Let's go through this point by point:
"While it may be true there are no physical sacrifices, there are numerous psychological and financial sacrifices that a man makes."
All of those sacrifices are carried by women, plus the danger and pain of child-birth. In most cases where only one parent is raising the child it is usually the woman, not the man.
"Having a child isn't easy for anyone. Not for the woman or the man. Then there's the adjustment of having a kid, and let's not forget the fact that the man may have mental problems (like bi-polar) which might make him unable to properly raise a kid.
Then there's the financial. If a woman has a child and the man leaves her, she can get child support from that man. What if the man is supporting his wife and can barely make it as it is. Having a kid will only amplify that and cause him to possibly work 80 hour weeks for years."
There is a huge amount of B.S. in that, especially the last sentence. Child support is proportional to the man's income; if a man makes minimum wage that will be factored into the child support payments affixed by the judge. The whole "80 hour weeks for years" thing is something wholly made up by you, I have no idea why you decided to make stuff up but I would suggest making it a little less obvious next time.
In fact, it is usually women who have to work extra hours on top of taking care of the kids because of father who skip out on their parental responsibilities.
Anyways, this whole argument seems to lean towards the man not wanting the child but the woman wanting it. Are you telling me you think men should be able to force women to have abortions?
No matter how unstable the man is; I don't think he should be able to force a woman to have an abortion simply because he implanted his sperm in her. He will have to pay child support if she decides to keep it; it was his choice to have sex with a woman unprotected.
However, men frequently dodge child support successfully (my own biological father did just that. He owes child support to my mother, the mother of my half-brother and who knows who else. He hasn't paid a cent in a decade).
"Of course there are other things as well. for instance, if the man is of faith, he may not want his future child to die. because the baby was made 50% from the man, shouldn't he at least have a say in what happens?"
Let's see, so because this "religious man" impregnated a woman who doesn't share his values this "religious man" gets to decide for the woman whether the child is to be born or not? Let's not even get started the irony of this occurring between two people not even married; but if they are married (which seems rather unlikely if they both share radically different religious views) it still doesn't give the man the right to take control over the woman's body.
The man has no say, he shouldn't have a say, and if his values are so different from the woman or girl he got pregnant he should look for another one.
What you and those on your side don't seem to recognize is that you cannot have two people having an equal say in a particular matter to begin with. There are only two outcomes in any decision-making process two people engage in: a total consensus or an equal split. A vote of 0 to 2 or 1 to 1.
What you want is two people having an equal vote but, if there is dissent, the man gets to be the tie-breaker. Essentially, this gives the man the say and the woman no say at all.
I don't understand why you don't see this; it is only one or the other, or the courts which get to decide. But in any case in which your policy gets implemented the woman is the one who gets her voice silences and her body taken away from her.
It's ridiculous, it really is.
That .13% is 31,000 women a YEAR. Over the course of ten years that is 310,000 women (larger than many cities in this country).
I guess if 31,000 women a year aren't important to you, that's your problem. The fact that 31,000 women a year die from pregnancy and a total of 0 men do also doesn't seem to matter to you. Oh well, no big deal, those women shouldn't have had sex if they didn't want their lives to be decided by men.
"i think, if a woman doesn't want to be pregnate... she should probably not have sex. especially with a dude who may not want her offing his spawn."
I don't see how this gives a man the right to decide her fate and essentially control her uterus. You could just as easily say that if the dude didn't want to have his fetus aborted he shouldn't have gotten a woman pregnant who didn't want children.
The only thing that tips the scales is the fact that 0.0% of men are at risk from birth and go through none of the inherent pain while .13% of women could die, all of them have to go through the massive pain of child birth, and all women have their health impacted in some way due to it.
You may be pro-abortion, but you are decidedly anti-woman.
There are some major problems with that line of thinking:
First of all, that whole situation would be unconstitutional. You would have to amend the constitution to give the power of denying abortions to the courts.
Secondly, you are now advocating the ability of both the man and the legal system to have power over a woman's body and her very life. That, in itself, is disturbing. Courts make mistakes all of the time; in this case there isn't even a crime being committed, why put a woman's life in hands other than her own?
Lastly, health complications can arise without notice, without warning, without foreknowledge. Birth is always risky, there are always mild impacts on women's health, but anything could happen that would endanger the woman's long-term health, well-being, and life. Complications could arise weeks before the birth, what then? Would you have this woman, while in the throws of late pregnancy and all of its problems, get her lawyer to petition to court for the ability to abort? What if it is too late to protect her? How long would it take for the court to decide?
But besides that, again, you've decided that the people who get to decide whether the woman's life is worth being put at risk is not the woman herself but her husband and male-dominated courts. That's rather oppressive, rather disturbing, and unbelievably simplistic and cold.
Could you explain what is wrong with a man being a militant feminist? I mean, I know that women being as powerful and violent as men would be the most terrible thing in the world. I know that women being equal would result in the forced emasculation of all men on earth, but honestly, what's wrong with me being for that?
I don't know why I "need a hug" when talking about other people standing up for their rights and against abuse. Your cliche'd response is rather underwhelming, your humor is dated by about twenty years.
I guess I could be equally cliche' and point out that you are nearly thirty and single; explaining your immature position (and your immaturity) as a result of your inability to land a female companion. That, of course, would be sinking to your level.
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I don't know what the joke is supposed to be here.
Am I supposed to be a woman angry at men who abused me?
A man who is angry at women who abused him?
A gay man angry at straight men abusing him so he encourages women to emasculate them for his own sick amusement? (I mean, this one is at least close to the truth, but I don't know if this was your intended meaning).
If you are going to crack jokes could you at least make a good one, one that makes a small amount of sense? I think that's a rather small request, really.
There are only two "says" possible: Either the man can voice his opinion and the women "has" to consider it, but the choice is ultimately up to her or the man has the final say and can veto the woman's choice to have an abortion.
Your choices, then, are two: The men has no real say or the man has control over a woman's uterus once she has been impregnated.
"There is so much testing available to ascertain whether or not the child will be born healthy it's truly amazing."
Be that as it may, what do you propose if the child should be discovered to have mental retardation, Cerebral Paulsey, Down Syndrome or a number of other debilitating diseases. What if the father still wants the child but the mother doesn't? Is there going to be a point system, who gets to make the final decision , a judge? One of the parents?
As for the danger to the mother; it isn't always known until the complications arise during the pregnancy that the mother's life is in danger. Sometimes it is too late to make the decision. sometimes death occurs after the birth has already taken place.
As of 2007 (I found some more statistics) one in every 4800 women in the United States die of complications resulting from pregnancy. That's over 31,000 women a year in the United States.
All you can offer pregnant women is a bland and optimistic view that everything is gonna be okay, things are so nice and easy, they aren't in much danger..etc..etc. You also have extremely vague ideas about who gets to decide things; you talk about the man "making a case", involving courts, having it "resolved between the two parties". Do you not realize you need to actually have a law in place for courts to decide on?
Unless the parents actually create some kind of contract where the woman must have the consent of the man or state law dictates that the man must also consent to the abortion there would be nothing for the courts to decide, it is her choice.
Do you have anything beyond vague ideas of what should happen and excuses about how "complicated" the issue is? Your whole "solution" is both redundant and provenly impossible to implement fully. It is basically the old child-support system plus the ability of the father to choose whether or not the child can be aborted. In other words, a flawed system plus further control of the woman to the man with an increased risk and responsibility to the woman.
It is even less fair than what we have now with our growing number of single women and their dead-beat child's fathers. I don't see how you can so glowingly advocate what would be a massive chain being wrapped around a woman's uterus, with a lock whose key is firmly held by a man.
And will you go to jail for manslaughter if the pregnancy results in her death? What if there are health complications, are you responsible for that, will you be forced to pay-out?
Sweetheart, men, by law, must either raise the child with the mother or pay child support. The courts are too tied up to deal with this already existing legal obligation. Men constantly skip out on their duties; leave town, refuse to pay child support, and, sometimes, earn too little for it to even matter.
"My take on it is that the man should have a say and not be cut out of the loop simply because it's her body! It was also her body and her choice to take the risk of pregnancy."
Really now? Even if both consented to sex, the condom did not break or the birth control didn't work, how do you justify allowing the man to have control over the woman's body? Why does the man, who is under no risk from pregnancy and its many and possibly deadly complications, have equal say with regards to the birth?
Men do not go through any of the suffering and pain of child-birth, none of the danger, why are they allowed absolute power over the woman's body? In the end, the man has the power; if they both agree to abort or give birth it is fine, but if the woman does not want the child but the man does the man is the one who gets to make the decision.
Are you bloody kidding me? There is extreme pain, physical and mortal danger, and the ability (and likely-hood) of the man simply dropping his responsibilities and leaving the mother to raise the child.
Even if the man was serious about rearing the child; he is not going to go through the pain and danger of child-birth. The rate (2004) of "Maternal Mortality" (Death by pregnancy) is 13 out of 100,000 thousand. It isn't likely, but it is certainly a problem.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.
Even if the pregnancy didn't result in death there are a number of common and likely health impacts that range from near-term, long-term, and permanent damage.
Men, however, have a 0% chance of dieing as a direct result of pregnancy, there are no health risks, no physical sacrifices, nothing.
Men do not have a say; men do not get to control how women use their bodies; especially when the woman's life is at stake. Unless men are under the same risks the fact that they blissfully ejaculated into a woman does not entitle them to control over her uterus, her health, and in some cases her life.
"You're moving the goal post. You were asking why they hadn't had a productivity boom since the reforms, when they have."
Excuse me? I asked why their living standards hadn't risen above the Soviet levels; nor why they havn't risen as quickly and as sharply as the Soviet Union managed to do. It is strange that the Capitalist system hasn't been able to overcome most Soviet living standards even though the problems it has faced are minuscule in comparison with the Soviet dilemmas.
Increases in productivity do not translate directly into increases in living standards.
First off; you are taking the context of the data from Schroeder and Edwards paper and hurling it about randomly.
This statement is rather telling:
"It's pretty sad when a Soviet success is getting a few kids to grow fully."
First off; this is an indirect measurement of well-being; fully grown humans means well-fed, and well taken care of humans. It isn't as if Soviet technicians managed to tweak children into developing higher.
Secondly; you seem to not have read the paper properly, as you are taking some of what was written wildly out of context. Did you bother reading the conclusion section? Do you know how to read a scientific paper? Even though the conclusion technically agreed with you in principle, it undermines you (well, and itself, actually).
From the conclusion:
"Four different measures of population health show a
consistent and large improvement between approximately 1940 and 1969: child height, birth
weight, adult height and infant mortality all improved significantly during this period. These
four biological measures of the standard of living also corroborate the evidence of some
deterioration in living conditions beginning around 1970, when infant and adult mortality was
rising and child height and birth weight stopped increasing and in some regions began to decline.
The significant improvements in population well-being before 1970 may in part be
related to the expansion of the national health care system, public education, and improved
caloric and protein supply during this period. Moreover, these improvements occurred during a
period of rapid industrialization, indicating that the Soviet Union managed to avoid the decline in
adult stature that occurred in some other countries during their industrialization phases."
The paper gave as an example of one viewpoint the idea that child growth was in parity with the U.S. in some regions but its conclusion indicated the discrepancy was small and that child height merely stagnated (and in a few cases dropped) across the regions of the Soviet Union.
In other words: the Soviet system until 1969 nearly matched the U.S. (in a couple cases it matched it, and for certain periods of time). It also took the historically unprecedented path of increasing height during a period of industrialization. It, also, achieved this from a horribly backwards position and through major calamities.
For all its faults, and I admit there are plenty, it certainly wasn't as horrible as you hysterical partisans like to make it out to be. I can criticize the Soviet Union just as much as I can praise it, but I won't stand for hypocrisy, scapegoating, and exaggeration.
For one, there are some massive differences between the European Union and NAFTA:
1. The EU is a transnational government whose policies are enforced onto its constituent Republics.
2. The EU allows almost free mobilization of the populations within it. Immigration and Emigration are allowed freely.
3. NAFTA is a simple free-trade agreement; one policy. The EU is a government that produces policies.
4. The EU has a single currency; NAFTA does not unify currencies.
5. The EU acts as a socializing agency, it uses government money to fund programs, give grants, and aid economic development; NAFTA simply allows Capitalists free reign to invest and industrialize.
NAFTA is going to collapse; the benefits it promised have not been realized and a wave of sympathy and guilt has been spreading among the middle classes. It is no longer okay for American companies to ship jobs away from adult working-class Americans to Caribbean and Mexican children; from union industries to places where workers are abused, silenced, paid pennies on the dollar, and murdered so our shoes can cost a few dollars less (Or, in the case of designer goods, the same high price anyways).
Secondly; NAFTA, if it survives, will never be able to bring about the mobility the European Union has provided. The United States is obsessed with security, protecting its culture, and has an acute distrust, dislike, even hatred of Mexicans. Few Americans want an open border with Mexico; no Democrat has suggested it and most liberals would rather see a relaxation of security, not a free-for-all.
There will never be a single currency for the United States, Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean. None of the members would benefit; the dollar is too weak, the peso is worthless, and the Canadians are already fed up with the results of the current Free Trade zone's failures to benefit their citizens in any appreciable way.
"A reccent study done by the World Bank on the topic has found that from 1999-2007 income per capita has raised more than 50%, while lifting 50 million people out of poverty."
That is not in context, it does not compare with what the poverty rates were prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. You are, in fact, telling me that 50 million people were raised out of poverty but not how many people were put into poverty after the collapse. From the data that I provided, it looks as though poverty has dropped but not far enough to have increased living standards above the Soviet level for the average person.
In other words, you are being intellectually dishonest. Only if the poverty rate is lower than it was under the Soviet era would you have met my arguments and successfully countered them.
"From the paper, "These data paint a picture of a society far behind other developed countries in the health status of its population in the prewar period......."
The infant mortality rate was higher than the west's, that's true, but, as with the adult rate, after WWII it was at the Median, that is what the 50 percentile is; the median percentile. You, apparently, don't know what a percentile is. That paper was telling you how well the Soviets did, it talked about major developments in children's health after WWII.
You've made a very large number of claims and have not backed any of them up with direct, contextual evidence. I am still waiting for the facts to back up your confidence. Is that really all you have? Work a little harder next time.
