Abortion and the Earnings Gap

Celebrity said:

This is wrong. I am not suggesting that anyone extort mothers. Until you fix your argument, I cannot address any of the further claims which are contingent upon this fallacy.

ex·tor·tion
/ikˈstôrSH(ə)n/
noun
the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

To the contrary, failure to allow men parental choice is extortion.

Not only are you wrong, but the opposite of what you have asserted is true.

Click to expand...

Do men knowingly put themselves in the position that enables this? That answer is yes.

Men choose to take this risk. They know that if a pregnancy occurs, the woman has choices that can affect his future.

How is it extortion if the man knows this ahead of time and still decides to gamble?

tecoyah said:

snip.... in communications.

Click to expand...

Great, maybe next time your common "opinion" can be supplanted by relevant information rather than vaguely dismissing my post. That is what I call "passive aggressive."

Actually, I'm not sure I can really take away any specific critique from this. You didn't address my follow up, either. Is it hard for you to communicate with other people when you engage in this type of dialog?

Lursa said:

Do men knowingly put themselves in the position that enables this? That answer is yes.

Men choose to take this risk. They know that if a pregnancy occurs, the woman has choices that can affect his future.

How is it extortion if the man knows this ahead of time and still decides to gamble?

Click to expand...

Forced fatherhood forcibly obtains money through the use of legal force by forcing men to pay money to the state.

By the definition of extortion, money is forcefully extracted by the state from unwilling men.

You question how it is 'extortion' if the man knows he is taking a risk and still decides to gamble. This is irrelevant. It is very much like asking why a woman wants to be raped if she wears provocative clothing. Since it's her body, and her choice, she can choose to be more modest if she does not want to be raped. But it is wrong to rape regardless of whether a woman wears provocative or modest clothing.

The interpretation of the word 'extortion' in the case of forced fatherhood does not depend on prior knowledge of risk, as much as the interpretation of a rape by a judge would depend on whether or not it was just to exploit a woman sexually, instead of how a woman decided to dress on that particular day or night.

Lursa said:

Do men knowingly put themselves in the position that enables this? That answer is yes.

Men choose to take this risk. They know that if a pregnancy occurs, the woman has choices that can affect his future.

How is it extortion if the man knows this ahead of time and still decides to gamble?

Click to expand...

Why do you support a hypocritical argument that women do not consent to parenthood by having sex but me do consent to parenthood by having sex?

OlNate said:

Ok, cool...you think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. Wasn't asking for a debate, but I generally respond to quotes, so...there ya go.

Again, thankfully, this is something no one is willing to entertain in the numbers required to make the change, so...enjoy your hypothetical. But maybe watch where your sperm goes at the same time, if you wish to avoid this great oppression we men are burdened with...maybe dust off those old sex ed books, if there's any confusion on how to arm yourself for the "revolution"... (spoiler alert...it's a condom)

All flippancy aside, if you were on here talking about wanting to better empower men to protect themselves with a better form of birth control, I can get behind that. It's stupid that men don't have a birth control pill option, for example, we need one. But if you're looking for support for dead beat dads to be dead beat dads, ya go the wrong guy, your time is better spent in a different direction.

Click to expand...

Why is it that when a woman makes a personal choice, she is 'empowered,' yet when a man makes a personal choice, he is a "deadbeat?"

You think I'm wrong, but the definition of extortion is very clear.

I have proven you wrong, but I want to also show you why your argument is antithetical to the American way of life. First of all, I support the use of birth control and it should be a prerogative of both men and women. But if it is your argument is that men are "empowered" by being sexually neutralized, then I find that offensive as an American. We live in a rich, diverse culture. This is not a white nation, and it is not a nation of women. To some extent, we can coexist with one another peacefully. But we did not achieve this by sterilizing our country. We will not achieve it by sterilizing men. Condoms break, and it should not be up to a woman what to do with a man's money if she chooses to puncture his condom.

So, will America be ruled despots who criminalize ejaculation or sterilize men to achieve some end? I certainly hope not, because a country in which men are oppressed is not a country where I want to live. That is offensive and disgusting to any honest, red-blooded American man.

Lursa said:

Do men knowingly put themselves in the position that enables this? That answer is yes.

Men choose to take this risk. They know that if a pregnancy occurs, the woman has choices that can affect his future.

How is it extortion if the man knows this ahead of time and still decides to gamble?

Click to expand...

Celebrity said:

Forced fatherhood forcibly obtains money through the use of legal force by forcing men to pay money to the state.

By the definition of extortion, money is forcefully extracted by the state from unwilling men.

Click to expand...

So you couldnt even answer the very simple questions.

Men werent forced to risk being a father. THey chose to gamble and then lost.

Is paying taxes extortion? Some say yes but the courts say no. We all have to pay even tho we dont like it.

Is gambling extortion, when someone is required to pay up when they lose? Nope...it's legal and ethical consequence of taking a risk.

So...you are completely off-base on this attempt as well.

Celebrity said:

Why is it that when a woman makes a personal choice, she is 'empowered,' yet when a man makes a personal choice, he is a "deadbeat?"

You think I'm wrong, but the definition of extortion is very clear.

I have proven you wrong, but I want to also show you why your argument is antithetical to the American way of life. First of all, I support the use of birth control and it should be a prerogative of both men and women. But if it is your argument is that men are "empowered" by being sexually neutralized, then I find that offensive as an American. We live in a rich, diverse culture. This is not a white nation, and it is not a nation of women. To some extent, we can coexist with one another peacefully. But we did not achieve this by sterilizing our country. We will not achieve it by sterilizing men. Condoms break, and it should not be up to a woman what to do with a man's money if she chooses to puncture his condom.

So, will America be ruled despots who criminalize ejaculation or sterilize men to achieve some end? I certainly hope not, because a country in which men are oppressed is not a country where I want to live. That is offensive and disgusting to any honest, red-blooded American man.

Click to expand...

Surely any honest, red-blooded American man is competent and responsible enough to take the very simple and necessary steps to avoid impregnating someone unintentionally? Driving a car is not criminalized, but if you act like a jackass, and you smash into something, you're on the hook for the damage. If it was combined negligence with another party, so are they. This is the basic concept of liability and responsibility, I'm not sure why some men feel like what they do with their dick should be excluded from that.

Empowerment vs. dead beat. I mean, it's down to definitions, not sure why this is upsetting. Women have been empowered with the right to bodily autonomy. It's a verb, and doesn't imply good or bad, one way or the other. It is what it is. And when men shirk their legally defined obligation to their children, they're dead beats...it's a term with a specific definition, again, it is what it is. Not sure how else to answer your question.

Again, if you want to make things easier for men to have sex without getting themselves in an 18 year jam, let's talk about how to do that without simply giving men a pass, and leaving women holding the bag if they decide that they don't want an abortion. The law supports her, and most people support the law, so don't waste you time on impotent initiatives (excuse the pun) when you could be solving your problem in a different direction. Those nasty women can't puncture a pill you took earlier in the day.

As for it being un-American...I mean, whatever...I'm Canadian, so that doesn't really pull at any heart strings...though I would have thought that being personal accountability and being responsible for one's actions was something I would have thought of when considering Americans. It's disappointing to see you don't think so. I'm not sure why you're talking about sterilization. I wasn't.

Sorry, man, despite the drama and fear mongering injected into your response, it's still nothing more than what I hear from my five year old when he doesn't want to take responsibility for something he's done that ended up in unexpected consequences he's not happy about...it's the same tactic, and I think if you want to address your very adult problems, you need an adult approach.

Lursa said:

Men have a "civil right" to do so!

Said no legitimate legal sources ever :lamo

Click to expand...

Dred Scott also could not call on any legal precedent

vegas giants said:

Dred Scott also could not call on any legal precedent

Click to expand...

You are not a slave. There is one thing a man can do to make sure he does not pay child support. Don't have vaginal sex with a woman that he does not wish to potentially be tied to for 18 years if he should get he r pregnant. Now if he brings his own condoms and uses them properly each and every time and disposes of them himself, he can be relatively certain he will not have the 18 year outcome either.

A black person in the US at that time period was relatively powerless to escape slavery. There was no simple thing he could do to avoid being captured and sold (or born) into slavery.

You have a brain (in the head above your neck) so you can escape what YOU call slavery by a simple decision that only you can make.

What you equate to the SCOTUS decision in the Dred Scott case is beyond silly.

year2late said:

You are not a slave. There is one thing a man can do to make sure he does not pay child support. Don't have vaginal sex with a woman that he does not wish to potentially be tied to for 18 years if he should get he r pregnant. Now if he brings his own condoms and uses them properly each and every time and disposes of them himself, he can be relatively certain he will not have the 18 year outcome either.

A black person in the US at that time period was relatively powerless to escape slavery. There was no simple thing he could do to avoid being captured and sold (or born) into slavery.

You have a brain (in the head above your neck) so you can escape what YOU call slavery by a simple decision that only you can make.

What you equate to the SCOTUS decision in the Dred Scott case is beyond silly.

Click to expand...

If I say:

You are not a slave. There is one thing a woman can do to make sure she does not get pregnant. Don't have vaginal sex with a man that she does not wish to potentially be tied to for 18 years if she should get pregnant. Now if she brings her own birth control and uses them properly each and every time and disposes of them herself, she can be relatively certain she will not get pregnant either.

I am somehow slut shamimg. But you can attack men as being irresponsible but fully let women off the hook. It is disgusting.

year2late said:

You are not a slave. There is one thing a man can do to make sure he does not pay child support. Don't have vaginal sex with a woman that he does not wish to potentially be tied to for 18 years if he should get he r pregnant. Now if he brings his own condoms and uses them properly each and every time and disposes of them himself, he can be relatively certain he will not have the 18 year outcome either.

A black person in the US at that time period was relatively powerless to escape slavery. There was no simple thing he could do to avoid being captured and sold (or born) into slavery.

You have a brain (in the head above your neck) so you can escape what YOU call slavery by a simple decision that only you can make.

What you equate to the SCOTUS decision in the Dred Scott case is beyond silly.

Click to expand...

You're right, of course, but this is a fight you won't win - not for lack of logic or eloquence, but due to the same reason you can't break through a concrete barrier with a calculator. No matter how smart it is, you just can't break through something so thick.

Don't worry, most men don't think this way.

OlNate said:

You're right, of course, but this is a fight you won't win - not for lack of logic or eloquence, but due to the same reason you can't break through a concrete barrier with a calculator. No matter how smart it is, you just can't break through something so thick.

Don't worry, most men don't think this way.

Click to expand...

Many slaves were also unwilling to fight back against slavery. Some of us are man enough to do it though

Lursa said:

Men have a "civil right" to do so!

Said no legitimate legal sources ever :lamo

Click to expand...

Constitutionally, laws must only guarantee that men and women are treated the same if they are "similarly situated" - which they are not in matters of reproduction.

Civil rights are rights that one obtains by being a legal member of a certain political state. In other words, Civil Rights will change based on where a person claims citizenship because civil rights are, in essence, an agreement between the citizen and the nation or state that the citizen lives within.

Currently there is no Amendment that will address reproductive equality. And there’s no provisions in the most recent version of the Civil Rights Act to deal with reproductive equality.

And I don’t see a Civil Liberty (i.e. the right to marry) correlation regarding reproductive equality.

The Federal government really shys away from Family/Domestic Law issues because each state develops their own Family Codes, which includes issues related to Child Support.

The above said, I do realize that Men’s Rights Groups focus on the timeframe of post conception prior to viability.

But to somehow alter the Constitution with the purpose to create reproductive equality - by the mere Machanics of human reproduction, mix with individual moral values - “true equality” between men and women can never really be achieved. And from an economic form of equality constructed around reproduction - because no rights groups or legislative bodies anywhere on the planet have figured out how to make it work without public assistance - I don’t have a clue how create equality in a way to satisfy all parties and institutions involved.

Removable Mind said:

Constitutionally, laws must only guarantee that men and women are treated the same if they are "similarly situated" - which they are not in matters of reproduction.

Civil rights are rights that one obtains by being a legal member of a certain political state. In other words, Civil Rights will change based on where a person claims citizenship because civil rights are, in essence, an agreement between the citizen and the nation or state that the citizen lives within.

Currently there is no Amendment that will address reproductive equality. And there’s no provisions in the most recent version of the Civil Rights Act to deal with reproductive equality.

And I don’t see a Civil Liberty (i.e. the right to marry) correlation regarding reproductive equality.

The Federal government really shys away from Family/Domestic Law issues because each state develops their own Family Codes, which includes issues related to Child Support.

The above said, I do realize that Men’s Rights Groups focus on the timeframe of post conception prior to viability.

But to somehow alter the Constitution with the purpose to create reproductive equality - by the mere Machanics of human reproduction, mix with individual moral values - “true equality” between men and women can never really be achieved. And from an economic form of equality constructed around reproduction - because no rights groups or legislative bodies anywhere on the planet have figured out how to make it work without public assistance - I don’t have a clue how create equality in a way to satisfy all parties and institutions involved.

Click to expand...

True equality is never achieved in many areas that civil rights have come to protect. It never can be. You can not discriminate against someone even if they are not similiarly situated to you. The disabled, the elderly, family status in housing....are never similiarly situated to the people they are claiming they are being discriminated by. Those are just the facts

vegas giants said:

True equality is never achieved in many areas that civil rights have come to protect. It never can be. You can not discriminate against someone even if they are not similiarly situated to you. The disabled, the elderly, family status in housing....are never similiarly situated to the people they are claiming they are being discriminated by. Those are just the facts.

Click to expand...

How does being disabled not qualify as similarly situated? Sometimes special accommodations are necessary for disabled to do the same work as other folks. Or to have equal access to public institutions or facilities.

The law says that the US post office must hire men and women. Most men and women are similarly situated to hold most all jobs. But, if the post office stated that all persons over 6 ft. qualify for jobs, few women could get jobs. That would be discrimination. The definition of person isn’t gender specific. And there are disabled persons who work for the post office. Many are just people who are capable of being similarly situated.

Obviously a blind person can’t be an Uber driver...YET. But in the near future they might be capable of being similarly situated with a car that is auto piloted. When all cars have automated driving capabilities, but requires a human to be present behind the driver ‘s wheel - maybe there will be special technology/equipment that allows blind persons to do that job????

You can’t discriminate over immutable characteristics such as skin color. Regardless of skin color people are still people. In this sense all are similarly situated when it relates to equal access to housing.

My question is:

Do how do you see human reproduction similarly situated between men and women?

Removable Mind said:

How does being disabled not qualify as similarly situated? Sometimes special accommodations are necessary for disabled to do the same work as other folks. Or to have equal access to public institutions or facilities.

The law says that the US post office must hire men and women. Most men and women are similarly situated to hold most all jobs. But, if the post office stated that all persons over 6 ft. qualify for jobs, few women could get jobs. That would be discrimination. The definition of person isn’t gender specific. And there are disabled persons who work for the post office. Many are just people who are capable of being similarly situated.

Obviously a blind person can’t be an Uber driver...YET. But in the near future they might be capable of being similarly situated with a car that is auto piloted. When all cars have automated driving capabilities, but requires a human to be present behind the driver ‘s wheel - maybe there will be special technology/equipment that allows blind persons to do that job????

You can’t discriminate over immutable characteristics such as skin color. Regardless of skin color people are still people. In this sense all are similarly situated when it relates to equal access to housing.

My question is:

Do how do you see human reproduction similarly situated between men and women?

Click to expand...

Now you are mixing up similiarly situated with compelling interest. Discrimination against someone is allowed if compelling interest can be shown that it is the best interest of the government to support that discrimination (the blind uber driver). But a special accomodation EXACTLY says this person is NOT similiarly situated as me but deserves the same rights as me. Men can have a financial opt out which would be exactly what the woman has. How can you not see this?

Removable Mind said:

Constitutionally, laws must only guarantee that men and women are treated the same if they are "similarly situated" - which they are not in matters of reproduction.

.

Click to expand...

But of course! And men and women are not similarly situated, as many have demonstrated here.

However, when men get pregnant (and they already gestate) they will have the exact same rights and choices as women do now. And in the same situation, the woman that donated the egg will not be allowed to opt out. So not sexist and it's equal.

And compelling interest is a laugh...as also pointed out, the state has a compelling interest to protect kids, taxpayers, and society....esp. since some silly opt out only incentivizes men to be even more irresponsible, as they have no consequences at all.

The state will never be interested in a stupid idea like opting out...the state has no interest at all before the birth when there is nothing to adjudicate over. It's only interested once there is a kid...and then we're back to child support...and the laws are equal there. Maybe the outraged would find their time better spent on the judges applying the laws we do have....

vegas giants said:

Now you are mixing up similiarly situated with compelling interest. Discrimination against someone is allowed if compelling interest can be shown that it is the best interest of the government to support that discrimination (the blind uber driver). But a special accomodation EXACTLY says this person is NOT similiarly situated as me but deserves the same rights as me. Men can have a financial opt out which would be exactly what the woman has. How can you not see this?

Click to expand...

Compelling interest is why the current reproductive laws exist as they do.

In your eyes, special accommodations, which is an “access issue” for the disabled - is the same as reproductive equality?

How can you possibly see them as the same?

Removable Mind said:

Compelling interest is why the current reproductive laws exist as they do.

In your eyes, special accommodations, which is an “access issue” for the disabled - is the same as reproductive equality?

How can you possibly see them as the same?

Click to expand...

Each party should have access to a financial opt out. The woman does. So should the man.

Lursa said:

But of course! And men and women are not similarly situated, as many have demonstrated here.

However, when men get pregnant (and they already gestate) they will have the exact same rights and choices as women do now. And in the same situation, the woman that donated the egg will not be allowed to opt out. So not sexist and it's equal.

And compelling interest is a laugh...as also pointed out, the state has a compelling interest to protect kids, taxpayers, and society....esp. since some silly opt out only incentivizes men to be even more irresponsible, as they have no consequences at all.

The state will never be interested in a stupid idea like opting out...the state has no interest at all before the birth when there is nothing to adjudicate over. It's only interested once there is a kid...and then we're back to child support...and the laws are equal there. Maybe the outraged would find their time better spent on the judges applying the laws we do have....

Click to expand...

When it comes to entering a building with stairs....how am I similiarly situated to a person in a wheel chair?

vegas giants said:

Each party should have access to a financial opt out. The woman does. So should the man.

Click to expand...

That isn’t based on simularly situated reproductive circumstances.

Removable Mind said:

That isn’t based on simularly situated reproductive circumstances.

Click to expand...

Acces to a building is not based on similiarly situated ability to enter the building

Removable Mind said:

That isn’t based on simularly situated reproductive circumstances.

Click to expand...

Reproduction need not even be a part of the discussion. The woman can have the child or not....we are talking about money

Removable Mind said:

That isn’t based on simularly situated reproductive circumstances.

Click to expand...

Yep. That decision is based more on compelling interest. Of course there's a solid case for disabled access to be in society's best interests...unlike some men who would be happy to ignore their responsibilities and leave them at the door of taxpayers.

vegas giants said:

Reproduction need not even be a part of the discussion. The woman can have the child or not....we are talking about money

Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does such provisions exist to make that happen? And please, don’t throw the Equal Protection Clause at me. It’s not going to take this argument anyplace in government. Not even with the SC.

Lursa said:

Yep. That decision is based more on compelling interest. Of course there's a solid case for disabled access to be in society's best interests...unlike some men who would be happy to ignore their responsibilities and leave them at the door of taxpayers.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Equal access isn’t related to “similarly situated”.