More on abortion
Feb. 24th, 2006 09:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumAs might be expected there's a lot of talk about abortion in the blogospere right now.
In a few places I have seen the perrenial question, "What about the man's rights to help make the decision?"
As I see it, he doesn't have any. It's a binary choice. This isn't deciding how much money goes on one credit card or the other, or which movie to see tonight.
It's an either or. Either she carries it to term, or she aborts it.
Only one person gets to make that call. There's no way to split the Solomonic Ideal.
But, goes the cry, if she decides to keep the baby, he has to pay for it!
Qu'elle horreur. Shit happens. There are risks to sex. Pregnancy is one of them. If he didn't want the risk of a pregnancy, he ought to get cut, or buy a doll. Yeah, the good one's cost five-grand, but that's cheaper than food, clothes, daycare and college.
And, goes the flipside, what if he wanted the kid and she didn't? Well, he can talk to her, try to arrange a deal where he gets sole-custody, and she owes him nothing, but if she doesn't want to do that, he's SOL.
The argument also gets made, "He ought to be allowed to opt out."
This is the one which probably irks me more than any other.
It usually goes, more or less, like this.
In exchange for offering to pay for an abortion, he gets to walk away. If she takes it, he's out the cost of the abortion and no more.
If she doesn't, he's scot free. He, you see, "did the right thing." He offered to clean up the mess. She refused his noble offer, so she gets nothing more.
Bullshit. That's extortion. Being a single parent is hard. It limits things (jobs, housing, committed relationships) and makes life harder. He gets, in that scenario, to hang that over her head, get the abortion or suffer.
Reprehensible.
I feel for those people who want to make things just; who think that as two people are affected by the decision, two people ought to be involved in making it, but this is that simple. If abortion is an option, the woman gets to choose.
Is it better for the principles to sit down and talk about it. Probably, emotionally they probably both feel better afterwards. But it can't be required.
In a properly run world, abortion wouldn't be a real issue. Single parents wouldn't be any worse off than dual parents. Birth control methods would make accidental pregnancy more rare (and education would make BC more effective because people would use it properly).
But this isn't a perfect world, which means one person has to make the call, and that one person is the woman; she's pregnant. She is going to get stuck if he walks away (in theory he'd have to pay child support, but "dead-beat dads" wouldn't be a recurring theme in Time, and on the evening news if that were the case). He will be seen as the victim when she tries to get that child-support. She will be cast as a tramp and a harlot, conniving to get pregnant so she can live the easy life of a single mom without a husband to clean up after and all his money letting her stay at home and waste her life away on booze and other men.
It's about responsibility. One engages in risky behaviour, and one accepts the results.
In a few places I have seen the perrenial question, "What about the man's rights to help make the decision?"
As I see it, he doesn't have any. It's a binary choice. This isn't deciding how much money goes on one credit card or the other, or which movie to see tonight.
It's an either or. Either she carries it to term, or she aborts it.
Only one person gets to make that call. There's no way to split the Solomonic Ideal.
But, goes the cry, if she decides to keep the baby, he has to pay for it!
Qu'elle horreur. Shit happens. There are risks to sex. Pregnancy is one of them. If he didn't want the risk of a pregnancy, he ought to get cut, or buy a doll. Yeah, the good one's cost five-grand, but that's cheaper than food, clothes, daycare and college.
And, goes the flipside, what if he wanted the kid and she didn't? Well, he can talk to her, try to arrange a deal where he gets sole-custody, and she owes him nothing, but if she doesn't want to do that, he's SOL.
The argument also gets made, "He ought to be allowed to opt out."
This is the one which probably irks me more than any other.
It usually goes, more or less, like this.
In exchange for offering to pay for an abortion, he gets to walk away. If she takes it, he's out the cost of the abortion and no more.
If she doesn't, he's scot free. He, you see, "did the right thing." He offered to clean up the mess. She refused his noble offer, so she gets nothing more.
Bullshit. That's extortion. Being a single parent is hard. It limits things (jobs, housing, committed relationships) and makes life harder. He gets, in that scenario, to hang that over her head, get the abortion or suffer.
Reprehensible.
I feel for those people who want to make things just; who think that as two people are affected by the decision, two people ought to be involved in making it, but this is that simple. If abortion is an option, the woman gets to choose.
Is it better for the principles to sit down and talk about it. Probably, emotionally they probably both feel better afterwards. But it can't be required.
In a properly run world, abortion wouldn't be a real issue. Single parents wouldn't be any worse off than dual parents. Birth control methods would make accidental pregnancy more rare (and education would make BC more effective because people would use it properly).
But this isn't a perfect world, which means one person has to make the call, and that one person is the woman; she's pregnant. She is going to get stuck if he walks away (in theory he'd have to pay child support, but "dead-beat dads" wouldn't be a recurring theme in Time, and on the evening news if that were the case). He will be seen as the victim when she tries to get that child-support. She will be cast as a tramp and a harlot, conniving to get pregnant so she can live the easy life of a single mom without a husband to clean up after and all his money letting her stay at home and waste her life away on booze and other men.
It's about responsibility. One engages in risky behaviour, and one accepts the results.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 06:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 06:53 pm (UTC)I agree with everything you say, but this particular problem could be solved if no man ever had sex with a woman he wasn't willing to let make this decision, should pregnancy occur, and if no woman ever had sex with a man she wasn't willing to let have a say (not the final decision, but his views to be considered) in this decision, should pregnancy occur.
IOW, if you don't know this person well enough, and like and trust them enough, for that, you probably shouldn't be having sex with them.
A bizarre viewpoint, I know.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 07:57 pm (UTC)And even then that is no guarentee. Had a BC failure with someone who had been reasonable and a long term relationship and when it came down to the moment of truth he completely wigged out and started screaming for an abortion and then disappeared. (Long distance relationship.)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 06:57 pm (UTC)that is more of a choice than he currently gets.
he gets "or suffer"
but i have said all this in my journal...
to sum up, i agree he should not be able to force her to do one or the other. but if he is opposed to the option of having the baby, and she chooses to have it against his wishes, i don't think she should be able to force him to pay for anything. she makes the choice all on her own, she gets to deal with the aftermath all on her own.
If he decides when he finds out that he wants to be a father, i do not think he should be able to change his mind, but after pregnancy is determined, she is still given an option of whether or not she wants to be a mother, i believe he should be afforded an option of whether or not he wishes to be a father.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 07:35 pm (UTC)Are you willing to say the only person with a say in the matter is the male?
Because that's what you are advocating.
If he doesn't want to pay, he doesn't have to; under your system.
Assuming the pregnancy was unintended, why should he get to saddle her with all the burdens and costs. He knows it's a risk. She doesn't want an abortion, and he gets off scot free.
Given how little enforcement of child support there is (absent a name on the birth certificate, supposition of paternity can't be made; it's why the State of California tries to get a father's name, so that the rest of the state doesn't have to pay for his skipping; assuming they can get a judgement, not exactly trivial if he lives in another state when they get around to finding him).
If he wants no risk, he can keep it in his pants.
If he want's a perfect world, he's out of luck.
But I've said lots of this in your journal. The arguments don't change when the venue does.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 08:00 pm (UTC)never said that
and yeah, we are just stating the same points...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 08:15 pm (UTC)You tell me what the range, scope, and limits of that say are.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-25 12:25 am (UTC)Excuse me? HE made the choice to have sex. Unless the man has a vasectomy, he needs to be a man about accepting the consequences. (Particularly if he refused to use a condom.) When men acquire their own uteruses, then we can discuss whether men have the "option" of becoming a father. The woman has to face all the physical risks of pregnancy, which are extensive. Men do not get pregnant. They do not have the "option" to decide whether or not the woman's pregnancy continues. Biology isn't fair. Deal.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-25 01:09 am (UTC)everyone seems to assume that somehow contraception wasn't used. babies still happen even WITH birth control. less often, yes, but they happen. so if he WAS responsible, does that earn him more right? they BOTH still agreed to have sex. it is the following decision that people want to only be the woman's. i am not trying to deny her that right.
again, i have not said that a man has the right to say whether a woman can or cannot become a mother.
be careful not to put words in my mouth.
all i am saying is if she makes the choice to have the baby when the man doesn't want to proceed, she has made a decision that he has no say in, so he should not be held financially responsible at that point.
It is not fair to have it so that a woman has ALL the say, but when it comes time to pay, she can force someone who had no say in the crucial decision of whether or not to abort, to pay for the raising of the child.
you choose to make decisions on your own, you take the consequences on your own. there is no other circumstance on the books where someone else can make a commitment and you are forced to pay (outside of the bonds of marriage or some other pre-existing contract) can you name any?
no subject
Date: 2006-02-25 07:53 am (UTC)everyone seems to assume that somehow contraception wasn't used.
No, I have repeatedly said that BC can be factored in, they can go whole hog (pill, condom, diaphragm and spermicide) and she still might end up pregnant. Changes not a thing.
You keep saying the woman can't have all the say, but the say you are giving the man is the right to put all the burdens on her.
If he has some say (which you say you want, but don't define) what say does he get.
She gets pregnant. He doesn't. When Maia and I have kids, she will be pregnant. I won't. We'll be having a kid, but she'll be pregant.
The fact of the matter is that the man has the easy way out. He walks away, we call it abandoment, but rarely make him pay anything for it. If she leaves the baby on his couch and leaves, we call that abandonment too, but we put her in jail for it. Seems the relative burden placed on her by law is a bit greater than that placed on him.
As for the burdens placed on people by others, look at the drug laws. If you let me use your place for the weekend and I leave a marijuana seed in the carpet (or in your car, or on your boat) the cops can take it away from you. In that circumstance you would have less say in the situation leading to the loss of money/valuables, than you do in the case of pregnancy.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 03:44 am (UTC)um, read that sentence. it says "the same" meaning he was not tied up and forced, but neither was she
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 04:10 am (UTC)When you made the issue of choice that of having sex, then the equal participation of both partners is an issue. She didn't decide to sleep with him all alone (unless it was a case of his being raped, which is a different question, and set of issues altogether. If she raped him, and then decided to force him to pay for the kid, I'd say she has no leg to stand on).
As for the balance of the argument (that he gets to suffer for her decisions, and that somehow he should get to opt out of the costs of the kid, if she won't have the abortion he demands), I still don't see any way he is entitled to a say in the matter. All the arguements still stand.
They had sex. The risk of a kid (no matter how slight, and how stringently attempts to prevent it were made) exists. One person has to make the call , and the only fair way to make that decision (if we posit that women are people of equal standing with men) is that she gets to do it.
As pointed out by others, once a kid is born, the kid has needs, and society benefits from them being met. Since the father was present in the decision to risk pregnancy, he gets to carry some of the cost.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 08:33 pm (UTC)You speak coolly of the "aftermath," but no man will ever have to face that aftermath. When men acquire uteruses and be faced with the abortion/pregnancy dilemma, then and only then do they get to "opt out."
I understand that if you are determined to believe that a man can walk away from the obligations to his offspring, no words of mine will persuade you differently. Know this, however: your argument (such as it is) would be laughed out of court, even in front of a judge as reactionary as Roberts or Alito. Your facile belief that men can decide not to support their children is merely the latest tactic practiced by selfish men throughout the ages, who feel free to engage in sexual intercourse with no thought to the consequences.
Before you go to bed with a woman (assuming you are an adult male), I hope you are honest enough to inform her that you have no intention of supporting your child should she become pregnant.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:16 pm (UTC)i am actually the other side of the coin
i WANT children. i WANT to support them. this debate was dual sided in that i was discussing the rights of a father in all of this. where i come from is as a man who was informed after an abortion that i had been the father, and i whave always felt a little cheated by that. i understand i have no say, i am not fond of that.
but, while i recognize it is not how it is legally set up, i just believe that if a guy has no say in that choice, the one specifically of whether to abort or not, i think it somewhat unfair to automatically force him to deal with the financial reprocussions of that specific decision (the one of whether or not to abort) if he is opposed to the decision.
i agree that he has no say over her body at that point, the decision is hers and hers alone. If he is kept OUT of the decision (and ONLY if he is kept out of the decision), i don't feel he should be financially obligated. if he at any point tells her he wants the baby or anything remotely like that, then he has had a say in the decision and shoulders the financial obligation that comes with that decision and the law should fry him if he tries to back out. but if he suggests abort and she doesn't want to, then she is making the decision on her own and should be ready to face teh burden on her own; in the same way that if she chooses to abort and he wants the child, i would argue anyone trying to make him pay for the abortion (no this is not my situation, just stating my opinon)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:40 pm (UTC)There is no way someone can have, "some" say in the matter. That only works where there is a decision to be made bya lot of people, or where time, and persuasion, can be factored in.
When there are two people involed, one of them has the only vote.
If he gets to say, "I don't want you to have the kid, so I'm opting out," then he gets to walk away from a risk, and it's one for which the only way she can avoid the repercussions is to get an abortion.
So if he gets to opt out, he gets to fuck her, and forget her. He doesn't even have to worry about her not coming to find him (or failing to, should she try) because all he has to do is say, "I didn't want the kid."
The flip side sucks too, but there'e no other way to do it, unless his interest in the child somehow trumps her lack of interest. If they are equal persons before the law, then he can't have any say, because the only risk he is taking is financial (and that only if he puts into writing, or says in front of witnessess, that he wants to support the kid, if she has it).
I've pointed out there are situations where the law is far more punitive (in that RICO seizures don't require any active knowledge, much less participation, to take away everything one owns.
You've said you don't think he should have veto power, but haven't (apart from his being able to wash his hands of the child he, eyes open, took the chance of fathering) said what his say ought to be.
Barring something different from his being able to walk away; no harm, no foul, and no cost, from his actions, I don't see anything to convince me my position is wrong.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:57 pm (UTC)it, however, leads into my latter opinon, which you disagree with.
how it is: they make the choice to have sex; she gets the choice to abort or not; he has no say and his future is in her hands.
i prefer the idea: they make the choice to have sex; a discussion ensues where both get to have an opinion (abort or not); she chooses to either give his opinion weight or not; she gets the choice to abort or not; If she chose to give no weight to his opinion, she accepts all rights and responsibilities of this choice; If he chose to be a father, he is forever obligated to such, financially as well.
you don't like the second option and i am not going to convince you of it as you are set in your opinon. i see it as the first offers the woman a choice in her future after pregnancy is discovered but offers the guy none. the second offers both a choice. you do not agree. we will not convince each other of our own opinion. so it has become redundant. i know how you feel and disagree. you know how i feel and disagree. i don't know if any further points can be made here.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-28 12:39 am (UTC)If neither wants a kid, also fine.
If she doesn't want the kid, and he does... it's not so fine, but he has no burden (because there's nothing which allows her to force him to pay for the abortion).
If he doesn't want the kid, and she does (or doesn't want an abortion... for whatever reason) he's fine, in your scenario, and she isn't.
In mine neither of them is, "fine" becuase he has to pick up his end, just as she does. He doesn't have to stick around and be a parent. He can move wherever he likes, get whatever job he likes. He just has to pay for the kids needs (which don't go away, just because he does).
She has the kid. The diapers, the daycare, the hardships of finding an apartment that takes kids, the struggles to make her job, and her homelife, reconcile: the last means she probabaly doesn't have as good a job as he does, because when they want OT, she has to find a sitter, or refuse. She's gonna have a hard time finding the money to buy a house. He doesn't have to worry his new flame won't like kids, but she will.
The unexpected things, the arm that broken on the playground, and the braces... those aren't going to be built into any agreement, if she wants to get money for those, well the first ain't gonna happen and the latter will require a court fight. The Prom will come out of her budget.
If she wants to send him to a better school, she gets to pay for it, and so on. If he skips, she has to pay all the bills until (and if) she can get the courts to enforce payment. When I look at all of those, I don't see a slice of his paycheck as all that burdensome.
You prefer a system where the man doesn't have to accept any responsibilties he doesn't want to. I don't think that's just, and therein lies our point of disagreement.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-28 12:53 am (UTC)abortion.
she gets to choose whether or not to be a mother.
what i am suggesting is giving him the same right to choose not to have those responsibilities that she can already choose not to deal with.
this would be his ability to choose whether or not to be a father.
*shrug*
i agree on our point of disagreement.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-28 02:15 am (UTC)she has a choice not to accept those responsibilities already:
abortion.
So if she doesn't want an abortion, and he does, he's scot free.
Again, your version of things gives him a huge amount of say. And lets him make the choice to have sex, without any of the responsibilties she faces.
It boils down to this equation:
"I don't want an abortion."
"Well, I don't want to be a father, good luck raising our kid all alone."
He was willing to have sex with her, but he's not willing to be an adult. If he chose to drive without insurance he'd have to pay, out of pocket if he had a wreck. He can't say, "I don't want to pay for your car, after all you chose to share the road with me."
If abortion weren't an option, he'd have to pay. So the present system makes it less likely he'll have to. All in all men get the better end of the equation.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-25 02:01 am (UTC)Oh, you poor penises. You have to sit and think about your unborn child and the life he/she could have had, when women are plagued by the same thoughts while experiencing the worst physical, mental and emotional pain/discomfort they've ever encountered in their lives. Not to mention the fear, doubt and constant questioning: "Will he stay? Will he still love me and respect me if I have this child? Will he support me?" Yeah, he might say that. But will he feel the same when he is told it's a boy/girl? When he has to wake up at 3:30 in the morning every night to the crying child? When he realizes the overwhelming expenses of this venture? You can't trust anybody.
Let's not lie to ourselves. She's pretty much stuck with it no matter what. The physicality and social constructs automatically give the father more lenience to leave. It's unfortunate to be made this way, but I guess that's life.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 03:48 am (UTC)starting off with degrading comments like "you poor penises" really makes me want to listen to anything else you have to say. this is why i begin the debates i hold in my journal with rules about flames and taking things personal. i should have kept my comments there where people were being nice, even through a heated topic as this.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 04:01 am (UTC)Saying, for example, that right now women get to make men suffer is about as personal as someone (in this case
It's rhetoric, it makes a point that the speaker sees such complaints as whining. Since she followed up with substance, I'd say the shot was in bounds.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 04:16 am (UTC)i do not appreciate being reffered to as a "poor penis", and i had made no insults to women reffering to them by their genitalia. i kept it as a debate.
but this is your journal, your rules. but this kind of response (in my small worth opinion) takes the discussion off topic and makes it about who can put insults into their side.
she came at me with insults and i have never even spoken a word to her.
plus she wants to talk about what emotion a guy goes through with no idea that i have had the heart wrenching emotion of having found out AFTER an abortion that i was a father. she knew not to who she spoke, nor what experience they had. i can accept someone having an opinion that differs from me. i am less accepting of people that feel having a different opinion is grounds for insults.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 04:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:28 pm (UTC)I'm not trying to be mean. Anything that has to do with my rights I take personally.
And as for being a "poor penis," I didn't mean it as a derogatory comment or degrading insult. I meant it to be humorous (I mean really, how can one say such a thing in a serious tone?), so I could keep things light here. Believe me, I'm not a "flamer," and I hate arguing with people-- especially online. Women's issues are something I'm passionate about and can't help responding to. So let me apologize for my tone not being clear enough. I won't apologize, however, for offering a women's point-of-view, which is often severely lacking in contemporary political debates over her rights.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:36 pm (UTC)your point of view did not offend me in the slightest. i am someone who holds debates OFTEN and welcome an opposing view. i feel the only way to truley stand by your opinions is if they have been put through the fire of debate. The world is made of so many views, it would be egocentric to think that everyone had to think like me. While i do not exactly agree with you, i would lay my own life on the line for your right to feel as you do.
i would offer, though, that the initial debate in my journal included several women, some who agreed with this latter post and some who didn't. You are welcome to drop by if you want to read.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:46 pm (UTC)As for the Voltaire sentiment, the same goes for you. Thanks for the invite.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 11:05 pm (UTC)but, point taken
no subject
Date: 2006-02-28 01:30 pm (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-26 02:15 am (UTC)Both parents have the right to use birth control, it's just that the mother's ability to do so extends for a longer period (and yes ultimately I believe abortion is birth control, maybe not the best form but certainly an accurate description).
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 07:09 pm (UTC)In a perfect world, conception could not occur unless both parties wanted that child; yet another screwed-up thing about human biology, IMO.
My usual answer to men who whine about having to pay their share of the costs of bringing up a child, if the woman doesn't agree to an abortion: "You didn't want this? You should've gotten snipped before you screwed." But then, I'm not very nice anymore.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 07:18 pm (UTC)If he's responsible, he does. The Post made my blood boil by listing a series of "entitlement programs" that were being cut under the new budget. One of them was the search for/punishment of deadbeat dads. Because making a guy take responsiblity and run is an "entitlement" on that tart of a mother's part, apparently...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 07:30 pm (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 08:03 pm (UTC)""Nearly all of their savings comes from this cut to total discretionary spending," Riedl said. "That does nothing for the real long-term problem," which the Bush administration acknowledges to be entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security.
Many of the tough cuts the president did include were rejected just days ago, when Congress gave final approval to a major budget-cutting measure. Lawmakers left out the White House's proposals to cut agricultural price supports and food stamps, and to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
After a difficult political struggle that badly divided congressional Republicans, lawmakers muscled through savings from Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, federal child support enforcement and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Before Bush has even signed that legislation, he is coming back for more. His budget proposes to wring out $4.9 billion more in savings from Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, $17 million from child support enforcement and $16.7 billion from the federal pension insurance program through 2011."
Okay, on rereading they don't directly call child support an entitlement program (merely SocSec & Medicaid), but they are cutting child support enforcement, not to mention Children's Health Insurance and WIC.
"Responsibility" like this is what drives women into poverty, with the hard right spitting on them all the way for either not being able to hold onto their man or being slutty tarts for having sex.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 09:18 pm (UTC)He can choose not to have sex. If she ends up pregnant, he has no say in her next step. If he does not want the child, no one will force him to be a father - but he can be sued for support. And if the woman does not want to marry her child's sire, he might have to sue if he wants any part of being a father.
There is no completely fair solution here. One side or the other has more options and more say. Currently, the law generally favors the woman, which I guess makes sense. I don't have to like it. The fairest solution would be rather draconian.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-24 09:39 pm (UTC)I think it seems to be news to the more vocal pro-fetus* people that 100% of pregnancies are caused by men. "It's the woman's responsibility to bear the child" vs "It's the man's right to have a choice in what happens."
Also, how sad that children are seen as a punishment.
My mum was offered an abortion. She didn't take up the offer, had me, ended up homeless and ruined her life. I really wish she had had the abortion and kept working and some level of self esteem.
*Pro-life doesn't really ring true at the point where they advocate approaches which demonstratably kill a lot of women.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 10:43 pm (UTC)Shortened from, "Hear him!, Hear, Him!"
TK
I have a solution!!!!
Date: 2006-02-24 11:18 pm (UTC)Given that most males who are deadbeat parents do not give a crap about their seed growing and becoming somebody (my father included), insurance companies should offer "Pregger Insurance/Child Support Insurance".
Since most of these "men" see these pregnancies as "accidents" then, in true american fashion, the accident should be dealt with an insurance policy.
I bet you the premiums would be off the roof, but hey, its all about money.
Re: I have a solution!!!!
Date: 2006-02-25 02:03 am (UTC):)
Re: I have a solution!!!!
Date: 2006-02-25 05:40 am (UTC)Re: I have a solution!!!!
Date: 2006-02-25 07:54 am (UTC)Get enough guys to do it, and it might be affordable.
But the terms and conditions would be a bitch.
TK
Re: I have a solution!!!!
Date: 2006-02-27 04:20 am (UTC)start a company!
Culture, biology, and responsibility
Date: 2006-02-25 05:40 am (UTC)Now men want to whine that it's unfair that sex always entails some possibility of long-term responsibility? Uhh, too bad?
In a perfect world, it wouldn't be difficult to be a single parent, and we wouldn't bother with useless men who wanted responsibility-free sex anyway. They could go away, and good riddance. And having a baby wouldn't involve physical risks to the mother's health, and all children would be wanted and loved and grow up in clean, pretty neighborhoods with good schools.
But we live in this world. I don't think asking men to sweat the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy as a life-altering experience is too much to ask, or in the least bit unfair. Biology and life are both unfair, but civilization is about evening out the scales.
Re: Culture, biology, and responsibility
Date: 2006-02-25 03:49 pm (UTC)Now men want to whine that it's unfair that sex always entails some possibility of long-term responsibility? Uhh, too bad?
Poor things. Welcome to our half of the matter, where the woman has always born the risks, because biology is an unfair bitch.
Men have a choice. If you ABSOLUTELY cannot deal with the idea of having/supporting children, then have sex with women who CANNOT or WILL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, have children.
Talk to your partner. Be upfront with her, make her be upfront with you. In addition to the STD talk, how about the pregnancy talk?
DV
Re: Culture, biology, and responsibility
Date: 2006-02-25 04:11 pm (UTC)Many years ago, at a time I was both lonely, and in a set of circumstances where I figured the woman I was seeing (not exclusively) was in no mood to have a kid (it seemed counterproductive) I forgot to have the birth control talk, assuming that, as having a kid would put a whole lot of things on hold for her, she was using some (STDS had been covered).
She turned up late one month and told me she thought she was pregnant.
My reaction surprised her... I didn't ask who the father was/if it was mine, but rather, "how did it happen."
When she told me she wasn't using any sorr of BC... well I was somewhat surprised. She wasn't pregnant, and I laid in a stock of condoms. Later, when sometime after we stopped seeing each other romantically, she and a friend of mine were seeing each other.
I warned him that he might want to take charge of the birth control.
In the lessons learned department that one was a biggie, and one I thought I'd done much earlier than that. Different circles, and so different expectations.
TK
no subject
Date: 2006-02-27 04:06 am (UTC)TK