Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What's up with all the conservatives on here?

Page 13 of 19 [ 293 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 19  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,932

26 May 2019, 6:50 pm

The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
So a "financial abortion" would work similarly to a real abortion in that the man relinquishes parental rights permanently with no prospect of getting them back, he has no financial obligations to the mother or child and his name wouldn't appear on the birth certificate. He'd have to make it clear that he would be relinquishing parental rights to the prospective mother with enough time for her to get an abortion should she choose to do so knowing that he isn't going to provide.[/color]


I can't help but wonder why this idea hasn't gained more traction.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

26 May 2019, 8:39 pm

The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
I would be fine with it if men could get a "financial abortion," providing that such an action would permanently terminate any and all parental rights of the father.

Under what kinds of circumstances do you think a man should be allowed to do this? I'm having trouble thinking of how to implement this idea in a way that would be even remotely fair to the woman.

For example, do you think there should at least be a requirement of timely notification during early pregnancy while the woman can still get an abortion with minimum hassle (assuming she can indeed get one)? If not, then there will be lots of situations where a woman allows herself to continue a pregnancy while under the impression that the man will help support the child, only to have the man back out when it's too late.

In any case there also needs to be SOME strong deterrent against men having unprotected sex with women of child-bearing age when they are not interested in being fathers. Don't forget that pregnancy, per se, obviously has a much bigger effect on the woman's body than on the man's body.

Consensual sex takes two willing participants. The idea that if a man and a woman have sex and the woman gets pregnant, it's somehow solely the man's fault and responsibility is frankly ridicurious, and denies the woman her share of personal responsibility for the situation, as if it just happened to her rather than her being an active participant in the act. Not sure if that's what you're getting at, but anyway.

Men already have less choice than the woman in that if the woman decides she wants an abortion and the man wants to be a father, tough luck. And if the woman wants to have the child and the man doesn't, he's put on the hook financially for 18 years and if he doesn't pay then he gets in trouble with the law. The man shouldn't be subject to all the negatives of a decision to have sex that was mutually made. I wouldn't suggest that men have the right to force a woman to abort or carry to term, but it's not fair to expect men to always have it rough if they should disagree with the decision of the mother. It's not fair for women to hold all the cards.

So a "financial abortion" would work similarly to a real abortion in that the man relinquishes parental rights permanently with no prospect of getting them back, he has no financial obligations to the mother or child and his name wouldn't appear on the birth certificate. He'd have to make it clear that he would be relinquishing parental rights to the prospective mother with enough time for her to get an abortion should she choose to do so knowing that he isn't going to provide.


Only issue I have with it is what about cases where lady gets pregnant we tells the guy has the kid then goes after him.
I had sex one time, what if she got pregnant and I didn’t know, am I responsible for the kid?


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

26 May 2019, 8:40 pm

Magna wrote:
The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
So a "financial abortion" would work similarly to a real abortion in that the man relinquishes parental rights permanently with no prospect of getting them back, he has no financial obligations to the mother or child and his name wouldn't appear on the birth certificate. He'd have to make it clear that he would be relinquishing parental rights to the prospective mother with enough time for her to get an abortion should she choose to do so knowing that he isn't going to provide.[/color]


I can't help but wonder why this idea hasn't gained more traction.

Feminist


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die


The Grand Inquisitor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Aug 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,765

26 May 2019, 9:09 pm

sly279 wrote:
The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
I would be fine with it if men could get a "financial abortion," providing that such an action would permanently terminate any and all parental rights of the father.

Under what kinds of circumstances do you think a man should be allowed to do this? I'm having trouble thinking of how to implement this idea in a way that would be even remotely fair to the woman.

For example, do you think there should at least be a requirement of timely notification during early pregnancy while the woman can still get an abortion with minimum hassle (assuming she can indeed get one)? If not, then there will be lots of situations where a woman allows herself to continue a pregnancy while under the impression that the man will help support the child, only to have the man back out when it's too late.

In any case there also needs to be SOME strong deterrent against men having unprotected sex with women of child-bearing age when they are not interested in being fathers. Don't forget that pregnancy, per se, obviously has a much bigger effect on the woman's body than on the man's body.

Consensual sex takes two willing participants. The idea that if a man and a woman have sex and the woman gets pregnant, it's somehow solely the man's fault and responsibility is frankly ridicurious, and denies the woman her share of personal responsibility for the situation, as if it just happened to her rather than her being an active participant in the act. Not sure if that's what you're getting at, but anyway.

Men already have less choice than the woman in that if the woman decides she wants an abortion and the man wants to be a father, tough luck. And if the woman wants to have the child and the man doesn't, he's put on the hook financially for 18 years and if he doesn't pay then he gets in trouble with the law. The man shouldn't be subject to all the negatives of a decision to have sex that was mutually made. I wouldn't suggest that men have the right to force a woman to abort or carry to term, but it's not fair to expect men to always have it rough if they should disagree with the decision of the mother. It's not fair for women to hold all the cards.

So a "financial abortion" would work similarly to a real abortion in that the man relinquishes parental rights permanently with no prospect of getting them back, he has no financial obligations to the mother or child and his name wouldn't appear on the birth certificate. He'd have to make it clear that he would be relinquishing parental rights to the prospective mother with enough time for her to get an abortion should she choose to do so knowing that he isn't going to provide.


Only issue I have with it is what about cases where lady gets pregnant we tells the guy has the kid then goes after him.
I had sex one time, what if she got pregnant and I didn’t know, am I responsible for the kid?

If she purposely withheld it from you then no, I don't think so. Not sure about cases where she didn't even know herself.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

26 May 2019, 9:28 pm

The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
sly279 wrote:
The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
I would be fine with it if men could get a "financial abortion," providing that such an action would permanently terminate any and all parental rights of the father.

Under what kinds of circumstances do you think a man should be allowed to do this? I'm having trouble thinking of how to implement this idea in a way that would be even remotely fair to the woman.

For example, do you think there should at least be a requirement of timely notification during early pregnancy while the woman can still get an abortion with minimum hassle (assuming she can indeed get one)? If not, then there will be lots of situations where a woman allows herself to continue a pregnancy while under the impression that the man will help support the child, only to have the man back out when it's too late.

In any case there also needs to be SOME strong deterrent against men having unprotected sex with women of child-bearing age when they are not interested in being fathers. Don't forget that pregnancy, per se, obviously has a much bigger effect on the woman's body than on the man's body.

Consensual sex takes two willing participants. The idea that if a man and a woman have sex and the woman gets pregnant, it's somehow solely the man's fault and responsibility is frankly ridicurious, and denies the woman her share of personal responsibility for the situation, as if it just happened to her rather than her being an active participant in the act. Not sure if that's what you're getting at, but anyway.

Men already have less choice than the woman in that if the woman decides she wants an abortion and the man wants to be a father, tough luck. And if the woman wants to have the child and the man doesn't, he's put on the hook financially for 18 years and if he doesn't pay then he gets in trouble with the law. The man shouldn't be subject to all the negatives of a decision to have sex that was mutually made. I wouldn't suggest that men have the right to force a woman to abort or carry to term, but it's not fair to expect men to always have it rough if they should disagree with the decision of the mother. It's not fair for women to hold all the cards.

So a "financial abortion" would work similarly to a real abortion in that the man relinquishes parental rights permanently with no prospect of getting them back, he has no financial obligations to the mother or child and his name wouldn't appear on the birth certificate. He'd have to make it clear that he would be relinquishing parental rights to the prospective mother with enough time for her to get an abortion should she choose to do so knowing that he isn't going to provide.


Only issue I have with it is what about cases where lady gets pregnant we tells the guy has the kid then goes after him.
I had sex one time, what if she got pregnant and I didn’t know, am I responsible for the kid?

If she purposely withheld it from you then no, I don't think so. Not sure about cases where she didn't even know herself.

With the current system they’d come after me even years later.


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die


The Grand Inquisitor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Aug 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,765

27 May 2019, 12:31 am

Twilightprincess wrote:
SaveFerris wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Comparing feminists to Nazis is absurd. Few feminists are radical. Most of us are peacefully pushing for positive changes.


Almost as absurd as saying if you are not a feminist you don't believe women deserve equal rights.


According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, feminism is “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.”

People who aren’t feminists either have a misconception about what the word means (as is the case here) or they are bigots.

The definition of feminism I've seen is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." I think that's the most fair one, as it encapsulates what feminism is all about, but also the fundamental problem with the feminist lens. This definition by default presumes that women are behind in every way when compared to men, and that men are at no disadvantages, and in 2019 that's just not the case.

I think that gender should not preclude you from pursuing whatever it Is you wish to do in this life, and I don't think you should receive poor or worse treatment based on your gender. I also don't believe that there is an overarching oppressive patriarchy in western society that keeps women down, or that men are inherently oppressing women, or that men are inherently more privileged than women, or that we should implement affirmative action in such a way as to mandate it that the most prestigious jobs have 50/50 gender representation, or that men and women making different career choices and life choices is an indication of some kind of sexism that needs to be rectified, or that women are generally paid less for identical work in identical positions with identical experience to men. So with all of that, would you consider that I classify as a feminist? Because most people wouldn't, and I wouldn't classify myself that way.



Twilightprincess wrote:
It is about women’s rights because in various ways we still don’t have the same rights as men.

In 2019, in your country or the western world at large, what rights do men have that women don't?



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

27 May 2019, 1:19 am

The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
It is about women’s rights because in various ways we still don’t have the same rights as men.

In 2019, in your country or the western world at large, what rights do men have that women don't?


Peeing while standing upright? 8O

2 out of 2.
Typical auties. <sigh> <shrug> :wink:



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

27 May 2019, 1:40 am

SaveFerris wrote:
@ Sly , yes you are outnumbered when it comes to some of your political views and it will feel like you are being ganged up on , but I can assure you I will not tolerate anyone attacking you on a personal level. Gawd I hate PPR :roll:

Another protected species?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

27 May 2019, 1:42 am

XFilesGeek wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
So we've gone from guns to abortion? Ok, I have an opinion on that too.

Up until recently, I'd thought of myself as pro-choice because my conclusions lined up more closely with pro-choice conclusions than pro-life, despite the fact that the ideas that lead me to my conclusion are different from most pro-choice people. Recently, it occurred to me that pro-life/pro-choice is a false dichotomy, and that I am only circumstancially pro-choice, so even though my views haven't changed on this subject, the way I would frame them has.

So in most instances I am pro choice. I'm pro-choice in the case of rape, incest, if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, if the child will have severe disability and if protection was used and it failed to work. I'm also for the father's right to get a "legal abortion" in which the father has no financial obligations to the child but also no parental rights, in any case where the mother could have an abortion if she chooses to, but chooses not to, and the father doesn't want to be a father. If the mother can get out of being a mother, the father should damn well be extended the same choice. You know, financial autonomy and all that.

Anyway, so the only time I'm not pro-choice is if the couple in question had unprotected sex and this results in a pregnancy, and abortion is really just after-the-fact birth control. Now I do think they should be able to get an abortion, but not because "woman's body, woman's choice" (as far as I'm concerned, the choice was already made when you had unprotected sex), but because I don't think it's right to bring a child into the world when the two people who are supposed to be this child's closest allies in this world, want nothing to do with them. I think that is a terrible start to life, and it is only for the reason that the child will have a very bad start in life that I think abortion should be allowed in the case of unprotected sex. I'd be in favour of imposing penalties on anyone, woman or man, who is responsible for multiple abortions occurring as a result of irresponsible unprotected sex.


I have nothing to add to this; it's how I see it, too, including a man's right to not be a father.


I would be fine with it if men could get a "financial abortion," providing that such an action would permanently terminate any and all parental rights of the father.


Wait...how many mods are there on this thread??? doing my head in :|



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

27 May 2019, 2:06 am

cyberdad wrote:

Wait...how many mods are there on this thread??? doing my head in :|


I think Sly is a mod magnet. <inches away from him whistling> :mrgreen:



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

27 May 2019, 2:11 am

Trump conservatives getting police protection :?



traven
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 14,261

27 May 2019, 2:15 am

why does it always wander off in the same direction
how about coercing

there's lots of coercing from people around
into abortion for you to have

because they can
parents
boyfriends
fwb
partners
doctors
etc



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

27 May 2019, 2:16 am

coercing what?



Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,577

27 May 2019, 2:31 am

sly279 wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
sly279 wrote:
Fireblossom wrote:
The Grand Inquisitor wrote:
So we've gone from guns to abortion? Ok, I have an opinion on that too.

Up until recently, I'd thought of myself as pro-choice because my conclusions lined up more closely with pro-choice conclusions than pro-life, despite the fact that the ideas that lead me to my conclusion are different from most pro-choice people. Recently, it occurred to me that pro-life/pro-choice is a false dichotomy, and that I am only circumstancially pro-choice, so even though my views haven't changed on this subject, the way I would frame them has.

So in most instances I am pro choice. I'm pro-choice in the case of rape, incest, if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life, if the child will have severe disability and if protection was used and it failed to work. I'm also for the father's right to get a "legal abortion" in which the father has no financial obligations to the child but also no parental rights, in any case where the mother could have an abortion if she chooses to, but chooses not to, and the father doesn't want to be a father. If the mother can get out of being a mother, the father should damn well be extended the same choice. You know, financial autonomy and all that.

Anyway, so the only time I'm not pro-choice is if the couple in question had unprotected sex and this results in a pregnancy, and abortion is really just after-the-fact birth control. Now I do think they should be able to get an abortion, but not because "woman's body, woman's choice" (as far as I'm concerned, the choice was already made when you had unprotected sex), but because I don't think it's right to bring a child into the world when the two people who are supposed to be this child's closest allies in this world, want nothing to do with them. I think that is a terrible start to life, and it is only for the reason that the child will have a very bad start in life that I think abortion should be allowed in the case of unprotected sex. I'd be in favour of imposing penalties on anyone, woman or man, who is responsible for multiple abortions occurring as a result of irresponsible unprotected sex.


I have nothing to add to this; it's how I see it, too, including a man's right to not be a father.


So you must not be a woman? Cause feminism lock and step =women. Better be careful you’ll probably be attacked by feminist now for betraying women kind and attacking women


Sorry, but what are you trying to say here? I don't understand this message at all; can someone translate?


Feminism supports making men pay child support for kids they didn’t want, if you don’t support every issue feminism says I support you’re anti women.
If you aren’t a feminist you’re anti women

Corrected the mistake in bold. I really hate my phone currently it’s auto correct gets worse and I feel they made the keyboard messed up , like I hint letter e but it does r instead the detection software seems to have been made too big.

Feminist mantra is “if you aren’t with us, you’re against us “


Feminism supports equal rights and responsibilities. If the man has no rights to a child from the beginning then there aren't responsibilities, either.

You're confusing feminism with feminists. Feminism is the gender equality movement, feminists are people who consider themselves part of that movement. Among the later there are those with different ideals, including the radicals, but they do not represent all feminists. Saying that all people who consider themselves feminists think in an X way is the same as saying that all single men think in a Y way.

Current system and one feminist support gives men no rights to child but makes them pay for it and if they don’t locks them up. That’s not equality.

Just be a equalitian . I will never support feminism feminist . They don’t want equality for men. Most women aren’t feminist, a lot of women don’t like feminist.
The people in charge of feminism are saying these things. The organization is rotten to the core, time to move pm and support other organizations that are fighting for eqauality for all. Don’t see me supporting the NRA, I moved on most gun owners support goa now, nra is gomnrotten .


*Shrug* In here men do have rights to their children, unless they've done something very wrong. That applies to women as well, but I don't know, maybe things are different in the USA.

I've never referred to myself as a feminist, but I do support gender equality, so for many I count as one. I honestly don't care what name we who fight for gender equality are called with as long as we get the needed results.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

27 May 2019, 3:08 am

umm I think Sly lives in the US of A



Fireblossom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,577

27 May 2019, 3:20 am

cyberdad wrote:
umm I think Sly lives in the US of A


Yeah he does, but I don't. That might also be why we have difficulties seeing eye to eye; the laws and cultures are different in different places.