Blue Spiral's Adventures in Solitude

[Blue Spiral]

I wanted to ask (because I've been wondering this) and Blue, wondering what you think too but anyone else can chime in:

 

I do not understand men who willingly have children with a women but won't get married to her, not due to philosophical objections about the institution, but because "it's too much of a commitment".

 

Most men are idiots. Just IMHO.

[Fudgie]

I'm glad you liked the song. I listen to a lot of alt rock, prog rock, and some techo/ambiant/trance-y stuff. Of course, also classical/GOOD rap/and other good works. VAST has gone through a number of band member changes but the main guy, Jon Crosby, I think he's brilliant. His songs are more on the melancholy side but I really love his lyrics and vocals. You can tell he has struggled a lot with issues in relationships, spirituality/religion, mortality, etc. and I am just in awe of his ability to put all of that into music that really moves me.

 

As for the abortion issue, didn't I read somewhere, this year, that Sweden (or another country, but i think it's Sweden) is proposing a law that legalize "male abortion". Simply stated, a man would have x amount of time after being told/proven that he's the father of the pregnancy to reject it legally. This would absolve him of financial responsibilities to said child. The time frame would ideally allow for the woman to abort if she so wishes...or she could make the choice to go ahead and have it, but she wouldn't get child support, but she would get to choose.

 

However, he'd have to do it within a certain time frame, so the woman wouldn't get misled.

But in tern, he couldn't get misled or tricked.

 

Hard to say what the societal effects would be but as long as it gives women ample opportunity to terminate upon learning of the guys' choice, then I'm fine with it. Anything that leads to a decreased # of kids born to 1+ parents who won't support them is a plus in my book!

[Blue Spiral]

As for the abortion issue, didn't I read somewhere, this year, that Sweden (or another country, but i think it's Sweden) is proposing a law that legalize "male abortion". Simply stated, a man would have x amount of time after being told/proven that he's the father of the pregnancy to reject it legally. This would absolve him of financial responsibilities to said child. The time frame would ideally allow for the woman to abort if she so wishes...or she could make the choice to go ahead and have it, but she wouldn't get child support, but she would get to choose.

 

Doing my best George-Michael impersonation (the TV character, not the singer-songwriter): I like the way they think.

[Ms Darcy]

Yeah, it's almost as if women have control over their own reproduction, while men don't. If a woman has a kid, it's because she wants it. If a man doesn't want to have a kid, all he can do is walk away after the kid is born. Whereas a woman can "walk away" from the kid before it's even born.

 

I think that abortion should be safe and legal, but, come on. The only difference between these types of rejection is that yours is in secret and ours isn't. A woman can get an abortion and no one will ever know. Whereas if we choose to reject a child, everybody knows, because we can only do that after-the-fact.

 

If a man doesn't want kids, he can get a vasectomy. I have a guy friend who did. It's worked for him.

[Blue Spiral]

If a man doesn't want kids, he can get a vasectomy. I have a guy friend who did. It's worked for him.

 

And a woman can always get her tubes tied or whatever. (The pregnancy part of Health class kind of freaked me out, to be honest, and I tried not to pay attention.)

 

If we aren't going to shame a sexually-viable woman for getting pregnant, we shouldn't shame a sexually-viable man for getting a woman pregnant.

[Fudgie]

 

 

Vasalgel is currently being worked on and is in US trials now! I'm so excited for this. It's a reversible vasectomy for guys and I'm really looking forward for when this hits the market, even though it will not affect me personally, seeing that I am already sterilized, but I can imagine many men will take advantage of this.

 

The benefit is that unlike a vasectomy, it IS reversible. Men could get one in their early 20s, and as long as they used condoms to protect against STDs, they would never have to worry about impregnating a woman until THEY were ready and had the polymer removed from their vas deferens.

[Ms Darcy]

And a woman can always get her tubes tied or whatever. (The pregnancy part of Health class kind of freaked me out, to be honest, and I tried not to pay attention.)

 

If we aren't going to shame a sexually-viable woman for getting pregnant, we shouldn't shame a sexually-viable man for getting a woman pregnant.

 

There's no shaming. There's just responsibility. Both sides have control over their bodies and both sides are responsible.

[annie24]

And a woman can always get her tubes tied or whatever. (The pregnancy part of Health class kind of freaked me out, to be honest, and I tried not to pay attention.)

 

If we aren't going to shame a sexually-viable woman for getting pregnant, we shouldn't shame a sexually-viable man for getting a woman pregnant.

 

 

This is can be harder than it sounds. I know one woman who wanted just one child, that's it. When she scheduled her C-section, she asked her tubes to be tied as well. Doctor said no, she was young (27) and might change her mind about wanting more kids. Sometimes docs won't do these elective surgeries.

[Fudgie]

It's hard for both sexes to get sterilized unless you're like 40+ and/or have many kids.

 

The old rule used to be that if you had to take the woman's age x # of kids she had and it had to be > 120. That means for a 25 year old to get sterilized, she would need 5+ kids. A 40 year old would need 3. A 30 year old would need 4. A women with none would always fail.

 

I'm an anomaly in that I got sterilized at 26 with NO children. I went to a doctor who is extremely progressive and does not believe in denying women of age the opportunity to sterilize themselves if they so desire. Absolutely, I signed something saying I wouldn't sue if I got older and got itchy for babies. If that happens (unlikely), then it will be my issue, not his.

 

But doctors like that are VERY rare. I had to search hard. He had a reputation for being a very good doctor, someone who was helping women with fertility but also with sterilization, so I was lucky.

 

Also, it's stigmatized. Only ENA, my therapist, and my boyfriend know. I haven't told any of my friends nor my family. I don't want to hear any whining or be ostracized. So I carry on like normal and pretend that I'm still on the pill if I am asked.

 

It's a hard road. And only acceptable for those who are 100% sure, and that's for either sex. How many people are 100% sure either way? Actually, not a lot of people!!

[Blue Spiral]

There's no shaming. There's just responsibility. Both sides have control over their bodies and both sides are responsible.

 

The responsibility may be the same, but the control isn't. After the fact, women have the exclusive right to decide whether or not to have the baby, which is sort of a big deal for men, financially speaking. I realize that it's unavoidable due to the nature of pregnancy, but we need some sort of tradeoff, or things are only going to get worse.

 

And there is indeed shaming. Try this on for size: a person makes some sexual mistakes, resulting in unwanted pregnancies with a few different partners. If the person is a man (and the women decide to have the babies), everyone thinks of him as being immature and irresponsible. If the person is a woman, and she decides to have abortions, everyone thinks of her as being mature and responsible, because they never find out. Your errors in judgment are dealt with by doctors who have to remain confidential; ours are put on display in court for the whole world to see. No wonder people think that men are the less responsible gender...

[faraday]

The responsibility may be the same, but the control isn't. After the fact, women have the exclusive right to decide whether or not to have the baby, which is sort of a big deal for men, financially speaking. I realize that it's unavoidable due to the nature of pregnancy, but we need some sort of tradeoff, or things are only going to get worse.

 

And there is indeed shaming. Try this on for size: a person makes some sexual mistakes, resulting in unwanted pregnancies with a few different partners. If the person is a man (and the women decide to have the babies), everyone thinks of him as being immature and irresponsible. If the person is a woman, and she decides to have abortions, everyone thinks of her as being mature and responsible, because they never find out. Your errors in judgment are dealt with by doctors who have to remain confidential; ours are put on display in court for the whole world to see. No wonder people think that men are the less responsible gender...

 

No they don't- she's a sl*t. Especially if she has more than one abortion. (Not my views but I've heard it said many times).

[faraday]

I'm glad you liked the song. I listen to a lot of alt rock, prog rock, and some techo/ambiant/trance-y stuff. Of course, also classical/GOOD rap/and other good works. VAST has gone through a number of band member changes but the main guy, Jon Crosby, I think he's brilliant. His songs are more on the melancholy side but I really love his lyrics and vocals. You can tell he has struggled a lot with issues in relationships, spirituality/religion, mortality, etc. and I am just in awe of his ability to put all of that into music that really moves me.

 

As for the abortion issue, didn't I read somewhere, this year, that Sweden (or another country, but i think it's Sweden) is proposing a law that legalize "male abortion". Simply stated, a man would have x amount of time after being told/proven that he's the father of the pregnancy to reject it legally. This would absolve him of financial responsibilities to said child. The time frame would ideally allow for the woman to abort if she so wishes...or she could make the choice to go ahead and have it, but she wouldn't get child support, but she would get to choose.

 

However, he'd have to do it within a certain time frame, so the woman wouldn't get misled.

But in tern, he couldn't get misled or tricked.

 

Hard to say what the societal effects would be but as long as it gives women ample opportunity to terminate upon learning of the guys' choice, then I'm fine with it. Anything that leads to a decreased # of kids born to 1+ parents who won't support them is a plus in my book!

 

This should be world wide. With abortions available to anyone that wants them.

 

I asked my daughters father if he wanted to go through with it- I gave him an option- that I would abort if he didn't want this.

 

The second woman he impregnated didn't give him the option. He flat out told her he wanted her to abort, that he wasn't Ina situation where he wanted to parent and she got offended- he didn't meet the child for 6 years, pays crazy amounts of child support (because he wouldn't go to court dates involving that child so they slammed him for it)....it was not fair to him. At all.

 

It sucks that men don't have recourse for unwanted pregnancy.

[Fudgie]

It does suck, faraday. I THINK it's Sweden who is doing this...not sure, have to look up.

 

As I said, as long as it gives both parties ample time to voice their support or rejection in time for abortion, then I'm okay with it, so no one, man or woman, feels like they are being misled or tricked. And if the woman wants to have the baby sans support, then she can do so with no effect on his life!

[Ms Darcy]

The responsibility may be the same, but the control isn't. After the fact, women have the exclusive right to decide whether or not to have the baby, which is sort of a big deal for men, financially speaking. I realize that it's unavoidable due to the nature of pregnancy, but we need some sort of tradeoff, or things are only going to get worse.

 

And there is indeed shaming. Try this on for size: a person makes some sexual mistakes, resulting in unwanted pregnancies with a few different partners. If the person is a man (and the women decide to have the babies), everyone thinks of him as being immature and irresponsible. If the person is a woman, and she decides to have abortions, everyone thinks of her as being mature and responsible, because they never find out. Your errors in judgment are dealt with by doctors who have to remain confidential; ours are put on display in court for the whole world to see. No wonder people think that men are the less responsible gender...

 

I meant there was no shaming from me personally.

 

Getting an abortion is a very difficult procedure physically and psychologically. Both the man and the woman knowingly take the risk that a child can happen when they have sex if at least one isn't precluded from having children.

 

Honestly, if you resent not having control over your little swimmers after the cat is out of the bag either pursue a vasectomy or don't have vaginal sex.

 

This is sort of a odd discussion. It's like you want to argue against a woman's right to choose AFTER pregnancy occurs. I think the Supreme Court settled that argument.

 

In terms of other people shaming, I think you have to compare apples to apples - not apples to oranges (simple logic). Yes, a single guy who is in court may be seen as irresponsible in two ways. One, having kids "out of wedlock." Two, not paying child support.

 

But the right comparison is with a single mom. And a single mom can be seen as irresponsible for having kids "out of wedlock" as well. It's worse if there are multiple kids, multiple fathers. Again, I don't really see single moms getting taken to court for child support.

 

So, in my mind the societal shaming is around people being single parents, period. Regardless of gender. ESPECIALLY when there is more than one child and the parent is getting government assistance.

[itsallgrand]

I've seen so many instances in my own family of women walking out on and abandoning their children. I have several cousins, male, who raised or are raising their children as single dads. In more than one case, the children are not biological but adopted.

I think some men, like some women, wanted to be parents more than anything, and whether there is a long lasting relationship as the foundation of that is not the first priority.

[Ms Darcy]

I've seen so many instances in my own family of women walking out on and abandoning their children. I have several cousins, male, who raised or are raising their children as single dads. In more than one case, the children are not biological but adopted.

 

Is it 50/50? Is it close to 50/50? I would be interested in the overall numbers on single parenthood by gender. I don't think it's comparable.

[itsallgrand]

I'm just talking about my family. The single dads raising children who were abandoned by their birth mothers far out weigh the single moms.

That's not to say it represents society at large. But it does give me a different view point on the issue, in a way.

[Ms Darcy]

Totally understand.

[Blue Spiral]

Getting an abortion is a very difficult procedure physically and psychologically. Both the man and the woman knowingly take the risk that a child can happen when they have sex if at least one isn't precluded from having children.

 

Honestly, if you resent not having control over your little swimmers after the cat is out of the bag either pursue a vasectomy or don't have vaginal sex.

 

In the pre-Roe past, that was basically what people said to women. "Well, if you didn't want to deal with a pregnancy, you shouldn't have had sex, so tough luck." That argument was wrong when it was applied to women, and it's also wrong when it's applied to men.

 

This is sort of a odd discussion. It's like you want to argue against a woman's right to choose AFTER pregnancy occurs. I think the Supreme Court settled that argument.

 

It only seems odd because men have been silent on this issue for too long.

 

What I want is simple: women have a right that men don't have, so, in return, we should have a right that you don't have. Both women and men should have a right to choose, but the choices would be different. In my world, we wouldn't have any say over what you do with your bodies, and you wouldn't have any say over what we do with our wallets.

[Blue Spiral]

No they don't- she's a sl*t. Especially if she has more than one abortion. (Not my views but I've heard it said many times).

 

But women can keep abortions secret, while it's a lot harder for men to keep children secret, compared to the past.

 

Also, I'd like to thank you and Fudgie for being sympathetic in regards to this matter.

[Ms Darcy]

I happen to think children are a miracle and a gift. Also, I think children deserve to be brought into the world by parents who love them and will ensure they have a good hone.

 

Sex is the primary mechanism to make children. Sex as pleasure and for emotional connection is a nice biological sidebar to encourage procreation.

 

I am not one for preaching abstinence. But this conversation is cherry picking. Abstinence is an option. Multiple birth control efforts are also options.

 

It is pretty irresponsible to bury one's head in the sand and pretend both people who have sex are, unless one locked that up, not engaging in activity that makes babies.

[TMifune]

Men are bound to legal responsibility at conception. That means that the only choice for a man is to make certain that conception doesn't happen. That is, abstinence, or vasectomy. Anything else, a man is always taking a risk.

 

Women are bound to legal responsibility somewhere around 24 weeks after conception. This means women can have all the guilt free sex they want as long as they decide to abort before the legal deadline.

 

The legal responsibility is imbalanced.

 

It would be balanced if abortion was illegal. Then men and women would both be held legally liable at conception.

It would be balanced if both men and women had the option to abort (or terminate parental rights / responsibilities).

 

But currently the law is imbalanced, because men are held accountable at conception, whereas women aren't accountable until whatever their state's abortion limit is reached. That is biased legal power in favor of women with regard to parental responsibilities. Because in the event that conception occurs, he is legally bound, while she still has a choice.

[annie24]

^^ I don't really understand what you mean by "guilt free sex" that these pregnant women are having. Many women I know had terrible nausea and vomiting during their first trimester, you're making it sound like they can be having orgies left and right because they're pregnant?

[faraday]

Men are bound to legal responsibility at conception. That means that the only choice for a man is to make certain that conception doesn't happen. That is, abstinence, or vasectomy. Anything else, a man is always taking a risk.

 

Women are bound to legal responsibility somewhere around 24 weeks after conception. This means women can have all the guilt free sex they want as long as they decide to abort before the legal deadline.

 

The legal responsibility is imbalanced.

 

It would be balanced if abortion was illegal. Then men and women would both be held legally liable at conception.

It would be balanced if both men and women had the option to abort (or terminate parental rights / responsibilities).

 

But currently the law is imbalanced, because men are held accountable at conception, whereas women aren't accountable until whatever their state's abortion limit is reached. That is biased legal power in favor of women with regard to parental responsibilities. Because in the event that conception occurs, he is legally bound, while she still has a choice.

 

Men aren't accountable until birth. They don't pay child support until birth- it's not like they're required to pay "pregnancy support".

 

Women having guilt free sex is...your interpretation. Abortions are rarely guilt free...for most women it's one of the hardest decisions they'll ever make.

 

While I think men should be able to "opt out"

of responsibility (like in Fudgies example)...but since that doesn't exist in our world, if the fetus is brought to term, it is a child that needs a family, it needs to be raised by someone...and is most often the woman...whether the man chooses to stay or not.

 

So...that's not guilt free either. I can tell you that raising my daughter for 6 years as a single parent was incredibly difficult...and really, the $400 a month I get in child support is a small drop in the bucket compared to the actual financial expense, and that's not including the hours a day I spend on/with her (that her father gets to spend doing his own thing).

[Blue Spiral]

But this conversation is cherry picking.

 

Pointing out that, while both genders are equal, one gender is a little more equal than the other...is not cherry picking, IMHO. It was wrong when men had more options than women, and it's wrong when women have even just one more option than men.

 

You keep mentioning before-the-fact options; I'm more interested in after-the-fact options. Men and women have the same before-the-fact options. You have a distinct advantage over us after-the-fact, however.

 

A wise old saying: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." I hereby present a slightly-clunkier corollary: "If most single moms/divorced women lost primary custody and still had to pay 18 years of child-support, the system would be torn down."

 

Also, great post, TMifune.