ok so here i am again.
whining about men as somehow victims in scenarios that involve abortion seems to me wholly disengenuous--a reflection of the anti-choice tactic of the month debates and nothing more. given that abortion is only a wedge issue, that it has been for many years has functioned to ground the identity politics of the right, adapting it in an effort to split men away and frame them as being-victimized is no surprise. structurally, then, these arguments are simply the same old same old, really: content-wise they dont say anything.
this:
Quote:
If a woman gets pregnant then it's the man's fault for being irresponsible. If a woman doesn't want to be a parent she can have an abortion that's her 'right'. If a man doesn't want to be a parent then he's a deadbeat who should have used protection.
Errr... What? How does that work? This is why I completely hate pro-abortion arguments. They're just so damn hypocritical and don't even try to hide it. When it comes to (Potential) parenthood, men are held at MUCH higher standards then women are, and it's no where near that 'gender equality' nonsense that pro-abortionists love to spew.
|
is only interesting as a map of how it is that the writer gets worked up as he writes. you can see it happening--by the time you get to the last sentence of the first paragraph, you can see the anger replacing argument. and unless you really do find this mapping idea interesting, the second paragraph is just dissociative: you arent talking to anyone except an Imaginary Other. i'm not going to bother to pull it apart---there's noplace to go with it that doesnt seem mean as i think them out---and even if i were inclined at the moment to be mean, the argument itself does not justify the effort.
so it seems that if you back away from the self-defeating paroxym character of il's last post and think about what there is to be thought about in it---affect management issues aside--it looks like it is about is child support payments.
to my mind, these matters are unrelated and so if that is the topic you really want to discuss, il, then make another thread.
this because what you advance isnt an argument either way for or against the procedure of abortion, nor is it an argument about the grounds on which a decision might be made concerning the procedure. it is beside the point.
unless you really think that making a claim which is functionally equivalent to "i oppose no-fault automobile insurance so therefore cars should be outlawed" actually advances your position.
there are myriad problems with local laws concerning child support--but they are not logically framed if you drag them into this debate. that is why i think you should start another thread--for all i know, you might have interesting things to say about that topic--but i do know that this topic and that one are unrelated and persisting in imagining otherwise isnt doing your arguments any good.