Posted on 06/06/2017 7:21:38 AM PDT by C19fan
In some of the wealthiest neighbourhoods of the United States, a growing number of wealthy men are taking drastic measures.
A recent New York Post story Hamptons bachelors are getting vasectomies so gold diggers cant trap them takes all we deem true about reproductive power that women ultimately hold all the aces and blows it out of the water.
It tells the calculated tales of four men including a wealthy, promiscuous real estate developer who claims he caught a woman trying to inseminate herself from a condom shed offered to flush away. The vasectomy is insurance, he says.
Dr. David Shusterman, a New York urologist who performs the procedures, explains: Theres a spike in single guys who get the procedure in spring and early summer.
(Excerpt) Read more at heatst.com ...
“Im defending the idea that two adults who create a child should be joining forces to be the best parents they can be to their own flesh and blood child.”
So what are you proposing in practical terms? Forced marriages?
I mean, arguing that everyone should be morally upstanding is great, but that isn’t a rejoinder to the argument that the laws need to treat people equally even if they do not live up to your moral standards.
Your suggestion would work for THAT problem, but it would create another problem. It would require a police state to confiscate the child and enlarge the government bureaucracy to collect support money and oversee the adoptions.
I thought conservatives were against big government solutions like that?
The solutions to my mind have to be cultural. Children have to stop being considered a waste product of sex, or at best a nuisance outcome of sex.
And if you don’t want children, biology being what it is, the onus is on the adults to take measures (even drastic measures like sterilization) to prevent that from happening.
The responsibility and repercussions cannot logically and morally be on the child because they don’t have the capacity to prevent their own creation.
The only logical solution is to promote personal sexual responsibility of ADULTS. Both men and women.
The solutions to my mind have to be cultural. Children have to stop being considered a waste by-product of sex, or a nuisance outcome of sex. We have to value life.
No, I don’t support expanding the police state. It has to come from cultural changes and a big part of that is promoting what conservatives (I thought) promote which is personal responsibility for both parties.
You are making the assumption that behavior would not change in the face of severe disincentives.
The point of the article was that women with a wealthy boyfriend have an incentive to get pregnant, so as to be able to hit up the boyfriend for child support. Remove that incentive, and replace it with a penalty to the woman, and they would become much more careful to NOT get pregnant and be more inclined to want to get married FIRST.
Again, review biology.
They both created the child.
Regardless of the circumstances, they both created the child. It just cannot be said enough times. They both created the child x 673 million times. Why can’t people get this?
If you don’t want a child, then take measure not to create one. These men in the article are being responsible. They are taking measures to (virtually) insure they will not be creating a child they don’t want. That should be applauded.
The alternative is worse ... for the child.
So, what is your desired course of action? Are you in favor of modifying the incentive/disincentive structure that men and women face? Or just preaching at them? (And keep in mind that they probably won't listen to your preaching anyway).
You talk a lot about your desired end-point, but are not saying much about HOW you plan to get there.
Again, review human nature.
The man and woman face different incentives. The women talked about in the article are getting pregnant because they WANT to get pregnant, out of wedlock, in order to be able to demand child support from a wealthy father. If your objective is to reduce out of wedlock pregnancies, the way to do it is to eliminate women's incentives to get pregnant.
You will not change behavior unless you change desires.
There is no easy solution to this problem.
But the start has to be a recognition that the parents wishes are subordinate to the life they both created. The child’s well-being has to come first.
The ideal is not to create an unwanted child in the first place of course. That should be the main goal.
But failing that, once a child is created, the next best thing is for society to consider a new child a net good, not a “punishment” opportunity against the parents who created it. Men and women should both be responsible for the child ... and not just monetarily. That is the ideal. That is the goal to be strived for. Of course, we won’t always get there but that has to be the standard don’t you think? Of do we do away with standard just because we won’t ever meet them 100%?
And when it comes to procreation the emphasis should be on the welfare of the child, not the convenience of the parents. Ideally we would strive to create a culture where children are valued ... life is valued from conception to natural death.
Same at the other end of the spectrum. We don’t want a culture where when we are old our kids just throw us into a home and forget about us because we are inconvenient. Or euthanized because we are just too much trouble. Do we? I certainly don’t want that.
Increasingly, across the spectrum, we see life less and less valued. That can’t all be addressed with laws. A lot of it has to be a change in our values and attitudes about life.
Women cannot get pregnant on their own.
The men in the article at least understand their biological role in procreation and are taking personal responsibility to prevent a biological event from happening. That to me is much better than people who want to cling to double standards of sexual responsibility.
Who said “no responsibility for women”? You keep putting words in our mouths.
The article was about men avoiding it by drastic measures (as opposed to celibacy). The comments should be expected to focus on men - but do not by necessity absolve women!
And how do you presume that any of us is the “chain-smoking Baptist”?
You don’t.
my link references that study, which prompted this larger study and largely countered it.
The current law says. A woman has no legally enforced responsibility towards her child. She has no obligations. She can abort if she chooses, and no man can tell her no. She can put the kid up for adoption or foster care. In most states, she can just walk into a hospital or fire station, leave the baby there, and walk away, no questions asked.
Unlike men.
How about both sexes exercise discretion and stop all the bed-hopping?
Fine by me. How do you propose to incentivize that?
What are we supposed to do, PAY PEOPLE not to be promiscuous???
All I asked is "How do you propose to incentivize that?". That's how the world runs. We give incentives for good behavior, and disincentives for bad behavior.
Islam, for example, practices the disincentive of stoning people to death when they do not follow prescribed practices. While I don't propose going that far, I do think that applying disincentives of some sort to bad behavior would tend to reduce bad behavior. In the spirit of fairness, I think that disincentives should be applied to both men and women.
So, getting back to my original point, "How do you propose to incentivize that?", have you any suggestions as to how we could discourage having babies out of wedlock? Preferably in such a way that the disincentives do not fall exclusively on the men?
“That’s how the world runs. We give incentives for good behavior, and disincentives for bad behavior.”
Yep, and conservatives are supposed to understand that:
“If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it.” - Ronald Reagan
Not gods will to alter our parts for pleasure. Only pain
Nothing good can come it
Especially reproduction especially women but men too
The body is a temple and men should be in complete control of themselves
correct. i dont.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.