Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

People explicitly in favor of forced medical procedures: 1

[Reelya]

That idea of state-mandated abortions because the father didn't want his DNA popping out a kid ... is a really terrible idea. I'm just imagining what enforcement of that law would be like for a woman who wanted to have the child but had the police knocking on her door accompanied by some guys in surgical gowns and face masks. Imagining having to drug or strap down the resisting woman :/ Sounds like something that would end with NAZI-like operating theaters.

Even the Objectivist version would be better. What's baby done for me lately? Helping baby only breeds dependence. Better, throw baby onto the street and let only the toughest babies survive. Think of the improvements to the gene pool!

[Glowcat]

I can foresee issues even with state support but I am for something that deals with being forced into unwanted children. I'd rather the support be tied to wealth class rather than creating special rules to deal with fathers who may actually want to raise their children but need the financial backing of a state in the matter, however I don't see that type of support happening in Commie-fearin' America. Wealthier fathers who try to opt out should definitely be shoryukened if they don't respect that they gave up all parental rights.

[Neonivek]

One possible thing to consider is that abortion isn't something to take lightly...

What I'm talking about as paternalism is this notion that a man is responsible for a woman's decisions: it kind of infantilizes women

I find this kind of hilarious. Since it is a woman's job to say no UNLESS she says yes, at which point the man is responsible.

Wealthier fathers who try to opt out should definitely be shoryukened if they don't respect that they gave up all parental rights.

There is 1 and only 1 issue with the law, but that could be patched.

It is that it sort of protects promiscuous men...

Then again convincing someone to do something stupid but not life threatening is perfectly legal.

[Graknorke]

There is 1 and only 1 issue with the law, but that could be patched.

It is that it sort of protects promiscuous men...

Then again convincing someone to do something stupid but not life threatening is perfectly legal.

Is that an issue?

[Neonivek]

There is 1 and only 1 issue with the law, but that could be patched.

It is that it sort of protects promiscuous men...

Then again convincing someone to do something stupid but not life threatening is perfectly legal.

Is that an issue?

Depends on your viewpoint I guess...

Whether or not a man saying "No honey, we don't need protection" means he should be culpable or not.

[BFEL]

Well presumably the woman in that scenario could say "Yeah, we DO need protection" and refuse to have unsafe sex. Same as a man could say that to a woman saying that line.

Is there some reason we SHOULDN'T protect promiscuous men? Are promiscuous men somehow not worthy of having legal protection against unfairness?

For clarity, I agree with basically everything LordBucket has said so far.

[freeformschooler]

Man, think of all the TV plots this ruling would change. I've seen a million variations of

Woman: "Let's get married."
Man: "I'm not getting married."
Woman: "I'm pregnant!"
Man: "Shit, I guess I have to stay!"

Now it would be

Woman: "Let's get married."
Man: "I'm not getting married."
Woman: "I'm pregnant!"
Man: "I waive my responsibility with the power granted to me by the State of Colorado!"
Woman: "Wow, what a dick!"
Man hops on Vespa and drives off into the sunset. Woman receives supplemental security income for the rest of her life.

[Neonivek]

Which given I've heard of Sperm Donators being hit with child support... I have to say

GOOD LUCK passing this law... Freeformschooler sort of shows exactly the reasoning as to why it won't be passed.

It honestly requires that we, as a society, to decide that women aren't the eternal victims who need protection.

[Reelya]

Scenario#1
Woman uses pregnancy to pressure a guy into marriage and raising a child but he's not interested: "wow what a dick!" (the guy).

Scenario#2
Man uses pregnancy to pressure a girl into marriage and raising a child but she's not interested: "wow what a dick!" (the guy, still).

Vector once cited scenario 2 as a tactic used by manipulative men to dominate women, a clear breach of her rights. So how is Scenario#1 therefore OK and the guy's an asshole for not going along with it?

That's a clear double-standard and the fact that nobody blinks is a sign of how ingrained the thinking is. Clearly the 2nd scenario is impinging on the woman's right to choose, not just abortion vs pregnancy, but her entire life's trajectory after that point. We don't slam the woman for not "thinking of the baby" when she rejects the guys pressuring, we cheer her for getting away from a manipulative person. Men though aren't afforded the same leniency, they're expected to "buck up" and lock their entire future into servitude for someone who is basically being just as manipulative as the 2nd scenario.

Nobody has a right to another person's future because of a "hook up": both parties regardless of gender have autonomy.

[freeformschooler]

Vector once cited scenario 2 as a tactic used by manipulative men to dominate women, a clear breach of her rights. So how is Scenario#1 therefore OK and the guy's an asshole for not going along with it?

It's not ok. That's why I said TV plot. Even in the realm of TV, that plot (woman gets pregnant to "keep" a man/his income) very commonly displays the woman as manipulative. Indeed, I seem to remember a certain famous medical show portraying a woman as the villain for just such an act.

Don't pretend it's a double standard when it's not. That only serves to distract from the actual extant double standards.

[Neonivek]

When a woman uses pregnancy to "force" a man to marry her and she is the villain... the child tends not to actually be his OR there is no child.

[freeformschooler]

I will concede that that's true. That, or the guy somehow gets away. Still, the perception itself is not skewed.

[Reelya]

> Still, the perception itself is not skewed.

I don't see how that's a justified statement. The idea that the woman is wrong to manipulate a guy into marriage with a fake / not his baby implies that if it was really his baby, then she'd be perfectly entitled to the manipulative behavior. It's not the behavior that gets targeted it's the "not really his" part.

Consider this "TV plot": woman gets pregnant, pressures man into pairing up as the caregiver. She is suspected of foisting someone elses baby on him, and accused of being manipulative. Then DNA tests reveal he is in fact the father. At this point we go "oh she's therefore justified in harassing him into wedlock and him not wanting to marry her just makes him a scumbag".

Whereas it's never seen as ok for a man to use a woman's pregnancy to get leverage over her.

[Frumple]

... no? We don't. At least I've never seen anyone say that's suddenly okay behavior. Sticking them with child support, sure (and that goes both ways), but not marriage.