4 ms·

Last I checked, you can't have a baby without unprotected sex. If you ejaculate inside a fertile woman, how do you not see that as a choice? Except in cases of

Last I checked, you can't have a baby without unprotected sex. If you ejaculate inside a fertile woman, how do you not see that as a choice? Except in cases of men who are raped, it absolutely represents a choice on the part of the man. The fact that you can't force a woman to have an abortion (or to not have one) after the fact doesn't seem like an infringement on your rights.

thematrixturtle 5y ago
The failure rate of contraception in real life is quite high, and this is not even accounting for various methods of "baby trapping" (the old pin in the condom etc). If you're a well-paid professional in NYC, the negotiated market rate for an abortion is well north of $50k. https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2016/12/12/failed-abortion-transaction/ https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2016/12/12/failed-abortion...
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > negotiated market rate for an abortion is well north of $50k. Ozer reportedly offered her tens of thousands of dollars to terminate her pregnancy, amid other messages, calling her “white trash” and telling her “I f***ing hate you.” ... He reportedly made the cash payment offer through a colleague. The Post reports that the colleague told Naymark, “He’d be willing to offer a lump sum of money to you . . . I’m sure he would have no problem with 50k-75,000+.” That's a "negotiated market rate"? From your link: The friend’s purported offer of “50k-75,000+” is not consistent with attorney-handled transactions What point exactly are you trying to make here?
- Markoff 5y ago
  please enlighten me about quite high failure rate of properly installed IUD
  - thematrixturtle 5y ago
    And just how is the man supposed to know if it's properly installed or not? Remember the GP was saying it's always the man's fault if the woman gets pregnant.
    - Markoff 5y ago
      I was just responding to nonsense about high failure rate of contraception, obviously male contraception is options are very limited.
grapeskin 5y ago
His point is that after that action, the man has no more choice. A pregnancy can be terminated at any point after that and generally men have no say. If a man chooses to impregnate a woman against her will, that of course results in an array of crimes. Men are also concerned that they may end up losing access to their children and on the hook for child support and there’s little to nothing that can be done about it. It definitely makes some men anxious, and every time it’s mentioned, floods of people come in to trivialize these concerns while also saying men need to step up. Gets boring.
tomp 5y ago
> how do you not see that as a choice? Common bait&switch argument. It’s not a choice as far as women are concerned (so women deserve another choice in the form of abortion) but it’s a choice for men? You can’t have it both ways and claim to not be sexist.
- schwartzworld 5y ago
  I mean, what's the alternative? Are you suggesting legally forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure? Or in the case of the man wanting to keep the baby, are you suggesting doctors don't perform the procedure without the consent of both parents? Both scenarios sound completely untenable to me. What if we agree it's ultimately the choice of whoever has a baby growing inside them regardless of their sex?
  - tomp 5y ago
    “Financial abortion” is a sensible solution. Edit: but in general I care more about equality than about a particular solution. Either both men and women have a choice after sex, or neither. The current sexist solution is the worst.
giantg2 5y ago
It may be a choice, but there is still some validity to the notion the man is largely limited in the mitigations around that choice. For example, a woman could lie about being on birth control or in saying that she would get an abortion if she did get pregnant. Essentially, the way the laws are written prevent any sort of mitigation for the man, instead forcing responsibility, even for child support in non-clinical sperm donations in many states. Let's say a man wants a baby and the woman doesn't. It seems the woman has control over: consent to unprotected sex, hormonal birth control, and abortion. The man has control over consent to unprotected sex. Now, let's say a man doesn't want a baby. The woman has control over: consent to protected/unprotected sex, hormonal birth control (including Plan B), abortion, and whether to give up the child (some states allow for surrender which absolve child support obligations). The man has control to consent to protected sex only (all the mitigations like birth control can be lies and there's no way to legally enforce them like you could stealthing in CA). As you see, the power dynamics are skewed heavily.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- schwartzworld 5y ago
  Lots of women can't take hormonal birth control for a variety of reasons, and abortions are not physically or emotionally pleasant. Equating these things with condoms is pretty lame. Condoms are cheap, sold everywhere, are more effective than the other methods, and can be used with zero advance planning or side effects.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I didn't equate them with condoms. I simply said they are a choice. If we want to focus on edge cases, we can justify anything. "can be used with zero advance planning or side effects." You have to at least plan to have one, which can be more difficult if you or the partner have a latex allergy.
- foogazi 5y ago
  > Let's say a man wants a baby and the woman doesn't. Find another woman ? > The man has control over consent to unprotected sex. Choice >Now, let's say a man doesn't want a baby. >The man has control to consent to protected sex only Choice again > As you see, the power dynamics are skewed heavily. But the outcomes are skewed heavily too In a tiny percentage of cases intercourse produces a baby The woman has to carry the baby to term for 9 months, take care of her body, eat well, rest enough, don’t drink alcohol, stop working, go through a painful delivery that will change her body forever, doctors are involved, life or death situations then the baby needs food and clothing…
xorfish 5y ago
You can have a baby with protected sex. No birth control except abstinence is 100% effective. It is much worse if you look only at methods that men have control over. Birth control for men is still quite limited. There is not a single non-permanent method that has a effectiveness of over 90% per year per couple. The closest to that is the condom: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom Giving men equal rights in the decision to become a parent would mean giving them the right to legal parental surrender.
- dogma1138 5y ago
  > Giving men equal rights in the decision to become a parent would mean giving them the right to legal parental surrender. That’s the point people seem to overlook. There is no particularly good reason why all men should not be able to surrender parental rights especially early on say during the first trimester and essentially be treated as sperm donors as far as the law goes (tho from my understanding in some or even many jurisdictions sperm donors aren’t protected from that either beyond their anonymity). At that point the woman still has a choice if she wishes to continue with the pregnancy on her own or terminate it. Basically it would turn the equation from do you want to have a child to do you want to have a child without any financial support from the father.

thematrixturtle 5y ago

The failure rate of contraception in real life is quite high, and this is not even accounting for various methods of "baby trapping" (the old pin in the condom etc). If you're a well-paid professional in NYC, the negotiated market rate for an abortion is well north of $50k. https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2016/12/12/failed-abortion-transaction/ https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2016/12/12/failed-abortion...

ModernMech 5y ago
> negotiated market rate for an abortion is well north of $50k. Ozer reportedly offered her tens of thousands of dollars to terminate her pregnancy, amid other messages, calling her “white trash” and telling her “I f***ing hate you.” ... He reportedly made the cash payment offer through a colleague. The Post reports that the colleague told Naymark, “He’d be willing to offer a lump sum of money to you . . . I’m sure he would have no problem with 50k-75,000+.” That's a "negotiated market rate"? From your link: The friend’s purported offer of “50k-75,000+” is not consistent with attorney-handled transactions What point exactly are you trying to make here?
Markoff 5y ago
please enlighten me about quite high failure rate of properly installed IUD
- thematrixturtle 5y ago
  And just how is the man supposed to know if it's properly installed or not? Remember the GP was saying it's always the man's fault if the woman gets pregnant.
  - Markoff 5y ago
    I was just responding to nonsense about high failure rate of contraception, obviously male contraception is options are very limited.

grapeskin 5y ago

His point is that after that action, the man has no more choice. A pregnancy can be terminated at any point after that and generally men have no say. If a man chooses to impregnate a woman against her will, that of course results in an array of crimes. Men are also concerned that they may end up losing access to their children and on the hook for child support and there’s little to nothing that can be done about it. It definitely makes some men anxious, and every time it’s mentioned, floods of people come in to trivialize these concerns while also saying men need to step up. Gets boring.

tomp 5y ago

> how do you not see that as a choice? Common bait&switch argument. It’s not a choice as far as women are concerned (so women deserve another choice in the form of abortion) but it’s a choice for men? You can’t have it both ways and claim to not be sexist.

schwartzworld 5y ago
I mean, what's the alternative? Are you suggesting legally forcing someone to undergo a medical procedure? Or in the case of the man wanting to keep the baby, are you suggesting doctors don't perform the procedure without the consent of both parents? Both scenarios sound completely untenable to me. What if we agree it's ultimately the choice of whoever has a baby growing inside them regardless of their sex?
- tomp 5y ago
  “Financial abortion” is a sensible solution. Edit: but in general I care more about equality than about a particular solution. Either both men and women have a choice after sex, or neither. The current sexist solution is the worst.

giantg2 5y ago

It may be a choice, but there is still some validity to the notion the man is largely limited in the mitigations around that choice. For example, a woman could lie about being on birth control or in saying that she would get an abortion if she did get pregnant. Essentially, the way the laws are written prevent any sort of mitigation for the man, instead forcing responsibility, even for child support in non-clinical sperm donations in many states. Let's say a man wants a baby and the woman doesn't. It seems the woman has control over: consent to unprotected sex, hormonal birth control, and abortion. The man has control over consent to unprotected sex. Now, let's say a man doesn't want a baby. The woman has control over: consent to protected/unprotected sex, hormonal birth control (including Plan B), abortion, and whether to give up the child (some states allow for surrender which absolve child support obligations). The man has control to consent to protected sex only (all the mitigations like birth control can be lies and there's no way to legally enforce them like you could stealthing in CA). As you see, the power dynamics are skewed heavily.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
schwartzworld 5y ago
Lots of women can't take hormonal birth control for a variety of reasons, and abortions are not physically or emotionally pleasant. Equating these things with condoms is pretty lame. Condoms are cheap, sold everywhere, are more effective than the other methods, and can be used with zero advance planning or side effects.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I didn't equate them with condoms. I simply said they are a choice. If we want to focus on edge cases, we can justify anything. "can be used with zero advance planning or side effects." You have to at least plan to have one, which can be more difficult if you or the partner have a latex allergy.
foogazi 5y ago
> Let's say a man wants a baby and the woman doesn't. Find another woman ? > The man has control over consent to unprotected sex. Choice >Now, let's say a man doesn't want a baby. >The man has control to consent to protected sex only Choice again > As you see, the power dynamics are skewed heavily. But the outcomes are skewed heavily too In a tiny percentage of cases intercourse produces a baby The woman has to carry the baby to term for 9 months, take care of her body, eat well, rest enough, don’t drink alcohol, stop working, go through a painful delivery that will change her body forever, doctors are involved, life or death situations then the baby needs food and clothing…

xorfish 5y ago

You can have a baby with protected sex. No birth control except abstinence is 100% effective. It is much worse if you look only at methods that men have control over. Birth control for men is still quite limited. There is not a single non-permanent method that has a effectiveness of over 90% per year per couple. The closest to that is the condom: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom Giving men equal rights in the decision to become a parent would mean giving them the right to legal parental surrender.

dogma1138 5y ago
> Giving men equal rights in the decision to become a parent would mean giving them the right to legal parental surrender. That’s the point people seem to overlook. There is no particularly good reason why all men should not be able to surrender parental rights especially early on say during the first trimester and essentially be treated as sperm donors as far as the law goes (tho from my understanding in some or even many jurisdictions sperm donors aren’t protected from that either beyond their anonymity). At that point the woman still has a choice if she wishes to continue with the pregnancy on her own or terminate it. Basically it would turn the equation from do you want to have a child to do you want to have a child without any financial support from the father.