Father's importance no laughing matter

In article , nimue says...

Banty wrote:
In article , nimue says...

Banty wrote:http://www.adoptioncouncil.org/docum...onFactbook.pdf
In article , nimue says...


snip

Give it up, you never supported C4M in the first place, who do
you think you are kidding. Did you really think that I didn't
see this coming. I have seen your tactics so often before on
usenet. Someone comes into a controversal subject, 'pretends' to
agree with it but then comes off asking some very pointed (not
general) questions, then when they get their answers they do a
180 and no longer support that issue. Jeez, did you really think
you were the first to do that.

Actually I think she did.

I did. I don't now -- it's too dangerous.

She views it as a "trade off" for women
opting out of childrearing via abortion. That's the rationale
Andre is pushing, right?

Supposedly. I just don't think he is as honest as MSNothing.


And btw, didn't you mean to say "Men and women should be forced
to support those children". No wait , no you didn't that wasn't a
slip. You really did mean to say that didn't you.

Also, please point to where I want to take the choice away from
women and give it to men. Men can't get or force an abortion,
therefore men never had the choice in the first place and under
C4M they would still would not have that choice, so when
abortion is taken away, it isn't given to men, it simply doesn't
exist any longer. See how fair that is, no of course you don't
because you are woman firster , for all your bluster about
supporting C4M you just couldn't muster any support from anyone
here that they actually believed you.

Well, neither one of you favor fairness for all.

Really? Why don't I?

For starters, you're perfectly willing to write off the concerns of
men who would want the baby.

I am. I don't think you can tell another person what to do with
their bodies. I feel bad for those men, but I can't imagine forcing
people to do something so significant and potentially damaging to
their bodies when they don't want to.

Well, a lot of our society has decided the answer to that moral
dillemma the way you describe. I happen to think a life is a more
compelling concern.

I think the compelling concern is the lives of living people already in this
world. What about their lives?

Not in the same kind of immediate danger. Responsible people don't live so as
to cause damage and death to get out of their fixes.


And we're having all kinds of problems propping
our societal decision up - confusion over murder laws concerning
pregnant victims, C4M, even over testing of infants for HIV.

Sorry, but there are problems surrounding all kinds of social decisions.
Welfare, school vouchers, treatment of mental illness -- there are issues
around EVERYTHING. Trust me -- take away the right to choose and the
problems won't go away. They may change, but there will be plenty of
problems. Oh, you might want to read this.
http://www.geocities.com/trampolineone/

You had to go back to the *early 1950's* for this?? This child is now older
than I am! Attitudes and laws have changed tremendously sincd then!

Here's a much better source for you:

http://www.adoptioncouncil.org/docum...onFactbook.pdf




To go a bit further, you don't even seem to be tending to the impact
of the abortion on the woman. Physically, financially. Nada from
you on that.


As far as financially, the cost of an abortion is nothing compared
to the cost of bearing a child. Nothing. The difference is tens of
thousands of dollars, possibly even more, and I am just talking
about conception to birth. I am not including the cost of raising a
child.

As for physically, again, the effects of an abortion on a person's
body are nothing compared to the effects of pregnancy and childbirth.

But these are NOT NOTHING.
It's cost AND a medical or surgical
procedure to go through. You can't wave that away by comparing it to
something else.

Actually, you can. You see, in this situation, there is a clear choice --
abort or have a baby. That's it. So you need to weigh BOTH options. If
you are looking at it from a physical and a financial perspective -- as you
were -- the least expensive and least potentially harmful choice is clear.

No, you can't, and you're totally missing my point!

Under C4M, the man can not have any responsibility to the child, as the woman
can have an abortion. But, apparently you're ready to see the man walk away
completely free, while the woman not only has to pay for an abortion, she has no
compensation for the pain and trouble of having a medical procedure performed on
her or taking very serious hormonnal medications. "It would have been more if
you had the child" is no compensation at all, indeed it's a dismissal.

THAT's what I'm talking about. That hardly is fair even if you do say abortion
is OK. That's the second reason why I don't think you're really missing the
mark on fairness as much as MsNothing is IMO. Or having true sympathy for women
for that matter.

Banty

On Jul 8, 8:26 pm, Banty wrote:
In article , nimue says...


Under C4M, the man can not have any responsibility to the child, as the woman
can have an abortion. But, apparently you're ready to see the man walk away
completely free, while the woman not only has to pay for an abortion, she has no
compensation for the pain and trouble of having a medical procedure performed on
her or taking very serious hormonnal medications. "It would have been more if
you had the child" is no compensation at all, indeed it's a dismissal.

THAT's what I'm talking about. That hardly is fair even if you do say abortion
is OK. That's the second reason why I don't think you're really missing the
mark on fairness as much as MsNothing is IMO. Or having true sympathy for women
for that matter.

Banty-

The whole basis of the "my body, my choice" thing is that biology has
situated women differently than men and therefore women have the sole
say in these matters. Well, okay, but that means they get to be the
ones who have to go through the abortions too.

After all, with power comes responsibility.

If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, she can abort it
regardless of his wishes. Where is his compensation for that
situation? Where is the "true sympathy" for men at having their
precious child aborted by a woman who decided she didn't feel like
being pregnant?

Yes, a man doesn't have to worry about the burdens of pregnancy. And
there's where you stop your comments. But that's not reality. You're
only showing one side of the coin. It goes further than that -- the
other side of the man's coin is that he has no control over the fate
of his child. If the woman wants the child born, it will be born. If
she doesn't, it won't. Doesn't matter if he yearns to be a father, if
he's wanted a family all his life. Nothing matters but her wishes for
her body.

So that's where her compensation is for the pain and trouble of having
the abortion or going through the pregnancy -- the assurance she has
that even if the man chooses to opt out, she still has the ability to
keep the child if she wants it. That's the benefit she has that men
don't.

In article .com,
says...

On Jul 8, 8:26 pm, Banty wrote:
In article , nimue says...


Under C4M, the man can not have any responsibility to the child, as the woman
can have an abortion. But, apparently you're ready to see the man walk away
completely free, while the woman not only has to pay for an abortion, she has no
compensation for the pain and trouble of having a medical procedure performed on
her or taking very serious hormonnal medications. "It would have been more if
you had the child" is no compensation at all, indeed it's a dismissal.

THAT's what I'm talking about. That hardly is fair even if you do say abortion
is OK. That's the second reason why I don't think you're really missing the
mark on fairness as much as MsNothing is IMO. Or having true sympathy for women
for that matter.

Banty-

The whole basis of the "my body, my choice" thing is that biology has
situated women differently than men and therefore women have the sole
say in these matters. Well, okay, but that means they get to be the
ones who have to go through the abortions too.

OK. But, how would that therefore mean, given a situation where neither the man
nor the woman wants the pregnancy to continue, but both are resonsible for it's
beginning, she has sole burden of the aborion costs and no compensation for
risks? C4M doesn't account for that; when it does, the best proposal I've seen
is 1/2 medical costs. Which isn't 1/2 the full costs. Nimue misses that one
too.


After all, with power comes responsibility.

If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, she can abort it
regardless of his wishes. Where is his compensation for that
situation? Where is the "true sympathy" for men at having their
precious child aborted by a woman who decided she didn't feel like
being pregnant?

Ah HA. Well, my own brother has been in that position. And C4M would have done
absolutely nothing for him.

It is only narrowly and myopically to 'balance' only one aspect of the
situation, that by abortion women therefore don't have future responsibility for
childrearing, therefore the man doesn't either.

It doesn't address the overall situation, it abrogates responsibility to born
children, it doesn't compense for pregnancy OR abortion. But, if one
metaphorically holds one hands on either side of one's face (like a horse's
blinder) and looks straight ahead focussing ONLY at the responsibility for
childrearing aspect, it balances out that single case for that subset of men.
So one sees some abortion-rights advocates myopically jumping on that bandwagon.


Yes, a man doesn't have to worry about the burdens of pregnancy. And
there's where you stop your comments. But that's not reality. You're
only showing one side of the coin. It goes further than that -- the
other side of the man's coin is that he has no control over the fate
of his child. If the woman wants the child born, it will be born. If
she doesn't, it won't. Doesn't matter if he yearns to be a father, if
he's wanted a family all his life. Nothing matters but her wishes for
her body.

C4M doesn't address that either. Leaves that particular sore right out there to
bleed. Have you been reading my posts??


So that's where her compensation is for the pain and trouble of having
the abortion or going through the pregnancy -- the assurance she has
that even if the man chooses to opt out, she still has the ability to
keep the child if she wants it. That's the benefit she has that men
don't.

And if she doesn't want to raise the child? And what if she wants to but can't
do it alone?

Most of all, what of the child him or herself? A child is a person, not a
prize. So, what of other children in other situations, once the basic legal
premise of support of children is thrown away, and the new set of principles
applied to things like custody cases? This is the largest difference between
abortion ("C4W") and C4M which makes them quite different propositions.

Banty