Women in the US do get to have it both ways. This is the tangible result of the Feminist revolution. Feminism teachs us that a women gets to have a family, a career, and everything she is willing to achieve. Women want it all in the name of “equality”. That is not realistic, and that is the lie of Feminism. Men do not get to have it all. Men sacrifice family life for careers, he sacrifices lesiure time and family life to support the family he does not get to spend any time with. A woman gets to choose when she starts a family, if she chooses to have a family at all. She expects to be able to have a career, a family, and the life she wants, but a man has no such luxury.
This is America getting ahead of itself. In Norway, 50% of the births are to unwed mothers. Then can do this because Norway is FILTHY RICH due to the vast natural gas reserves in the North Sea and the nearly 50% tax rate. There is no problem with men getting screwed in Norway because if a women wants to have a baby, the government pays for it.
Not so here in America. If a woman wants to have a baby regardless of the wishes of the man, she should do the decent thing and move to northern Europe. America is not there yet. The lie of Feminism in action.
steveo, chinadoll pretty much reflected my sentiments, so I’ll just add two things.
The first is a moral issue which is too grounded in religion to be put into law, and that is that one cannot have sex merely for pleasure. This is an issue on which we will never agree, so we can just contend our differences. You believe sex is only sex for the purposes of making a child, and I believe sex can be merely a physical, sometimes beautiful, sometimes lustful activity.
We should also contend that your viewpoint is grounded in Christianit beliefs, and as much as you would love to enforce your laws on us non-Christians, our Constitution does not allow that. You can disagree all you want, you can call us heathens, you can say it’s ruining society, but you can’t change it as long as you live in America under its laws.
This situation is not an issue of sex as procreation vs. sex for pleasure, it’s an issue of responsibilities, and the girl was not responsible.
The second point has to do with your scenario, girl is on the pill, guy says he doesn’t want to be a father, she still gets pregnant because she forgets to take a pill. We can agree that the fault lies in the girl, correct? She was the one who had the responsibility to take the pill, and she was the one who forget to do this.
She had a responsibility with which she did not follow through. She made the mistake, so why should her partner pay for it? I understand this is a touchy subject, and perhaps I’m missing something here, so if you still disagree, explain why. To me, it does not get simpler than that. He who errs must pay, and she erred, not him.
[quote]danmaftei wrote:
The second point has to do with your scenario, girl is on the pill, guy says he doesn’t want to be a father, she still gets pregnant because she forgets to take a pill. We can agree that the fault lies in the girl, correct? She was the one who had the responsibility to take the pill, and she was the one who forget to do this.
She had a responsibility with which she did not follow through.[/quote]
I agree with this.
For myself as a woman, I find it very insulting the argument about women who forget to take their pill and that’s how they became pregnant from a man who wasn’t ready to become a parent.
That again is that “Helpless, Hapless and Hopeless” argument, saying that women are so DUMB that they can’t figure out to use a condom or abstain for that one or two weeks after “forgetting” to take their birth control pills, and they’re too STUPID to figure out that if they’re not good at taking pills, they could utilize some other form of birth control.
Not that I’m trying to say that the woman in Dubay’s case is Dumb and Stupid, but her arguments are essentially saying that women are too brainless to use common sense or be responsible for their own actions, or to realize that having a child should be given much more planning, thought and consideration than that.
[quote]danmaftei wrote:
steveo, chinadoll pretty much reflected my sentiments, so I’ll just add two things.
The first is a moral issue which is too grounded in religion to be put into law, and that is that one cannot have sex merely for pleasure. This is an issue on which we will never agree, so we can just contend our differences. You believe sex is only sex for the purposes of making a child, and I believe sex can be merely a physical, sometimes beautiful, sometimes lustful activity.
[/quote]
I never said these things – you did. I agree that sex can be all of those things, but the point of sex is, ultimately, procreation. Therefore, anyhone engaging in sex for any reason has to be willing to accept responsibility for the results – no matter what the reason at the moment for the act itself.
Well, I could say that your beliefs are grounded in non-Christian, humanistic beliefs and you would love (and do love) to enforce your views on the rest of us.
Why is it that atheistic humanists have the right to enforce their views and make laws based upon them, but Christians who believe in the God of the Bible, have not that right? Why is it “constitutional” to promote secular humanism, but it is “unconstitutional” to promote views based upon God’s Word? May I remind you that while the Founders were not all Bible-believing Christians, many of them were, and most of them were “god fearers.”
So, yes danmaftei, I plead ‘guilty’ to being a Christian. As such, I will tell you, that if I made a baby I would support him or her and not only that, be there for my child in EVERY WAY I COULD!
Well, when you figure out how the other party is not responsible since intercourse does take 2 people, then let the rest of us know…
No, we cannot agree. You really make guys out to be blathering idiots, don’t you? It doesn’t take a genius to know that there is no 100% perfect contraception anyway. There is always a chance for pregnancy whether by human error or unforseen medical issues. Men have the responsibility for the outcome of the sexual act, since pregnancy cannot occur without ‘our’ contribution. The fact that something can go wrong doesn’t absolve men from their responsibilities. Men should act lke men – take responsibility! Otherwise, they are just boys…
[quote]
She had a responsibility with which she did not follow through. She made the mistake, so why should her partner pay for it? I understand this is a touchy subject, and perhaps I’m missing something here, so if you still disagree, explain why. To me, it does not get simpler than that. He who errs must pay, and she erred, not him.[/quote]
I think I explained my position above. I will just add something that someone else said about the “helpless female, etc.”
Please…
I agree totally, that women need to wake up and make certain that those they are allowing to have sex with them are indeed responsible and sensible men. That being said, just because the woman made a mistake, the guy sill had sex with her and therefore is responsible.
What if a condom breaks (which everyone knows it can)? The woman is then absolved? Come on’!
This poor shmuck was lied to: the Steve Martin quote sums up a mans reality perfectly.
You guys need to crush a bunch of RU-486 and mix it with powdered sugar - then offer your sweet lay some french toast for breakfast or a nice post-insemination truffle with some of the sugar on it… a couple days and as many trips to the bathroom later and you’re the greatest guy she’ll never hear from again.
Magic Mountain makes for a great date and one trip on “drop out” is usually all it takes to eliminate 18 years of potential obligation.
You can always ask her to join your MMA class for a few sessions and tell her you’ll “take it easy” by only going for body shots.
Medicine ball training is also a great way to get a workout, impact the abs, and rid of any “unwanted weight.”
I think the whole argument is a good case why abortion is wrong no matter what sex wants it .It would be like the male would want to keep the child but the mother wants to abort.
Steve-o, just this once, and ONLY just this once, will you read these words from me to you:
“I agree with you”
Fact of the matter is, if you don’t want to be a parent, DONT HAVE SEX - birth control is NOT 100%, only abstinance is (or if you’re a christian, you have to believe that abstinance is only 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% effective.)
Since when have men and women been biologically equal? We aren’t… by definition. So when it comes to legal matters of biology like birth control, abortion, and being drafted, there must necessarily be some kind of discrimination between our genders which makes some kind of sense.
There is nothing unfair about a woman having the right to choose, and men having no say in the matter. If you want to have a choice to carry a child inside of you for nine months, and you’re a man… tough shit. Get your own uterus, and THEN we’ll talk.
This case has its hurdles for this dude. I’m curious to see how this turns out.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Steve-o, just this once, and ONLY just this once, will you read these words from me to you:
“I agree with you”
Fact of the matter is, if you don’t want to be a parent, DONT HAVE SEX - birth control is NOT 100%, only abstinance is (or if you’re a christian, you have to believe that abstinance is only 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% effective.)[/quote]
This sums it up. NO SEX = NO KIDS. Don’t do the deed if you aren’t prepared to face the consequences.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
LOL knewsome’s number messed up the page size.
I have a question for the posters in this thread:
Since when have men and women been biologically equal? We aren’t… by definition. So when it comes to legal matters of biology like birth control, abortion, and being drafted, there must necessarily be some kind of discrimination between our genders which makes some kind of sense.
There is nothing unfair about a woman having the right to choose, and men having no say in the matter. If you want to have a choice to carry a child inside of you for nine months, and you’re a man… tough shit. Get your own uterus, and THEN we’ll talk.
This case has its hurdles for this dude. I’m curious to see how this turns out.[/quote]
But how do you choose those differences based on biology?
Yeah, there are differences between us. Chicks have tits and a vagina, and are generally smaller and weaker than men. I don’t know of many other differences.
So how does that apply to abortion and being drafted and whatnot? It’s not all absolute.
And of course men should have rights in these situations as well! They’re the one who provided the sperm, that makes the child as much the father’s as the mother’s.
No one has yet convinced me that it was OK for the father to be legally screwed and lied to and have to pay child support. The argument about birth control not being 100% safe does not apply here. The girl told him that medically she could not get pregnant, perhaps something like menopause. So as soon as those words came out, and soon as the girl told him she was essentially barren, he had no more responsibility as far as the chance of a kid being produced.
[quote]danmaftei wrote:
But how do you choose those differences based on biology?[/quote]
Well, I say we should look at this with common sense. Women are the ones who carry the fetus, so for a man to have legal authority over a woman’s body contents, irrespective of whether or not he provided the “seed”, seems a bit goofy. Remember that the fetus is NOT a viable legal entity. It is an infestation of foreign material which develops inside a woman. Until the pregnancy progresses to a certain point, she has control over the contents of her uterus. This is well and good.
[quote]Yeah, there are differences between us. Chicks have tits and a vagina, and are generally smaller and weaker than men. I don’t know of many other differences.
So how does that apply to abortion and being drafted and whatnot? It’s not all absolute.[/quote]
These differences come into play when we talk about the draft. It makes no sense to draft women for the infantry. They are simply not physically cut out for such stuff. This is still common sense, right?
Dude, I’m totally seeing your point in this issue. But we have to remember that the fetus is NOT a viable legal entity – it’s not even a real human being! Yeah, that sounds harsh, but it’s true. Without the woman there to grow and nurture it, the fetus goes away. It is totally dependent upon a woman to grow it into something other than a bunch of stem cells or whatnot. And I keep boldfacing “woman” to remind us all that the man is done with this transaction right after a few grunts, and just before a cigarette.
And this is well and good. This is what Mother Nature had in mind for us all, and it’s a good plan. One person of the mammal couple carries the reproductive effort, while the other mammal is free to hunt and drag dead animals back to their lair, unimpeded by pregnancy weight and yearnings for pickles and ice cream.
And again I’m seeing your point totally, and I sympathize with this poor guy. I have two children I am paying a butt-load of child support for, and I wouldn’t wish that kind of burden on somebody who doesn’t want it, but here are the “hurdles” I was talking about:
Number one, and this one is a doozy: If we look at this from an STD lawsuit viewpoint, she would have to have knowingly lied about this, and he would have to have PROOF that she knowingly lied to him. For all we know, she was just as surprised to be pregnant as he was. And this is SOOOO easy to show in court.
“Your honor, of course I had no idea I could get pregnant! The doctors told me I couldn’t! I even told him on several occasions that I was certain we couldn’t make a baby!! It just happened!!”
Case closed. Start paying for that kid you made.
Number two, again a doozy: He is a man arguing a case for reproductive rights. That’s an uphill battle in any court by simple reason of his gender. He’s going to try to establish that he has a right to determine the outcome of another person’s uterine contents. Good luck, man. His argument “she could have gotten an abortion” holds no water at ALL. It’s not up to him to decide this, and that’s what I’ve been trying to hammer home here already.
Number three: Nobody forced him to have sex. Regardless of what he was assured of in terms of his chances of making a child, he knowingly did what he did. There are cases involving men who had signed contracts with lesbians or whatever to the point of “I am only a sperm donor, I have no parental responsibilities whatsoever” and still the courts overturned this document in favor of the woman’s argument towards the man’s responsibility for his child. This makes for a difficult precedent to overcome in court.
There are only so many angles this guy can take to get away from paying. Get a DNA test, and make sure it’s HIS kid. Get an filthy mad-dog lawyer who knows how to use dirty tricks and technicalities. Get the media on your side.
Honestly, I don’t think he has much of a chance. And I’m not a pessimist, that’s just me being realistic about this.
Lathario
I think an infestation of foreign matter is grossly misstated. It is the beginning of life, an early stage of pregnancy. I do agree the father should pay support
I’ve had that “I can’t have kids” line dropped on me once, by my ex, but I sure the fuck didn’t start painting the walls of her vagina with my man spackling.
The way I see it, if she hasn’t had her “parts” removed then there’s a possibility she can get knocked up. There may be a few medical conditions where there’s no way it will happen, but for me it’s best to err on the side of caution. So if a woman still has all her machinery in tact then I wear protection.
As for her, well none of this would have happened if she would agreed with his plea to stick it in her ass.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Like Steve Martin says in Parenthood:
Women have choices, and men have responsibilities.[/quote]
Men also have the choice to not do the deed. Or to take more responsibility for contraception.
It seems like we are all assuming this girl lied, but it would not be the first time that doctors told a woman she can’t get pregnant and then she did anyway.
So when dealing with the unknown they both are equally responsible.
