You know what isn't fair to the child? Growing up in poverty. If people are so concerned about the welfare of children why in the world I we letting poor people have children?

#2 is much too close to social engineering/eugenics/other meddling that I am not comfortable with Government doing. I think people get to choose things, certainly as personal as childbirth. Of course a bunch depends on the incentives/disincentives.

I haven't suggested taking the choice away from them. I've suggested having the responsibilities of the choice rest solely with she who makes the choice. If a potential single mother has to think "can I care for this little parasite alone" it may incent her to choose to wait.

If a potential single mother has to think "can I care for this little parasite alone" it may incent her to choose to wait.


This might just be a better incentive to wait.

Or this.

You know what isn't fair to the child? Growing up in poverty. If people are so concerned about the welfare of children why in the world I we letting poor people have children?

That is what the safety net is for. And there is much less poverty if both parents support the child. Glad to see you on board! We need to expand the safety net and make sure both parents chip in and there will be many fewer children in poverty.

Or this

The Hatchet Man! That's one of the greatest videos ever, although for some reason I doubt if it ever got shown on the FOX Nightly News.

That is what the safety net is for. And there is much less poverty if both parents support the child. Glad to see you on board! We need to expand the safety net and make sure both parents chip in and there will be many fewer children in poverty.

Yes. Quite clearly two people living in poverty trying to raise one or more children while not living together is a recipe for success. It'd be cheaper and better for society if we just paid the woman to abort the baby then we could spend our tax dollars on subsidizing corn.

17% of nothing is still nothing.

You both effed by having sex and then your partner effed up by deciding to keep the baby. So congratulations you slept with an effed up woman who is going to raise a child that is going to have an effed up life and cause you to have an effed up life as well. Everybody wins!

Sam's #2 more or less forms the entire basis for my opinion. The allocation of rights and duties should be set up in such a way to minimize the number of children brought into existence by people without the emotional and/or financial means to provide for them.

This isn't done for the sake of 'society,' but rather to protect the rights and interests of the currently existing members from obligations incurred by others.

Where I part ways is on empirical grounds. I don't believe allowing men to abdicate their parental rights and responsibilities reduces the number of children society would, on average, be better off without.

We'll likely never know the truth either way. Actually changing child support laws in the way suggested could never happen. As between the father and the state, the father has the greater obligation to pay. Unless, of course, we're willing to allow children to starve in the streets. I have to assume street urchins are less cute in real life than they seem to be in cartoons and the movies.

I'd opt out of social security and Medicare tomorrow if they'd let me. I expect my benefits to be "means tested" to nothing by the time I retire anyway.

again, i find it depressing to think that your reaction to a complex problem is not to find a solution, but rather, to say that since something might break in the future, we should just go ahead and break it now.

What's great (sarcasm) about the abortion option as get out of fatherhood free card is that it can even be used by a married man with his wife. Man and his wife are planning a family, having sex to try to have children. Then he get the eye for some hottie and decides to ditch the wife. But the wife is now pregnant. Problem solved. Soon to be ex says "get an abortion, #####\" and he's in the clear.

So it really doesn't matter if the intent was there to father children or not. Can't have an abortion, so no fatherhood responsibilities.

For me, the sperm donor wanted to abort the kid therefore he shouldn't be completed to later support the kid, can only remotely fly if abortion is morally neutral.

And physically, emotionally, and economically neutral. It's not like a choice between a turkey sandwich or a roast beef sandwich for lunch.

I've been lurking for a while to think about both sides, and I think that any solution that you come up with in a non-utopian world is going to be imperfect in one way or another. There are two different periods of time generally worth thinking about.

The first time period is pre-viability. The overwhelming majority of the burden of the decision to have or not have an abortion falls on the woman. To me, this is precisely the sort of case where unequal rights are acceptable despite potential unfairness. It's not about the woman getting less out of the sexual encounter than the man, or about punishing the man for promiscuity, but about recognizing the significant costs to the woman that the man simply does not face.

Post-viability (and certainly) post-birth is a clearer case because there is a third party that has a moral claim to support from both parents. At this point, it becomes someone's responsibility to provide for this child in order for us to live in a non-repulsive society. I am not convinced that it is a better solution for that burden to generally be spread among all citizens through taxation than it is to assess that burden on an individual basis. Ultimately, someone pays, and if it's not the potential fathers, then it's everyone in society. (Seeing as the overwhelming majority of unwanted pregnancies are the result of irresponsible behavior, rather than accidents of properly handled birth control, it seems especially unreasonable to spread the burden to all taxpayers.)

The solution to most of the problem is to redefine societal ideas of parental roles and change the family courts. The courts should not be predisposed to favor either parent with regards to custody and visitation, and relative wealth should play less of a role in assessing appropriate burdens of support. As for the unfairness of the woman having an opt-out than a man doesn't get, I don't think that's fixable without causing a more serious issue somewhere else in a world with imperfect birth control.

What's great (sarcasm) about the abortion option as get out of fatherhood free card is that it can even be used by a married man with his wife. Man and his wife are planning a family, having sex to try to have children. Then he get the eye for some hottie and decides to ditch the wife. But the wife is now pregnant. Problem solved. Soon to be ex says "get an abortion, #####\" and he's in the clear.

So it really doesn't matter if the intent was there to father children or not. Can't have an abortion, so no fatherhood responsibilities.

Yep. Absolutely nobody could construct absurd arguments like this in which the woman comes off as the evil bvtch. Only a man can be the bad guy when it comes to conception.

But seriously, libertarians are usually happy to point out that the best policy may not be perfectly fair, and that in fact perfect fairness of outcomes is often not attainable. I would say that it's strange to see some of those same libertarians lining up to whine about that fact here, but it isn't. Sad is more like it.

For most of them libertarianism probably just means "the law makes me do something I don't like so it's bad." I have repeatedly pointed out that the act of having sex is a positive act and can incur claims, but it falls on deaf ears. Above I pointed out that a married man can use the "have an abortion" card even when family planning is taking place, so it matters not whether the sex act was intended to produce children or not.

Fortunately, a change in policy which would result in a massive increase in abortions would be supported by about 3 percent of the population. So the proposal is consistent in unpopularity with anything else libertarians believe in.

It's not about the woman getting less out of the sexual encounter than the man, or about punishing the man for promiscuity, but about recognizing the significant costs to the woman that the man simply does not face.

What are these significant costs? Almost all of them happen if she chooses to have the baby. Which then leads to your post-viability view. So a woman decides that she wants to keep the baby and take on the costs and guy has to pay.

So the proposal is consistent in unpopularity with anything else libertarians believe in.

Clearly it is much better to force by threat of gunpoint a man to pay child support even though he doesn't have the money (as evidenced by the link in which half of all child support has not been paid) nor does the woman who decided to keep the baby so that the state has to step in and support the child. Much better.

I have repeatedly pointed out that the act of having sex is a positive act and can incur claims, but it falls on deaf ears.

The plural of a dumb argument isn't a smart argument. Hope that helps you out. From your posts, it appears you're unaware of this.

Though I have to give you credit for one thing. Hanging out on a BTF political thread and still having less knowledge of what libertarians think and why than Todd Akin's knowledge of female anatomy is an impressive feat.

What are these significant costs? Almost all of them happen if she chooses to have the baby. Which then leads to your post-viability view. So a woman decides that she wants to keep the baby and take on the costs and guy has to pay.

There are physical, emotional, financial, and moral costs to abortion. If the woman chooses to have an abortion, she assumes practically all of these costs. (Even if the man pays for the procedure itself, there may be other financial costs.) If a woman chooses not to abort, she faces different costs prior to birth that she also assumes practically all of the burden for.

Post-birth, given that the costs (financial and non-financial) of caring for the child can be shared equitably, fairness becomes a much more significant and reasonable concern. Someone will be paying for the welfare of that child, and it seems more reasonable for the father of that child to bear the obligation (assuming that he has the financial capacity to do so) than it does for everyone in society to bear that cost in higher taxes.

I find it really humorous, almost hilarious, that in the mind of some there is a transformation nothing short of miraculous that takes play; a totally negligible fetus is suddenly magically (look! right there!) transformed into a person that takes precedent over another person--but never over THE person around which a uterocentric universe revolves. It/he/she goes from zero to 60 in an instant, all because the SC says so. How frigging convenient. Yet, somehow the guy is never quite a person at all during the extent of the calculous's play. He is never more than some funnel for something--fertilization or wealth re-distribution. We always sympathize with the woman, and never stop and boo at those who stoop to question, and at a certain point the fetus earns his human stripes, but the guy always is found lacking in some way. He should have known, he always was assuming responsibility and risk, even if he doesn't, and he always will. It's only fair (to everyone but him). If he can't meet it (you know, sex is pretty powerful force--it's even harder than deciding to have strawberry instead of chocolate ice cream), or doesn't want to on principle, well, America's prison systems are second to none.

Morty gives us a long laundry list of ways in which men are disadvantaged, most of which are irrefutable** but also irrelevant

Laundry lists don't have themes.

---The decision to bear or not the child should be the woman's alone.

That's definitely one way of looking at it, and it's definitely the majority view here, but it isn't the only way. Another way is to hold the view that it's only your absolute decision if you take absolute responsibility and ask nothing of anyone or anything (such as government programs).

If you need assistance in any form from anyone or any thing you cede authority. There is no free lunch. No free riders.

Though I'm surprised he's not aware of the many "girl tramps" of the Depression era who hopped on boxcars with the best of them.

More nickeling and diming. But, of course, girls and women have that which is most valuable, which they husband and use to maximum advantage, as they should. That's why they didn't ride the rails to nowhere in anything like the numbers men did.

Oh god, I shouldn't have come to find out what this thread was about.

My eyes! The googles do nothing!

You know what isn't fair to the child? Growing up in poverty. If people are so concerned about the welfare of children why in the world I we letting poor people have children?

The solution to all these problems is right in front of your noses. Let the market handle it. If we allow women to sell their newborn infants on an open market, all of your problems disappear.

The mother is incentivised to have a healthy pregnancy. Can you imagine the financial hit she takes if the kid is born with fetal alcohol syndrome?

Abortions are dramatically reduced - why dump the milk when you can #### a whole cow in 9 months?

The winning bidders would have the financial wherewithal to provide a home bereft of impoverishment. Hooray for the children!

Truly this is the scenario where all parties win! Wealthy couples can obtain children based on their true and honest assessment of the child's value. The kids go to a home that clearly wants them there. The mother may stand to collect a real windfall - imagine what a blonde-haired blue-eyed baby for go for in open bidding? Is $100,000 out of the question?

OK, sure I can see one drawback, but that would just be the market offering additional disincentive for ugly people to reproduce. I consider it a feature. We hunt for bargains in ever other aspect of our lives, why not open kiddie bidding up to the public? One of these slightly off-spec models could be a real diamond in the rough!

@1068:

I find it really humorous, almost hilarious, that in the mind of some there is a transformation nothing short of miraculous that takes play; a totally negligible fetus is suddenly magically (look! right there!) transformed into a person that takes precedent over another person--but never over THE person around which a uterocentric universe revolves.

Another, delicious part of the Hey, Presto!! business is the magical transformation of the Children First crowd into the Children First, at least Until They Turn Into Men, crowd. I wonder what the magical point was at which these Children, who must come first, became beings whose use value exceeded not just their primacy, but their innate claim to any rights at all in this regard.

Interesting thread. Some great stuff, some awful. One of the more amusing claims is Bitter's, on behalf of children on the grounds that, historically, Children have come first. Of course they haven't, so it's not surprising that despite repeating the claim a dozen times he has yet to provide an example. In fact, children have routinely been treated throughout history as having no value at all until they are able to work, and no real value until they become adults. I'm not arguing for that particular view, but anyone arguing the contrary should not be looking to history to substantiate his claim for children's primary importance, because it doesn't. At all.

_________________________________

He was denied by biology. When men can become pregnant, then they will be given the opportunity to act.

That's silly. The child is no more the woman's and the woman's alone because it happens to be in her body than a stolen watch she'd swallowed would be. Or an engagement ring she'd appended to her finger.

There's no practical obstacle to giving the man a say in the outcome of the pregnancy and the arguments against are all trite and reductive.

Interesting. I had not heard this analogy before. The idea that we shouldn't allow an accident of biology to determine outcomes makes sense. We damnable liberals, for example, generally approve of John Rawls' 'Veil of Ignorance', which here would mean setting up a system in advance of knowing which sex would be the sex that gives birth. In the case that either men or women gave birth, my preference would be for the sex that has that choice, when exercised unilaterally, to be the sex that bears the responsibility for the result of that choice, and bears responsibility for the support of that child it unilaterally brought into the world.

Further in that vein,

@906: Thus your demand for special privileges. Of course, you're also demanding them in the case where the woman doesn't want the child but the man does. The man's out of luck there, too.

Which is particularly interesting--why is no one in this thread, of all the people leery of the pain caused by abortion, and who emphasize the rights of the child, why is no one agitating for the right of a man to compel a woman*** to bring a fetus to term when the man wants a child and the woman does not, and then for the man to receive custody of the infant?

Practicality aside for the moment, this reduces abortion and its attendant pain to both parties. It asks many fewer hours of the woman giving birth than we do of men wrt the labor that goes to paying child support over twenty one years. It emphasizes the child's rights. We can even go so far as to consider the woman here to have 'done her duty'. She's off the hook with regard to child support ever after, and unlike a man who is dragooned into subsidizing "a woman's decision to have a child" (the misnamed "child support"), she is free without the severe drag of those payments to go on and have a family of her choosing with a man she loves.

Impractical, to be sure, but as a thought experiment it balances rights and responsibilities much more fairly than the system currently in place.


***and compel in a manner no more or less severe than the approach we take now to compel child support.

Another, delicious part of the Hey, Presto!! business is the magical transformation of the Children First crowd into the Children First, at least Until They Turn Into Men, crowd. I wonder what the magical point was at which these Children, who must come first, became beings whose use value exceeded not just their primacy, but their innate claim to any rights at all in this regard.

It has to do (among other things) with adulthood and consent of actions. Children have zero choice and are born unable to take care of themselves. The "magical" transformation happens once they are considered to be responsible for their decisions. Are you really not clear on this?

One of the more amusing claims is Bitter's, on behalf of children on the grounds that, historically, Children have come first. Of course they haven't, so it's not surprising that despite repeating the claim a dozen times he has yet to provide an example.

I am of the opinion pretty much every society is an example. Feel free to pick out a society and we will examine it in detail. Instances of child labor and such do nothing to negate my point that in pretty much every society children are expected to be supported by their parents.

There are some societies that have wrinkles. Inuit cultures where some new born children are left in the snow to die for example. However I would suggest that society has essentially drawn the abortion rights line (the one snapper and I disagree about) out past the birth of the child. However, once the child is accepted (not put in the snow, seen as an person - which we do much earlier in our culture) the parents are expected to support it, and if they can't (or for some reason won't) then the rest of society steps in.

If they were to have adopted your plan (men's rights!) then if the man wanted the child put in the snow and the woman did not the man would be freed of all obligation to support the child. However I am not saying every society everywhere has taken good care of its children. Putting them out in the snow to die and forcing them at a young age to work in factories are two examples of terrible practices towards children.

However, every society structures itself around the idea that children need support to grow up into adults, and the resources to do this come first from the parents of the child and second (if needed) from the rest of society. Societies use law, custom, marriage, and so on to incent (force) the parents to provide this support, even when one of the parties may not want to give it - the shotgun wedding is a prime example.

Which is particularly interesting--why is no one in this thread, of all the people leery of the pain caused by abortion, and who emphasize the rights of the child, why is no one agitating for the right of a man to compel a woman*** to bring a fetus to term when the man wants a child and the woman does not, and then for the man to receive custody of the infant?

Because the entire time period before the child arrives as a person is largely irrelevent to my point. I want to make clear (in this discussion) that children have a right to be supported by the parents of the child. The various decisions between have sex and baby is a person with rights are basically irrelevent to the baby and its right.

We can have your "forced term" discussion, but it is not applicable to the right of the child, and is in fact a distraction.

Which is particularly interesting--why is no one in this thread, of all the people leery of the pain caused by abortion, and who emphasize the rights of the child, why is no one agitating for the right of a man to compel a woman*** to bring a fetus to term when the man wants a child and the woman does not, and then for the man to receive custody of the infant?

No need to compell anyone to do anything - if a man wants a woman to carry to term, he can reach a suitable agreement with the mother and pay her whatever they determine is appropriate. Your idea, while obviously compelling for freeloaders and other low-status males, carries the whiff of a jackboot.

@1075: that you'd risk Godwinning the thread ('whiff of a jackboot"? Not bad, YR. Not bad) without an awareness that we compel men to do exactly what you're decrying here is telling, of course. Similarly, if a woman wants to compel a man to support her child, she 'can reach a suitable agreement with the father and exchange whatever they determine is appropriate'. And, if we're going to slap each other around, your idea, while obviously compelling for hypocrites and other lazy types, carries the persistent stench of intellectual dishonesty.

Bitter man, I'm not going to get into some pointless push-pull with you where I bring up a hundred, sad, different generations of societies where children were little more than chattel only to hear you cry 'But there was an obligation to support them!!' for the one hundred and twelfth time.

Start with 14 hour working days for children during the height of the British Empire, the pinnacle of 19th century civilization. The mass of children, the instant they could work, had the obligation to pay the equivalent of their own support, and as much more as their owner/parents could squeeze out of them. They were supported only in the first few years, and only so that they would become productive workers; never for their own sakes.

The theory of people as means, not ends, is one we've only recently arrived at. Even for adults the watershed was as recent as the last half of the 19th century. For women it came even later. The idea of Children First is very appealing, but it's one you'll have to develop philosophically; it has little basis in history, unfortunately.

It's also still not clear how you magically transmogrify Children into worker bees for the sake of the Children. You allude to the point at which they become, what, autonomous? Fully capable of self-support? Capable of deciding for themselves to have children of their own (somewhat theoretical, alas, in the case of the men you draft into service)?

It's not an unappealing argument you make. It's emotional appeal is undeniable. I'm less certain that it's tenable as moral philosophy.

As a theoretical matter I'm certain there's no sound ethical foundation for obliging someone to perform actions over decades and when they have no say, purely for the use value they bring to that situation, but at the same time I do believe there is a moral obligation to, say, rescue a drowning man. I'll keep that example clean, and make it an elderly man drowning in a foot of water while our Samaritan incurring the obligation is an Olympic swimmer with no pressing engagements.

Perhaps I'll arrive at a truncated form of support for a woman's decision to bear a child--perhaps a six year obligation? That may be easier to justify on practical rather than ethical grounds.***


***My view of the safety net wrt social insurance programs includes fully funded universal Head Start, universal health care, public education in palaces, free and excellent day care... Perhaps the mother and the state are obliged to take over fully if the sperm donor wishes to opt out at year six? I make a lot of money, and have no issue with paying a 51% top marginal rate if the money is well spent.

.

Not related to the topic at hand, but we've discussed this issue in the past. Interesting case/facts here re trying to determine whether a girl consented:

link

We can always count on Ray's steady hand and calming influence.

I find it curious that the Free Market Jesusers are on the men's rights side here.

Since no one liked my Marriage analogy (it wasn't great), what about this one (caveat, just restricting this to het relationships for obvious reasons)

Women are Wireless Service Providers.
They both want to engage in mutually beneficial transactions with men.
Men want wireless service and they want it cheap
Men sign a contract (in the Wireless case, a physical one, in the Sex case an implicit one)

The terms of the wireless contract are:
I pay $100/month for 2 years for wireless service and a discount on a phone.
Wireless corp gets my money, I get a smart phone+wireless service, we are both happy.
Until I decide that I want a different service, or whatever, then I am unhappy but "trapped" in 2 year contract.

If I don't like the terms, I can pick a different woman/wireless company, or go without. The Wireless company isn't infringing on my rights to wireless. This is basic Libertarian stuff, guys...

The relationship isn't symmetric in either case.
The default contract is:
"If I get pregnant, then I get to chose to abort or keep, and if I keep you pay forever".
If you don't like that contract, you don't got to buy.
This is wholly unlike anti-abortion laws which state "No matter what anyone says you keep your baby".

It seems pretty rational behavior to me that, were I the type of guy who could not deal with a woman aborting my spawn, I would get it in writing. Or at least get a verbal agreement on philosophy.

But can a woman actually sign away her right to choose? I actually think probably not - but it might depend on the State court.
We know either party can sign away their right to raise child, or to not take child support (by agreeing to a paltry sum, or simply refusing to pursue a claim in court, for instance).

There are some cases of the State pursuing a dead beat Dad because the woman/child are on the public teat, correct?

Women are Wireless Service Providers

But I rarely get junk mail from women asking me to upgrade to U-Woman.

I'm just pointing out an inconvenient fact for those who support an expansive welfare state, but don't think anyone should bother to raise the next generation.

I care about the children's rights, but even if you don't, you have selfish reasons to want more children born and raised well.

One of the reasons some of us support a welfare state, particularly with regards to children (who can't choose their parents, after all) is that we recognize raising and caring for kids is expensive, and in an "everyone for him/herself" environment, there are going to be a lot of children whose lives we're going to be throwing away fairly early on, as well as a lot of people who are going to forego children as an expensive luxury.

And we're back to purient Puriatanism.

Unless the two partners want to have any of the kajillion kinds of sex that don't involve a penis ejaculating inside a vagina. Anal, oral, handjobs, frottage, pegging, toys, you name it. There's a whole cornucopia of kinky #### out there that's 100% baby-free.

But apparently distinguishing "penis-in-vagina sex" from 69ing or getting a prostate massage or whatever is just hilarious and out-of-touch, so I'll give the floor back to the He-Man Woman Haters Club.

But apparently distinguishing "penis-in-vagina sex" from 69ing or getting a prostate massage or whatever is just hilarious and out-of-touch, so I'll give the floor back to the He-Man Woman Haters Club.

Yes, distinguishing "penis-in-vagina sex" from 69ing or getting a prostate massage in a conversation about pregnancy, is hilarious and out-of-touch. I imagine most people here are of the age at which they know how babies are made.

What's next? Calling the pitcher a "baseball-related pitcher of a baseball in a locomotive fashion" for the people that may think we're talking about Tim Lincecum's abilities to hold and pour water or other liquids?

I imagine most people here are of the age at which they know how babies are made.

I would have thought so, too, but given Sam's apparent confusion about how a guy could have sex and enjoy it without running the risk of knocking some poor girl up, I figured it made sense to be more specific. He is from Georgia, after all - who knows what the fundies down there see as adequate sex ed?

Calling the pitcher a "baseball-related pitcher of a baseball in a locomotive fashion" for the people that may think we're talking about Tim Lincecum's abilities to hold and pour water or other liquids?

Maybe we DO need to go there. I would've thought most people on this site would understand why a father has a responsibility to provide for his children, but apparently I was giving them too much credit.

That applies in particular to you, Dan. I've lost a lot of respect for you over the course of this thread.

Because the entire time period before the child arrives as a person is largely irrelevent to my point. I want to make clear (in this discussion) that children have a right to be supported by the parents of the child. The various decisions between have sex and baby is a person with rights are basically irrelevent to the baby and its right.

I agree, and I'll try to explain it another way. The man and the woman are legally co-parents from the moment of conception until they die or the embryo, fetus, or eventual child dies. We don't allow either parent to walk consequence-free from their rights and responsibilities.

Abortion is allowed because the fetus is almost always resident and growing in the body of the biological mom. It has the potential to affect her health, and she has the right to put her health ahead of that of the fetus. It's her body, and she owns it. Now this is not to say that abortion is never used as birth control. It surely is many times. But the roles can't be separated, so this is the best we can do.

Now in a case where the bio mom is not carrying the fetus - where the fetus is in a surrogate or artificial womb - then it doesn't seem like the bio woman should have any special abortion rights. She's not carrying the baby, her health isn't affected, she should be in the same position as the bio father.

Also, there's this. For the advocates of the get out of fatherhood free card, women have to be able to do the same thing. To walk away from their parenting responsibilities of a baby they helped produce. It's the same option the men get, the right to renege on parenting whether a baby is born or not. Baby's born, mom hands it to dad, says "good luck with it", and hits the road. Man can raise it or put it up for adoption. Now there are a lot more deadbeat dads than deadbeat moms, but I guess all of the deadbeats will be happy. And women still get all of their abortion rights without men having any say in the matter!

Yes, distinguishing "penis-in-vagina sex" from 69ing or getting a prostate massage in a conversation about pregnancy, is hilarious and out-of-touch.

Vlad wasn't the one who pegged us all as puritans.

I'm 100% with Vlad on this. But the term is vaginal sex.

This could be Puritan Think Factory, AFAIAC.

There's something about penis-vagina penetration that feels like sex, as opposed to the other varieties. Always did like Bill Clinton.

None of you can get pregnant, so this discussion is null and void.

That applies in particular to you, Dan. I've lost a lot of respect for you over the course of this thread.

See, I wouldn't have said the same until just now. But now I have as well. To be honest, someone who can't take a challenge to his beliefs on an internet message board isn't someone worth knowing. So, nice knowing you, pal, it's been real.

Defending sexual freedom is *easy* when it's *easy* isn't it?

Could you guys point me to the section of the argument where sperm donors seem to get stuck with child support? Not iv ever donated (could hold off for more then a day so no guy for the clinic!) just curious to see how that went. assuming its been discussed already

Defending sexual freedom is *easy* when it's *easy* isn't it?

Dude, explore your freedom. Christine Jorgensen was 60 years ago. Any man can become a woman for the right price, though I'm sure it's gone up from the 25K Burton Cummings promised me in Glamour Boy. Libertarians are all about the market. You're only a few genital reconstructions away from aborting your own zygotes.

See, I wouldn't have said the same until just now. But now I have as well. To be honest, someone who can't take a challenge to his beliefs on an internet message board isn't someone worth knowing. So, nice knowing you, pal, it's been real.

Defending sexual freedom is *easy* when it's *easy* isn't it?

This isn't a legitimate challenge to my beliefs. It's just you looking for a justification for irredeemable selfishness, failing to find one that's even remotely convincing, and proceeding anyway. I'm going to do you the credit of assuming that it's something you actually believe, or else you wouldn't have said it (and then repeatedly defended it with a stupid and offensive analogy to rape). You're free to do and think what you want, but at the end of the day, I need to decide whether someone who could actually believe that is someone I want to hang around with. I don't think it is.

I'm glad I knew you, I've mostly enjoyed talking to you over the years, and I hope you have a good life.

Defending sexual freedom is *easy* when it's *easy* isn't it?

You tell me. You're the one who's willing to "defend sexual freedom" here, but who changed his handle so that he wouldn't have to defend those opinions to anyone in his personal life.

I may be a moral coward in your eyes, but I don't put on a false face anywhere. What you see is what you get.

This thread could make a pro-choice'er pro-life.

This isn't a legitimate challenge to my beliefs. It's just you looking for a justification for irredeemable selfishness

This is bullsh1t btw. I am happy to wager that most, if not all, of the men arguing for men's rights here are in the extremely unlikely category when it comes to unwanted pregnancies. High education, high income, 30+ or 40+ males are not a high risk demographic. And since I haven't heard anybody suggest that the government should abandon those single-parents and children, it means we are far more likely to be subsidizing this behaviour, than benefiting.

Guys here aren't arguing out of self-interest. They are arguing for what they believe is right. And throwing around petty insults, instead of engaging in the arguments that are actually made, just makes you look weak, and like you have no actual case, other than saying penis-in-vagina-sex repeatedly.

other than saying penis-in-vagina-sex repeatedly.

Vlad is less obsessed with this phrase than about a half-dozen others here, that's for damned sure.


Guys here aren't arguing out of self-interest. They are arguing for what they believe is right.

This is not either/or, those statements are both true. It's a plural argument, not a personal one. The argument is for a plurality of self-interest - for men - which they absolutely believe is right and just for this issue.

Guys here aren't arguing out of self-interest. They are arguing for what they believe is right.

They're doing both at the same time, actually.

You can't make any assumptions about personal incentives purely from assumptions about personal demographics. For all we know, Sam's really Shawn Kemp, and Ray's so angry all the time because he's stressed from juggling five girlfriends.

And throwing around petty insults, instead of engaging in the arguments that are actually made, just makes you look weak, and like you have no actual case, other than saying penis-in-vagina-sex repeatedly.

So in the same breath, you're a) criticizing me for not engaging in the substance of arguments and b) not engaging in the substance of the penis-in-vagina thing, which was a response to Sam's attempts to cast my side's position as reflexive sexual Puritanism.

Thanks for reminding me why I threw up my hands and left the thread.

Thanks for reminding me why I threw up

No reminders were needed for us, unfortunately; the evidence was all over the thread :-)

This is not either/or, those statements are both true. It's a plural argument, not a personal one. The argument is for a plurality of self-interest, for men, which they absolutely believe is right and just for this issue.

You are making entirely unsubstantiated claims about the inner thoughts of other people. If I support marriage rights and abortion rights for lesbian couples, am I also somehow acting out of self-interest? When there are real costs presented, and virtually no upside, accusing somebody of being selfish makes no sense, except for the fact that it's easier than engaging the actual argument presented.

But even if I accepted your explanation, which I don't, it still wouldn't support accusations irredeemable selfishness, shirking responsibility, and wanting to sleep around with no repercussions, which have been thrown around this thread.

You can't make any assumptions about personal incentives purely from assumptions about personal demographics. For all we know, Sam's really Shawn Kemp, and Ray's so angry all the time because he's stressed from juggling five girlfriends.

So your argument is that Ray and Dan don't actually exist, and are personae created by Ronnie Tuiasosopo on a 15-year long game scam. Waiting for this thread no doubt.

So in the same breath, you're a) criticizing me for not engaging in the substance of arguments and b) not engaging in the substance of the penis-in-vagina thing

Which has been substantively engaged repeatedly, by myself and others. Just because all you are able to do is constantly repeat things, doesn't mean everybody has to constantly repeat themselves to make you happy.