Posted by Brian Sorgatz at 3:57 PM
Will left this comment at March 10, 2006 11:44 AM
In this lawsuit, the man has a good claim that he was deceived. That is an exceptional circumstance that most men don't have when it comes to the results of sex.
As I see it, the arguments around this are centered around the believe that consentual sex between adults occurs with an implicit contract of responsibilities. This implicit contract states that women have control over what happens to their bodies if pregnancy ensues, and the men have the responsibility to support the decision of the woman.
Your understanding of this issue seems to have no recognition of this legal situation. If this legal understanding of what sexual responsibilities are changed, then the social understanding of women's inherent value as human beings is challenged. It is then that implicit sexual contract is: women can have sex with whoever they want, as long as they take 100% responsibility of all results of sex. In this case, men, by legal definition, are totally unresponsible for their sexual activity. And women, by this change, have to be even more careful of their choice of who they have sex with because the real world ramifications of their actions lie solely on their shoulders.
It is for this reason that men should be careful with their choices, and if they 100% don't want to have a child and are with a woman of similar beliefs - then they need to make sure that they have evidence of that. Courts typically are willing to remove responsibility from the man if it can be proven that he did everything reasonable to prevent sexual intercourse from resulting in pregnancy or was otherwise deceived. Beyond this, I see no reason to change the system we have now and I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.
Jetting Through Life left this comment at March 12, 2006 7:47 AM
Dropping by to say hello!!!
Need more bunnies!
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at March 13, 2006 12:33 PM
Will:
It is then that implicit sexual contract is: women can have sex with whoever they want, as long as they take 100% responsibility of all results of sex. In this case, men, by legal definition, are totally unresponsible for their sexual activity.
Let’s deconstruct your use of the word responsibility. Abortion and adoption are means by which women can legally deny the responsibilities of parenthood. In other words, a woman can take 100% or 0% of the responsibility for the results of sex—at her unilateral option. Are you too chivalrous to allow yourself the equivalent option?
In this lawsuit, the man has a good claim that he was deceived. That is an exceptional circumstance that most men don't have when it comes to the results of sex....Courts typically are willing to remove responsibility from the man if it can be proven that he did everything reasonable to prevent sexual intercourse from resulting in pregnancy or was otherwise deceived. Beyond this, I see no reason to change the system we have now and I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.
Are you aware that Dubay expects to lose his case? Apparently, you paint an overly sunny picture of the current legal system. Besides, putting this burden of proof on the male is like requiring the female to prove that she used contraception before she can have an abortion.
I can’t stop seeing you as a hypocrite on this particular issue until you can make one argument that I can’t easily turn into an argument against the right to an abortion (devil’s advocate, of course).
Queen of Spain left this comment at March 16, 2006 12:53 PM
I have to disagree with you here, my love.
Here are my thoughts.
First of all, this depends on each individual situation. I don't care what the woman told him, if he had unprotected sex with her, then he must take responsibility for what happened.
I disagree that adoption is a way out of parenthood. You are forgetting she must carry that child in her body for 9 months and suffer the lifetime affects of having been pregnant.
Now, if he and this woman used protection and agreed on never having children, then she decieved him...that is a different story. Then he may have a case.
But I really think it's very simple. If you have sex, and you do not try and STOP pregnancy-you better be willing to pay for your play.
It's not like he wasn't aware sex made a baby.
The fact that women hold in their hands the ultimate decision on this, is one of the only things in life women have to decide. It's HER fate. It's her body. Control her fate, and you control all women. While it is also his fate, he should have made sure not to have...excuse me here, cum in her. It may not be fair that women have the ultimate say over pregnancy, but it's also not fair they are the only ones getting pregnant. So I'm really not sure this is a matter of fair. It's a matter of choices. Don't want a kid? Don't stick your dick in a woman. Suprised when she is knocked up? Then you're an idiot. Refuse to help take care of the kid YOU made? Then you're a coward too.
I do still love you though.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at March 16, 2006 2:42 PM
Queen of Spain,
I love you, too, but you disappoint me. You had an abortion. Does that make you an idiot or a coward? No, but it makes you a hypocrite.
Like Cavanaugh, you confuse the biological unfairnesses that can’t be helped with the legal unfairnesses that can. We have to resign ourselves to the former, but we can eliminate the latter by changing the law. Apples and oranges.
Queen of Spain left this comment at March 16, 2006 3:04 PM
See, I don't agree. I think I controled my destiny. And I had a choice to control it. I think the man's choice to control his destiny is at the point of ejaculation. His decision is ejaculation. Just because my decision comes later makes me a hypocrite?
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at March 16, 2006 3:22 PM
Q. of S.,
The young man with the anti-abortion bumper stickers that you mention in your post would probably say that your choice to control your destiny was at the point when you lay on your back, spread your legs, and let the man have his way with you, you wanton harlot (his words, not mine). If you have a problem with that, then you’re a hypocrite.
Queen of Spain left this comment at March 16, 2006 4:07 PM
Ok, I've been thinking about this awhile now. Look what you made me do...think. Dammit.
Anyway. Let's just get right to the heart of the matter, here.
This issue, this ONE AND ONLY issue is the only place in life that women weild the ultimate power. From the begining of man and woman, women have trapped men. You heard me I said "trapped."
We use our sexuality and our bodies as tools of power. It has happened since the begining, and it is happening now.
Men hate this. Men are powerless in this.
I believe your arguement, boiled down to its barest bones, is that we should both have the exact same choices from start to finish. Well, my friend. We don't. You see, I EARN an extra choice. I EARN it by being the one who has to sacrifice her body. That gives me one bonus choice that you don't get.
You will never, legally or otherwise, earn that bonus choice because you are not the one with the power in this scenario.
It's the ONLY scenario in life in which you don't have it. So please don't complain.
Now, you can argue that both a man and a woman had sex, therefore the man should not be punished for sex with parenthood. And a woman should not be punished for sex with parenthood. All fine and good. But let's say the woman gets pregnant, despite the best efforts by both sides NOT to get pregnant. The man legally, gets to opt out.
Does the woman really get to opt out? Abortion stays with her forever. A medical procedure is preformed. Phsychologically she may be damaged. Adoption is AT LEAST 9 months of her life. And the third option, having and keeping the baby, is forever.
So you see, that's where I earn my extra little legal choice. Because no matter what happens, the ramifications of that sexual encounter are with me forever. WHile as you, can opt out. Walk away. Done and done.
Uh...no. Sorry. This is the one and only place where I will have to say, women have the power. ANd men just don't like it. If you are a man, and you ever, ever trust a woman who says "she's on the pill" or "can't have babies" or whatever, you shouldn't be screwing her.
Even if you use a condom or whatever, there is always that chance. There is always a chance. Therefore, your last chance and choice comes at the point of ejaculation. I earned the choice after ejaculation by being the vessel for the seed.
It's been this way since the begining of time. And men may not like it that sometimes they are brought down by their dicks. But that is just the way of life.
And I say it's also what you love about us women. We hold it all. ALl the power of life, within us.
So just take that for what it is. You take down that system, and I say civilization as we know it crumbles.
Sex is power. Women use sex.
Maybe not the anti-feminist point you were looking for. But I think it's really the truth and heart of this. And I really think the man just need to throw in the towel on this one and bow to the beauty and awe and wonder that is the woman with power.
Will left this comment at March 17, 2006 8:20 AM
Abortion and adoption are means by which women can legally deny the responsibilities of parenthood.
This makes no sense to me.
Abortion and adoption are examples of how women exercise the responsibilities they have the right to. Having an abortion or giving up a child isn't a sign of taking 0% responsibility, it is a tough decision... I've never heard of a women actually having an abortion or giving up a child for "convenience".
In other words, a woman can take 100% or 0% of the responsibility for the results of sex—at her unilateral option.
You make it sound like men don't have any responsibility for choosing to have sex in the first place.
I think that your focus on results-only is disingenuous, considering that results don't happen out of thin air.
Are you aware that Dubay expects to lose his case? Apparently, you paint an overly sunny picture of the current legal system. Besides, putting this burden of proof on the male is like requiring the female to prove that she used contraception before she can have an abortion.
This is part of the point I'm trying to make. The burden of proof must be put on the man because taking away legal rights from a women is an extreme action to take. At best, the person filing the lawsuit might get an exemption or a discount on his personal child support payments... definitely not some sort of unilateral destruction of a system that guarantees that women aren't left to the dogs if a man chooses to leave a women after getting her pregnant.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at March 17, 2006 9:18 AM
Q. of S.,
I need to make you think a little more.
Does the woman really get to opt out? Abortion stays with her forever. A medical procedure is preformed. Phsychologically she may be damaged.
Again, you prove my point by sounding like a pro-lifer. Just yesterday, I read this at an anti-choice website: “Many women grieve silently after abortion, their sorrow ignored by a society that expects them to be grateful for the ‘freedom’ to abort. Some suffer depression, nightmares, suicidal thoughts; some wake in the night thinking they hear a baby crying.” You wrote that having an abortion is the hardest thing you’ve ever done, and I believe you. But you also wrote that you have no shame or regrets. I don’t mean to be glib about the agonizing difficulty of choosing an abortion, but women can and do survive the choice.
So you see, that’s where I earn my extra little legal choice.
Not all women make that value judgment. Mel Feit of the National Center for Men told Time that, to his pleasant surprise, the cause has received more support from women than from men. What will you do when the tide of public opinion turns?
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at March 17, 2006 11:12 AM
Will:
Having an abortion or giving up a child isn't a sign of taking 0% responsibility, it is a tough decision... I've never heard of a women actually having an abortion or giving up a child for "convenience".
The hypocrisy of your side of the debate is as dependable as gravity. You stereotype men forced to pay child support as selfish womanizers, just as pro-lifers sometimes stereotype women who want abortions as irresponsible sluts.
You’re still playing a shell game with the word responsibility. It’s no contradiction to call an abortion a refusal of responsibility and a difficult thing to decide on. One need not be irresponsible by nature to deny some responsibilities. This goes for both sexes.
The burden of proof must be put on the man because taking away legal rights from a women is an extreme action to take.
You as a liberal and I as a libertarian ought to agree that the government doesn’t belong in the bedrooms of consenting adults. But your burden of proof puts it there.
I don’t believe anyone has the right to finance his or her lifestyle choice with other people’s money. Unless all men are devils and all women are angels, this privilege holds far too much potential for abuse.
Will left this comment at March 17, 2006 3:41 PM
I don’t believe anyone has the right to finance his or her lifestyle choice with other people’s money. Unless all men are devils and all women are angels, this privilege holds far too much potential for abuse.
The real issue is that without women keeping their rights on this issue, that the potential for abuse is much, much greater.
It’s no contradiction to call an abortion a refusal of responsibility and a difficult thing to decide on.
You are selectively defining responsibility then as "the responsible thing to is to go through with the pregnancy and have the child" - regardless of ability to raise the child. This is incredibly murky ground, and there is no way to base a reasonable argument on this premise. It is impossible to argue against it because it is begging the question.
You as a liberal and I as a libertarian ought to agree that the government doesn’t belong in the bedrooms of consenting adults. But your burden of proof puts it there.
My "burden of proof" puts the burden on men to prove that there is some reason that they shouldn't be responsible for a pregnancy, which is an exceptional case. This isn't like sodomy laws, or any other law that regulates personal choice... in fact, this is well within the means of what libertarians believe laws are for - to ensure that business agreements are not violated. Understanding, once again, that having sex with someone involves legally an implicit agreement, this is not an extreme stance. The total abdication of personal responsibility of men is an extreme stance, and is a serious threat to many women (particularly of low economic class).
It seems to me that you view women receiving child support as if it were a business deal where the guy got burned on an investment that should be nullified upon the point where he doesn't like its yeild. Well, let me tell you, having sex is an investment, and if you're paying child support that's most likely because you've burned yourself on your investment. And, in the rare case that it's not the man's fault, he better have some proof.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at March 17, 2006 8:05 PM
Will:
Understanding, once again, that having sex with someone involves legally an implicit agreement, this is not an extreme stance.
Who decided the terms of that implicit agreement, and when? I hadn’t heard about it—unless you just mean the shotgun-wedding mentality of the olden days. Let’s all be free of the shotgun as well as the coat hanger.
left this comment at March 23, 2006 6:33 PM
Thousands of men have asked me to have sex with them, I've asked zero to have sex with me. "We don't like condoms" they whine, "What she (wife, girlfriend) doesn't know won't hurt her" "get rid of it" "it isn't mine" "how do I know I'm the father" they ask of the virgin they seduced. IF MEN DON'T WANT BABY'S THEN USE CONDOMS, GET A VASECTOMY, STOP SEDUCING GIRLS (and rape I might add). If what's his face didn't want a baby why did he leave personal responsibility to the woman to prevent it. He could walk and never pay for the child, she has to carry it in her body for 9 months, before giving it up for adoption. If you don't want the responsiblity to support the children you squire, don't have sex. Period.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at March 23, 2006 8:33 PM
Anonymous,
I challenge you, as I challenged Will, to make a case against Roe v. Wade for Men that isn’t the mirror image of an argument against the right to an abortion. You stereotype sexually active men who don’t want to be fathers as exploitative Don Juans, just as some pro-lifers have stereotyped sexually active women who don’t want to be mothers as irresponsible floozies. While it’s certainly wise to take steps to prevent pregnancy, a woman isn’t denied an abortion because she was careless. Men deserve equivalent leniency.
I find it sexist of you to mention seduction and rape in your argument. Seduction per se is merely talking somebody into something, so it shouldn’t influence our ethical and political conclusions. I see rape as a serious crime to be severely punished. But I believe in individual, not collective, accountability. The fact that some men rape has no bearing on the rights and responsibilities of men in general.
Jane Lake left this comment at January 17, 2007 6:01 AM
Brian:
I am one of those that you would label "consistent". I am pro-life and completely disagree with your premise.
Legality does not equate to morality or correctness or fairness. It simply is the "current" state of the law.
Smoking is legal, but clearly a harmful thing to those doing it and to others around it.
Abortion kills a human being who never was given the "choice" of life. The parents are mere ingredient providers and vessels. Once conception occurs, the rights and choices of this new individual must be upheld. That is ironically the liberal way to look at this.
Parents have responsibilities beyond the law, and they start the moment they become parents, not arbitrary points in the future determined by special interest groups.
TerraPraeta left this comment at January 17, 2007 11:33 AM
Hi Brian,
As is so oftern the case, I am somewhat torn on this one.
Philosophically I am totally with you. But then the question becomes, how does one enforce a 'sometimes' law in a society like ours? I don;t see it happening in any way that would effective and 'fair': more likely, those men that fit the Don Juan stereotype would be the ones to avoid responsibility, whereas those that are generally good guys and tricked, or subjected to honest error would not.
Better still, toss out the whole concept of 'justice' and start over with the goal of 'making society work smoothly...'
tp
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at January 17, 2007 7:35 PM
tp,
In an imperfect world, justice is the best we can hope for.
TerraPraeta left this comment at January 19, 2007 5:49 AM
...and I came to the realization that it was typical case of American Blind Justice
And there wasn't nothin' I could do about it...
Arlo Guthrie, Alice's Restaurant.
Sorry, couldn't resist! :-)
tp
left this comment at January 20, 2007 1:25 PM
tp: "Better still, toss out the whole concept of 'justice' and start over with the goal of 'making society work smoothly...'"
Or just the whole misguided notion of post conception 'choice' entirely.
Brian Sorgatz left this comment at January 20, 2007 7:15 PM
I don’t think so, Anonymous. I don’t believe in parenthood as a punishment for sexual activity.
Jane Lake left this comment at January 22, 2007 5:45 AM
Brian:
Parenthood is a blessing, not a punishment. The only people being punished are the innocent unborn. Why should they be punished for sexual activity?
Because they can't defend themselves?
Because they need food from the mother to survive?
Because they don't look like "us"!
« Home
Will left this comment at March 10, 2006 11:44 AM
left this comment at March 23, 2006 6:33 PM