Male abortion rights

Celebrity said:

Attributing autonomy within a family structure to biological factors is a matter of convenience to the state. It is a farce. If the state is truly concerned with public welfare, it can use tax dollars in that respect without financially predatory behavior. That is the duty of the state.


You seem to be either confusing allocation with appropriation or being intentionally false. Either way "finding money" is quite vague. Yet you simultaneously express an interest in contribution to society. How is this reflected by the state's vested interest in parenting? The state cannot and will not force biological parents to be a part of a family. There are three scenarios which may result
1) **** you, pay me. Don't ever start another family.
2) **** you, pay me. Go out and make an amount of money which exceeds the amount necessary to sustain two families.
3) Join the family of the matriarch. If at any point she or anyone in her family doesn't like it, refer to 1 and 2.

This presents a challenge for young men with no family or weak familial ties. Furthermore, the illusion of choice is a direct consequence of the actions of the woman. Alternatively, pay up, meaning a consequence of actions of the state. This is not a mutually liberating arrangement.

Click to expand...

Too bad for the additional financial AND other burdens on either young men and women no matter what their 'family ties.' They both have choices. And they both have to pay the consequences of their actions.

All American men know that if they get a woman pregnant and she has his child, he will be required to at minimumn, pay to help support that child. Are you saying that men are not capable of controlling their decisions about having sex? I give them more credit than that.

I'm no more interested in their 'sob stories' about the effects of fatherhood on their lives (financial or otherwise) than most pro-life people are about the effects of motherhood on an unwilling or unprepared mother.

Also, no women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too. However, in all but one case, men get off scott-free.

If people want to look at this as being about 'fair' or harmful to 'family structure,' it sure impacts the women more. Biology CANNOT be ignored regarding this issue. And it cannot be made fair.

Celebrity said:

I appreciate the liberal, if pessimistic attitude of the first paragraph. I am beginning to think that it is inconvenient to describe this in terms of abortion, even though the subject at hand is abortive of a relationship to a family.

Click to expand...

This is the abortion sub-forum and most of us are going to address most things in that context.

Celebrity said:

Understand that there is a transition. Children should not be required to seek out patrons in order to become adults. Similarly, fetuses should not be required to seek out patronage in order to be become children. However you may think you are acting on the behalf of a fetus (this is not possible as no legal priveleges are extended pre-birth), you are really acting on behalf of the family. Nesting does not require financially predatory behavior.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what any of this means. But I dont appreciate additional, unnecessary financially predatory behavior on the taxpayers, of which I am one. And if the parents dont support the child, then we get stuck doing so.

Lursa said:

Too bad for the additional financial AND other burdens on either young men and women no matter what their 'family ties.' They both have choices. And they both have to pay the consequences of their actions.

Click to expand...

End sexual repression. Your statements about reproduction have no bearing whatsoever on the sexual preference of another person. Men do not have a subjective choice in the manner of abortion.

Lursa said:

All American men know that if they get a woman pregnant and she has his child, he will be required to at minimumn, pay to help support that child. Are you saying that men are not capable of controlling their decisions about having sex? I give them more credit than that.

Click to expand...

Perhaps your gross overstatement relies on the principle that sex is a right of passage which is instantaneously transformative? No, not all men know that having sex will result in a pregnancy, which will result in a pregnancy brought to term, and that this line of thought will terminate in a support order in a court of law. You cannot predict the future, and you cannot expect other men will control themselves. The law you are referencing controls those men who have and who have not yet reached financial maturity. It controls the reproductive liberty of men who have reached sexual maturity with financial sanction, a disproportionate punitive action on otherwise innocent men.

Lursa said:

I'm no more interested in their 'sob stories' about the effects of fatherhood on their lives (financial or otherwise) than most pro-life people are about the effects of motherhood on an unwilling or unprepared mother.

Also, no women that gets pregnant can avoid paying the consequences, there is no escape. There are only 4 scenarios:

--she has a kid
--miscarriage
--abortion
--dying during pregnancy/childbirth

And she can die or suffer permanent health damage from the first 3 too. However, in all but one case, men get off scott-free.

Click to expand...

I am not suggesting that women be punished for men's choices and I suggest we do the same for men in regards to the choices of women. In a sexual relationship, men do not get off "scott free" unless women so choose, which defeats the concept of autonomous freedom. One of the many assumptions in your manner of assigning sexual culpability on an individual basis is that men and woman make independent choices. Conception is a consequence of someone else's action, hence no real culpability may be assigned except to a pair of individuals. So that assumption is false.

Lursa said:

If people want to look at this as being about 'fair' or harmful to 'family structure,' it sure impacts the women more. Biology CANNOT be ignored regarding this issue. And it cannot be made fair.

Click to expand...

Its clear that your logic fails to lead us to an equitible solution and your insensitivity toward so-called "sob stories" fails to give this discussion the empathy it lacks from your side. Once again, this discussion is not a discussion about women. This is a discussion about how men and women can help overcome the false assignment of legal responsibility for a social structure by use of biological evidence. There is nothing that has been shown which suggest a DNA sample causes any type of social cohesion. Relationships are necessary to start a family. Money is necessary to operate the state, and the state is motivated to bind biological fathers in a contract in which they did not have a choice. Please discuss why no choice exists and how men should abort irresponsible finacial decisions imposed on them.

Lursa said:

How so? Can you provide examples? And how is that 'duty of the state' more important than protecting the child and the taxpayers?

Click to expand...

What is it that you are asking? I should not provide a false example. However, I will say that child support is a subjective judgement of social viability assigned regardless of age. It is not purely obective, except within biology. Patronage and biology share no common ground, even where paternity is concerned. Failure to pay support orders on an individual level should indicate a very narrow, individual problem. Failure to pay support on a broader, societal level is a very clear indication of a systemic problem. Can you provide any example which shows that child support is little more than social engineering? Enough of your "I don't want to be responsible, so figure out some other taxpayer to bear the burden" hypocrisy.

Finally, I want to remind you as I have reminded others that this discussion should pertain to choices made post-intercourse and pre birth. Once you realize that any treatment of women during this period is prenatal care, you may also notice that there are men lack a choice when they are bound to support a child which resulted from no contribution of their own to prenatal care. Isn't that a bit sudden?

Celebrity said:

If you're a socialist, or advocate social programs, this becomes a moot point because the people saying that "the baby needs to be supported" will be actually committing to supporting the baby. Otherwise they're just empty words, and in no way does that statement imply a "buyer beware" in the sexual sense. Prostitution is illegal. In a society where public debt may be created upon birth, questions arise such as:

Click to expand...

Indeed. The baby needs to be supported. Everyone needs to be supported. And if a person cannot support themselves, the government has a moral obligation to support them.

Enforced child support is just the government's way of shirking its obligations to its citizens.

This is why I support a Universal Basic Income with a child allowance. It encourages parents to stay together for the sake of their children, while at the same time removing the need to coerce unwilling men into fatherhood and threatening them with property forfeiture and imprisonment if they can't afford to pay. The current system is rife with abuse and injustice and contains perverse incentives for splitting families apart.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Indeed. The baby needs to be supported. Everyone needs to be supported. And if a person cannot support themselves, the government has a moral obligation to support them.

Enforced child support is just the government's way of shirking its obligations to its citizens.

This is why I support a Universal Basic Income with a child allowance. It encourages parents to stay together for the sake of their children, while at the same time removing the need to coerce unwilling men into fatherhood and threatening them with property forfeiture and imprisonment if they can't afford to pay. The current system is rife with abuse and injustice and contains perverse incentives for splitting families apart.

Click to expand...

I am not sure that support is a moral imperative of the community. Maybe we should be more concerned about what works well and not about making life nicer. That does not imply no assistance. But it is a different set of premises and thus requires different solutions.

joG said:

I am not sure that support is a moral imperative of the community. Maybe we should be more concerned about what works well and not about making life nicer. That does not imply no assistance. But it is a different set of premises and thus requires different solutions.

Click to expand...

A civilized society does not allow its citizens to do without basic necessities of life or deny them the opportunity for personal advancement. I think it's safe to claim that history proves that this approach leads to a healthier, happier, and more productive society than one that follows the "sink or swim" approach.

Korimyr the Rat said:

A civilized society does not allow its citizens to do without basic necessities of life or deny them the opportunity for personal advancement. I think it's safe to claim that history proves that this approach leads to a healthier, happier, and more productive society than one that follows the "sink or swim" approach.

Click to expand...

The thing is that that is not the choice, which should have more to do with how things work and less with how they feel.

joG said:

The thing is that that is not the choice, which should have more to do with how things work and less with how they feel.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that society should work? What do you suggest, rather than falsely attributing patronage on the basis that you "feel" that biological parents should support their biological children?

Celebrity said:

So you're saying that society should work? What do you suggest, rather than falsely attributing patronage on the basis that you "feel" that biological parents should support their biological children?

Click to expand...

Is that the most efficient solution?

joG said:

Is that the most efficient solution?

Click to expand...

Gee, funny you should mention efficiency in a country which was raised on slave labor. Yes, taking someone's paycheck from them is the most efficient solution when you have the government to do it for you.

How you do not see the hypocrisy of your position just blows my mind. There should be no reason which calls for the indentured servitude of individuals in a free country.

Celebrity said:

Gee, funny you should mention efficiency in a country which was raised on slave labor. Yes, taking someone's paycheck from them is the most efficient solution when you have the government to do it for you.

Click to expand...

Nope. Not really, if I read the literature correctly. It can be, but like so many things in science, it is not that simple.

Celebrity said:

How you do not see the hypocrisy of your position just blows my mind. There should be no reason which calls for the indentured servitude of individuals in a free country.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting position. You do not think that the employer should have been paying the fare? How would the servant then have been able to take the job?

joG said:

That is an interesting position. You do not think that the employer should have been paying the fare? How would the servant then have been able to take the job?

Click to expand...

Is this a joke? Child support is payed to the state.

joG said:

Nope. Not really, if I read the literature correctly. It can be, but like so many things in science, it is not that simple.

Click to expand...

What in all of science are you referring to? Be precise. I have no idea what is meant by this vague post about "literature" and simplicity.

Celebrity said:

Is this a joke? Child support is payed to the state.

Click to expand...

Child support is paid to the state and not by the state? Where?

Celebrity said:

What in all of science are you referring to? Be precise. I have no idea what is meant by this vague post about "literature" and simplicity.

Click to expand...

Literature referred to my professional and reading for interest. I read a lot of literature in economics, political science and sociology.

joG said:

Child support is paid to the state and not by the state? Where?

Click to expand...

Courts order the noncustodial parent who is paying child support to SEND THE SUPPORT PAYMENTS to what's commonly referred to as Child Support Division usually overseen by the Attorney Generals Office. Those payments received are recorded and then passed on the the recipient of the child support.

This is standard procedure by most states.

Removable Mind said:

Courts order the noncustodial parent who is paying child support to SEND THE SUPPORT PAYMENTS to what's commonly referred to as Child Support Division usually overseen by the Attorney Generals Office. Those payments received are recorded and then passed on the the recipient of the child support.

This is standard procedure by most states.

Click to expand...

Ah! I see. That makes sense.

I think that there is some conflation. I do not think that the big bad government is forceful to a fault when power is exercised responsibly within a democratic rebublic. So, I am interested in the role of officials in the executive, legislative and judicial capacities.

For example, it is duly noted that the executive branch administers child support payments. What is done with money after it is levied is the business of government agencies acting within guidelines put into law. Guidelines are not law if they work only some of the time. Meanwhile, the judicial branch is doing its due diligence to uphold the law, not through enforcement actions or guideline ethics but strictly adhering to the law. Sentencing should be fair.