t. But I was attempting that reading comprehension thing, where most of your first paragraph seems to be pointing out Diane’s hypocrisy. I looked for the words “law” or “legal” in there, but didn’t find any, so I’d assumed you were refering to her hypocrisy, not that of the law.

“I never said Jack didnít have any choice in the matter.” Really? Funny, because I thought with all of my lousy reading comprehension and all that I read these three sentences: “The reality of the matter is that, as it stands, the men do not have a choice,” and “In this scenario, it is only Diane who has the choice,” and “Jack has no choice, no say in the matter.”

“The main point Iím making is that the choice is not equal as a matter of law; duh.” Duh? Duh? If that’s your main point, then why is the first time you mention the word “law” is in response to my blathering? Equality is never mentioned, although you do rail against hypocrisy. Because hypocrisy has nothing to do with equality, perhaps you can understand why I missed your main point.

Part One: Allow me to illustrate where I read hostility in your arguments: ìconversely Diane can choose to have the child thus forcing Jack to 18 years of financial servitudeÖî

And how is this hostile? It’s not, it’s a simple matter of fact. Jack has no choice in this regard while Diane has all of the choice, period. It’s hypocritical in that what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander.

I’ll give you the “blow it out yer ass” but I have little patience with non-sensical double standards.

As far as ìask any man who is getting his salary garnished up the ass.î Again, there is not hostility there, just a statement of fact. These are not perceived injustices, these are injustices in every meaning of the word. Keep in mind, the being held to a financial responsibility is not the injustice but, rather, the double standard that the man has no choice in the matter while the woman does.

Hypocrisy has everything to do with equality in this regard. The notion of applying rules to one of two parties who are equally responsible for an outcome (pregnency) and not applying the same rules equally to the other party is hypocrisy. So, no, I don’t understand why you missed my main point.

Speaking of twisting words, I NEVER wrote anything about monthly cash payments equating to fatherhood.

Hmm, what do you call this? It also appears that you equate a monthly cash payment to being a responsible father . . .

Further more when you write this: You really must do a better job of explaining how that bitch Diane has such control over poor Jack, how heís completely and utterly without a choice in the matter. You make a feeble attempt at putting words in my text that I did not write. I never called Diane a bitch. To even insinuate that I may have even meant that is a disingenous stretch at best.

Please try to follow along. Twice I refer to a hypothetical situation, and iíll ask it again here: IF abortion were illegal, then what choices would be available to both a man and a woman, if, for whatever reasons, they didnít want to continue with the pregnancy?

Maybe this is where we have the largest misunderstanding. I don’t necessarily believe that abortion should be illegal. My main concern was with the statements that you made concerning the lack of choice to our hypothetical Diane and the seemingly abundant choices of her cohort in hay-rolling, Jack. I’m just saying that the fact that Jack does not have the same legal choices as Diane is not equal and the fact that those so concerned with “choice” are only concerned when said choice is threatened in Diane’s regard.

So, in answer to one of your questions: Twelve weeks after conception, fourteen, they realize sheís pregnant one or the other wants out. What are they to do? Right now Diane is able to decide that she is either emotionally or financially ready or not to have a child and act accordingly. Throw into the mix whatever her moral convictions may be. I simply think that Jack should have the same choice. Right now he doesn’t.

As an aside, hereís an interesting article about paternity suits and DNA testing, and how many states have passed legislation to prevent exactly the types of unfair ñ but not hypocritical ñ situations you describe.

Didn’t see a link to “here”. Anyway, the situations I described are not what’s hypocritical, what is hypocritial is the reaction from the so-called choice rights groups and how the law, in many jurisdictions, deal with it.

My original response stands as does my take on your comprehension.

I don’t think he has that option without still paying child support. I know of parents who have given up their parental rights in the case of someone else wanting to adopt. Is that what you mean?

Daniel,

I’m not going to get bogged down in refuting everything you’ve written. In all likelihood, you’d probably just reiterate your fundamental assertion that I can’t comprehend your argument anyway.

The crux of your argument seems to appear in this paragraph. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong:

Right now Diane is able to decide that she is either emotionally or financially ready or not to have a child and act accordingly. Throw into the mix whatever her moral convictions may be. I simply think that Jack should have the same choice. Right now he doesnít.

It’s not fair that the man doesn’t have the same choice. The legal system perpetuates the hypocrisy? Is this pretty close?

You think that in the case where the woman doesn’t want to have the child but the man does, then he should have the same legal rights to… umm… “force” that woman to carry the child to full-term so that he can be the rightful father? That it’s a gross injustice that in this situation he isn’t able to make a choice? Am I warm?

Although I think you’re talking about the exception, not the rule here, what with the many millions of mature teenage men out there who are ready to embrace fatherhood, but I will give you that this IS unfair.

Under current law, they both have the same choices: continue the pregancy, or terminate it. The unfairness, the gross injustice comes into play ONLY when the two choices are at odds? It’s a small grid, not too many options, so here’s where the chips fall, depending on how Jack and Diane react to the news.

MAN WOMAN RESULT
NO NO ABORTION
NO YES BIRTH
YES NO ABORTION
YES YES BIRTH

You can see by following the columns, that pretty much whatever the woman decides dictates whether or not the child is born or not. Perhaps this is why you feel that Jack doesn’t have any choices. The woman ALWAYS seems to get what she wants.

Is this the part that bothers you? That if the man doesn’t want a child, he’s “forced” into “financial servitude” to take care of a kid he doesn’t want, but if he DOES want the child, he can’t then force the woman to give birth, and then force HER to pay HIM child support?

RKB,

You pretty much sum it up. Perhaps I should clarify something though: Jack has no choices after conception. Itís not a matter of me or anyone else feeling that Jack has no choice. The fact is that he doesnít, period. I donít know about Diane always getting what she wants. Diane could very well be making choices to do things she may not want to do but feels she needs to do for various reasons.

Under current law, they both have the same choices:

Wrong. The fact is that after conception Jack has no choice in the matter and is completely in the hands of whatever choices Diane may make. That fact does bother me a bit as any injustice does. But it does not bother me as much as the fact that those who espouse a ìright to chooseî approach apply such a hypocritical double standard.

Kriket,

The guy that gave up his parental rightís never had to pay child support or provide medical insurance or benefits to the child from that moment on. Eventually, my friend got married to a great guy who did adopt the girl when she was four.

Uh, your friend should get a lawyer because I guarantee that, if the situation is as you claim, that she has some back child support coming her way and that she will be able to get it via wage garnishment if need be. Legally giving up legal rights does not forgo legal responsibility. There is not one jurisdiction in the US where by giving up oneís parental right that one can skate on child support. I will repeat; not one jurisdiction. In fact I doubt she would even have to get a lawyer. She could probably just go to the local Department of Recovery Services, tell them the guyís address and theyíd take care of the rest.

You seriously believe that? What if he decides to leave, skip town, hit the road? You donít think thatís a choice that he makes of his own volition?

You are splitting hairs in a rediculous manner which is rendering this whole conversation moot. The choices you are talking about are choices in other regards. Sure, he can leave town, hit the road, or whatever. He can even choose to have a ham sandwich. It still does not change the FACT that he is legally finincially liable for said child for the first 18 years of said child’s life. That is not a choice that Jack has ANY control over. In fact Jack has NO control over that. Diane, however, does have control over that in her regard. She has choices in this regard, Jack does not.

The analogy you use with your children is so completely un-related as to boggle the mind.

Coming full circle here are the facts:

After conception the man has NO choice and NO control over his future as far as the child is concerned. The woman has all the power and choices.

What you are calling choices are not really choices. Unless there is a prospect to act on a choice than it’s not really a choice. Hell, I could make a choice to tranform you into a tree but If there is no real possibility of it ever happening than it is not really a choice.

Please, try to stick with practical reality here.

I say thatís complete and utter bullshit.

And you would be wrong, period.

No, you got downright nasty.

You can think what you want, and I’ll think what I want, but don’t you dare tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about just because I have a cock between my legs and not a pussy.

Demonstrate your openmindedness a little more next time, cut down on the assumptions, and you won’t come off badly; with or without passion.

I’m an admitted fence-sitter on the abortion issue. That said the Daisychick does come across a bit close minded to say the least. Plus, she has a thing or two to learn about copyright violation.

Also, I noticed the same old tired argument; “Unless you’ve gone through it you have no idea bla, bla, bla . . .” See, I’ve noticed that for the abortion rights people it’s all about them and their rights. For the anti-abortion people it’s about the children.

I will say that I probably do support limited abortion rights but, like most so called rights, I have no problem with its regulation.

And what medical school did she graduate from?

I think the point isn?t that you?ve got a cock instead of a pussy, it?s that you don?t have a womb. A man can never get pregnant. It necessarily follows that a man can (probably) never be involved in a pregancy against his will. If young Jack accidentally knocks up pretty Diane, two American kids living in the heartland, Jack has the option to skip town. Every man has that choice. Unwanted preganancy? Just walk away. Even easier, just say ?it wasn?t me.?

That’s the worst argument you could possibly make, and I’m definitely not doing this one again… But I’ll cut right to the end result:

If women have a womb, and women have all that responsibility, no woman should get “accidentally knocked up.”

It’s mutual, but if you want the responsibility to rest on the shoulders of the woman because of biology, than she has a responsibility to keep her legs locked at the knees…

(And before you uterus bearing creatures get on my case, I know there’s rape, incest and molestation; I’m not talking about that, mmmkay?)

Damn, Vinny. What’s up with your comments section? Maybe I jacked a tag somwhere.

What I said was if you’re going to grant a woman more weight becuase she has a womb (your words) and more weight because she can get pregnant, you should also grant her more responsibility if she gets pregnant.

Otherwise all the wombs and pregnancies don’t really mean shit unless you can use them as an excuse to blame someone else.

You can’t say it’s her choice to abort a baby and both of their choices to have it.

It’s either mutual or it isn’t.

True. But most people, married, single, whatever, do not equate having sex with pregancy. The choice is about whether or not to have sex. The more intelligent choice, if you do not want the sex to result in a pregancy, is to have some kind of protection.

Sometimes that doesn’t always work out. Hence a non-rape situation in which neither the man nor the woman “chose” the pregancy.

Which, I suppose, is where the argument for abstinence comes into play.

Allow me to illustrate where I read hostility in your arguments: “conversely Diane can choose to have the child thus forcing Jack to 18 years of financial servitude…” or “take your so-called right to choose and … kindly blow it out yer ass…” or “also, you blather on…” or “ask any man who is getting his salary garnished up the ass.”

Financial servitude? Salary garnished up the ass? Those seems less like “facts” and more like hostile opinions about the perceived injustices of the legal system. Why do you think it’s “financial servitude” if he’s part of the mutual consent that got Diane pregnant in the first place? Wouldn’t he simply be doing the right thing? As an aside, here’s an interesting article about paternity suits and DNA testing, and how many states have passed legislation to prevent exactly the types of situations you describe.

“When did I ever say that Diane is the bad guy?” You didn’t. But I was attempting that reading comprehension thing, where most of your first paragraph seems to be pointing out Diane’s hypocrisy. I looked for the words “law” or “legal” in there, but didn’t find any, so I’d assumed you were refering to her hypocrisy, not that of the law.

“I never said Jack didnít have any choice in the matter.” Really? Funny, because I thought with all of my lousy reading comprehension and all that I read these three sentences: “The reality of the matter is that, as it stands, the men do not have a choice,” and “In this scenario, it is only Diane who has the choice,” and “Jack has no choice, no say in the matter.”

“The main point Iím making is that the choice is not equal as a matter of law; duh.” Duh? Duh? If that’s your main point, then why is the first time you mention the word “law” is in response to my blathering? Equality is never mentioned, although you do rail against hypocrisy. Because hypocrisy has nothing to do with equality, perhaps you can understand why I missed your main point.

Speaking of twisting words, I NEVER wrote anything about monthly cash payments equating to fatherhood. In my original “blather” and in my follow-up, I wrote about RESPONSIBILITIES to UNBORN children.

Please try to follow along. Twice I refer to a hypothetical situation, and i’ll ask it again here: IF abortion were illegal, then what choices would be available to both a man and a woman, if, for whatever reasons, they didn’t want to have the child?

Keep it simple, please. I don’t need moralizing, or lessons about how their choices were already made. Twelve weeks after conception, fourteen, they realize she’s pregnant one or the other wants out. What are they to do?

Legally? If abortion is illegal? For the woman: she carries to full term.

For the man: it’s not against the law to break up with your girlfriend. It’s not against the law to move to a different state. Yes, yes, of course he might have to pay some sort of compensation to the woman, after the birth, assuming she can prove that it’s his child. But, as I hope I’ve made fairly clear by now, if abortion were legal, he’d be the only member of this mutual consent party that has the option, the CHOICE, to walk away from THE PREGNANCY.

You, friend, might want to brush up on YOUR reading comprehension before assaulting mine.

Finally, you’re right: you didn’t condemn a girl for not keeping her legs closed. I was re-reading quickly, and combined your stance with Vinny’s. I apologize for the mix-up.

Part Two: Speaking of twisting words, I NEVER wrote anything about monthly cash payments equating to fatherhood. In my original “blather” and in my follow-up, I wrote about RESPONSIBILITIES to UNBORN children.

Please try to follow along. Twice I refer to a hypothetical situation, and i’ll ask it again here: IF abortion were illegal, then what choices would be available to both a man and a woman, if, for whatever reasons, they didn’t want to continue with the pregnancy?

Keep it simple, please. I don’t need moralizing, or lessons about how their choices were already made. Twelve weeks after conception, fourteen, they realize she’s pregnant one or the other wants out. What are they to do?

Legally? If abortion is illegal? For the woman: she carries to full term.

For the man: it’s not against the law to break up with your girlfriend. It’s not against the law to move to a different state. Yes, yes, of course he might have to pay some sort of compensation to the woman, after the birth, assuming she can prove that it’s his child. But, as I hope I’ve made fairly clear by now, if abortion were legal, he’d be the only member of this mutual consent party that has the option, the CHOICE, to walk away from THE PREGNANCY and his RESPONSIBILITY to his own unborn child.

You, friend, might want to brush up on YOUR reading comprehension before assaulting mine.

Finally, you’re right: you didn’t condemn a girl for not keeping her legs closed. I was re-reading quickly, and combined your stance with Vinny’s. I apologize for the mix-up.

As an aside, here’s an interesting article about paternity suits and DNA testing, and how many states have passed legislation to prevent exactly the types of unfair — but not hypocritical — situations you describe.

by the way, Jack has the choice of relinquising all parental rights to the child, thus relieving him of responsibility for the wellbeing of the child. I know this is an option – a friend of mine’s ex boyfriend did that when her child was born.

(forgive spelling… I’m tired.)

The guy that gave up his parental right’s never had to pay child support or provide medical insurance or benefits to the child from that moment on. Eventually, my friend got married to a great guy who did adopt the girl when she was four.

p.s. the link was under “interesting article” not “here” in my previous post.

“The fact is that after conception Jack has no choice in the matter and is completely in the hands of whatever choices Diane may make.”

You seriously believe that? What if he decides to leave, skip town, hit the road? You don’t think that’s a choice that he makes of his own volition?

What about those rare cases where the man kills the woman and her unborn child? Not his choice, then, either?

What if he asks her to marry him so the child won’t be born out of wedlock? Or if they’re already married, and he files for a divorce? Maybe he’s an abusive spouse/boyfriend, and threatens to beat her unless she gets an abortion.

None of these are his choice?

You might come back and say that Diane can do any number of things in response to these things, but those would that doesn’t negate the fact that Jack’s a living, sentient being, capable of determining at least some of his own destiny. He may WANT Diane to do something differently, to make a differerent decision, but his response from that point forward is entirely on his shoulders.

Sometimes my kids pout if they don’t get dessert. Sometimes they might throw a tantrum. Sometimes they beg and plead and bat their pretty little eyes, trying to get me to say “yes.” Sometimes they just shrug and move on.

They don’t have a choice about whether or not they get dessert (that’s my decision) but they have PLENTY of choices on their way to making an appropriate or inappropriate response.

I think we’re just going to have to disagree with this one, especially if you keep stating things as FACTS that aren’t really.

Over and over you state as clear FACT that a man is financially liable for his offspring, for at least eighteen years. Time and again, you state as FACT that he doesn’t have a choice about this.

I present a few alternatives.

Not choices, you say, nor more a choice than would be choosing to turn someone into a tree. “If there is no real possibility of it ever happening than it is not really a choice.”

Fine. Ignore the millions of single mothers living in poverty who, as I’ve mentioned before, do not have the resources to enforce payment of child support.

Or even if the DO receive child support, you fail to recognize that as a CHOICE that the father has made — TO PAY SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY EACH MONTH IN LIEU OF ACTUALLY ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS.

A man has the fucking choice to say I DO NOT WANT TO BE A FATHER. He can CHOOSE to walk away from the pregnancy. Yes, one POSSIBLE result of that CHOICE is that he is required to pay child support. But again I’ll ask: why the fuck shouldn’t he? If he’s not willing to actually play an important role in the growth and development of his child, why the fuck SHOULDN’T he be on the hook for a little financial support?

If abortion were illegal — the fundamental assumption of this entire conversation — a man would CONTINUE to have that CHOICE.

A woman, on the other hand, would have NO CHOICE but to carry the pregnancy through to full term.

But as I said before: we’re not going to agree here. After conception, you think a man “has no choice and no control over his future as far as the child is concerned.” I say that’s complete and utter bullshit. To each their own.