http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=15029833 Comments On: Savage Love by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 25 May 2013 03:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Lizzybabyak]]> Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:25:44 -0700 The Stranger
In that scenario, say the woman just wants the pregnancy over, and the man says, "That's fine, I'll take care of incubating it." At the end of the artificial incubation period, should the woman be held liable for child support for the next 18 years?

Also, should incubators cause the state to assert full humanity/personhood rights at conception? The zygote is now technically fully viable from the moment of conception, without being physically dependent on another person's body and biological systems.

Same worms, different can.
Posted by avast2006]]> Thu, 08 Nov 2012 00:13:10 -0800 The Stranger
Your wide-eyed 1950's writing voice is only believable in that your views are better suited to the 1950's. This is the most passively aggressive trolling comment I have seen in some time. Wow, golly gee!
Posted by Faradn]]> Mon, 05 Nov 2012 12:50:02 -0800 The Stranger
Wow! What do you guys think?

And here's another cool article. What do you think, Dan?

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/li…
Posted by ricky2718]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 22:09:53 -0700 The Stranger Posted by ricky2718]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 22:03:27 -0700 The Stranger
I was wondering what your thoughts are about this article:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-…

Thanks!
Posted by ricky2718]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 22:01:44 -0700 The Stranger
I was wondering what your thoughts are about this article:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-…

Thanks!
Posted by ricky2718]]> Sat, 03 Nov 2012 21:58:41 -0700 The Stranger
I often hear these naturalistic arguments about what choices men and women should get, as though it's of our hands because biology. This is the Naturalistic Fallacy--the same fallacy a lot of people use to oppose abortion and birth control in general.

As to children being affected, I don't think anyone here is saying men should get the opt-out choice longer than women get the abortion choice. My personal thought is that men should get somewhat less time to opt out than women, so that the woman has enough time to make the decision knowing she won't be getting that support if she keeps the child.
Posted by Faradn]]> Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:47:37 -0700 The Stranger
If and when we develop artificial uterine replicators, then it will be possible to terminate a pregnancy at any point without actually killing the fetus...

that will allow men who want the unplanned child to *take* it, without having to conscript the mother's resources for 9 months...

that will let people who object to abortion put their money where their mouths are and adopt unwanted fetuses as soon as the mothers decide they don't want them...
Posted by Melissa Trible]]> Thu, 01 Nov 2012 11:44:18 -0700 The Stranger I'm just curious. By the way, I truly envy your affordable
healthcare situation in Canada! American doctors, their
pharmacist pals, and insurance companies are greedy,
bloodsucking pigs.
Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:30:17 -0700 The Stranger Who said all parented kids had to be bio? I'm just saying.
Posted by auntie grizelda]]> Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:26:00 -0700 The Stranger
I work in health.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:03:00 -0700 The Stranger
I can see your perspective on having to go it alone, especially if the man is unwilling. You can't force a man to be a father anymore than you can force a woman to be a mother, but you can enforce them to be fiscally responsible -- at least to the extent possible. And if they're broke or it becomes to cost prohibitive to do so, it may be better to just not bother (like suing someone that can't pay a judgment -- it may not be worth it pragmatically to pursue your claim, but it doesn't make it okay for them to get off scott fee either).

I feel very much the same way as you do personally and if it were just about me, I'd do the same -- but, I also realize that when a child is born, it's not just about me and the father anymore. It's also about that child. And child support is the right of the child, not the custodial parent. I'd also try to facilitate a good relationship with the father, for the sake of our child together, regardless of my personal feelings for him.

I realize a lot of people don't do this -- they let their feelings of hurt, pride, whatever get in the way. But unless the other parent is unfit or dangerous for other reasons, I'd do my best to facilitate a relationship because the child does have a mother AND a father, even if the mother or father is a shitty human being.
Posted by KL]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:28:04 -0700 The Stranger Actually, I AM one of those women who doesn't consider abortion to be a legit option for me. I think it's important that it remain safe, legal and available for other women, but I personally would feel like I were aborting my child, not a fetus.
If placed in that situation, I would be willing to have the father sign over rights and figure it out on my own. I would rather do that than force my child to deal with a parent that doesn't want them. I understand that in some circumstances that puts a bigger burden on society. However what if the "father" has no significant income. Same result. And if you go after this man for child support, he'll go to jail because he can't pay, and that will cost society even more.
What I'm getting at is that there are no perfect answers to this issue. Men and women have the EXACT SAME options prior to conceiving. Once conception happens, the woman gets to decide for all three. Yes, it's her body, and she can't be told what to do with it. But lets at least acknowledge that it IS unfair to some extent.
Posted by KateRose]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:44:47 -0700 The Stranger
Newsflash for Avast: the universe doesn't revolve around you (or men in general). There are others to considers, others have go to great lengths to avoid unplanned pregnancies (i.e. the great lengths that many women do to avoid just that situation with no effort on their partners' part), others that are greatly impacted by unplanned pregnancies (i.e. women and children). Join us. Take some responsibility for your own choices, for men's options (as imperfect as they may be). Welcome to the world of grown-ups and what we women have been dealing with from the dawn of time --- an imperfect world with imperfect options where we do the best we can given that reality and our individual consciences.

As Dan said -- consequences, not just for women anymore!
Posted by KL]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:58:10 -0700 The Stranger
But what if that's not the case for another individual woman? For whatever reason, she wouldn't feel right aborting -- what's the result then?

That a child grow up without a father? And if he's not doing the bear minimum of paying support, that society help make up the difference (to some extent) or the child go with less? I mean, if the woman is independently wealthy and the support wouldn't make any difference in the child's life, okay. But for the vast majority of women (and men), that's not the case. So the child would suffer more. Or society would be impacted more.

I just think we have to take those things into account too -- the woman, the resulting child, society -- and not just look at what's "fairest" to the man. Because what's "fairest" to him is going to be grossly unfair to others.

Like most things in life, rarely is something 100% fair. But you find the "fairest" solution. If you're a man that wants to avoid being a parent, then do the utmost in your power to accomplish that, but also realize that you may get bad luck despite the best precautions (she said she'd abort but then changed her mind and we were using very effective birth control and it still failed -- this has to be like in 0.1% of the population as the pill is 99.9% effective if taken correctly).

I just find it particularly distasteful that men like Avast want a 100% solution for them when there isn't that for everyone else necessarily. And the lack of empathy for the others in the equation -- women, children and society -- is repugnant.
Posted by KL]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:47:28 -0700 The Stranger
From all the posts I've read, I don't think any of them are stating that they don't believe abortion should be safe and legal. Quite the opposite. They're not condemning abortion, or trying to take away a woman's right to have it.

All that they are saying is, a woman has a choice after pregnancy occurs. A man does not. If a man would like to keep the child, but the woman doesn't want to, he doesn't get to. If a man does not want to be a parent, but the woman has decided to keep the pregnancy, he is required to be a parent, even if that is just financial.

I think, from what I've read of their posts that they would also agree that it will NEVER be 100% fair. It can't be, as women can be pregnant and men can't. However, it's not unreasonable to request that things be as fair as possible.

Truthfully, I don't have a problem with giving a man a window of opportunity to opt out, while still within a time frame for the woman to make her decision based on the complete information.
I do see a flaw in that in some cases. Mainly that some people really DON'T know they're pregnant within that time frame. It makes it tougher, but typically takes her choices away as well as his.

I apologize if my post is somewhat disjointed as I am at work and distracted a bit.
Posted by KateRose]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:16:26 -0700 The Stranger
You think that if men would just use condoms, everything would be fine for them, that condoms are more than sufficient option for the man to take his share of preventing pregnancy, and guys that don't use them aren't entitled to any consideration when a pregnancy occurs. (For that matter, guys that DO use them aren't entitled to any consideration when a pregnancy occurs, either; because, hey, biology!) But then you yourself don't like them, and you don't use them with your guy. Apparently it's fine for _you_ to tell him, "Honey, I hate condoms, let's just rely on the Pill," but when any other couple does that, that can only be an example of the man taking no responsibility for contraception.

Congratulations, your hypocrisy is complete.

Between that and your inability/refusal to see the difference between a choice that you refuse to take even though it's available and legal, and a felony that will get you thrown in jail if you do, it's quite clear that you're a complete nutter.

As for your argumentum ad populem, there are people in my family -- my wife, for example, whose reproductive freedom and health I take very seriously, which you would know if you had been reading what I wrote instead of thumping your straw man -- who think your position is that of a complete nutter, too.

Clearly, we are done here.
Posted by avast2006]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:00:34 -0700 The Stranger
I understand that men don't have the same birth control options as we women do, but I still employ the ones at my disposal. It's not fun to have your natural hormones screwed up or deal with side effects -- I'm just thankful that I didn't have as bad of side effects as I know other women have had -- but it's still way better than having to worry about getting pregnant.

So, I can understand you being bummed that there isn't as much options for men for birth control. And if that's your deal, then lobby for better birth control for men --- I'd love for my partner to deal with it instead of me, but practically it hasn't been much of an option and even then I'm not sure I'd trust him not to miss a pill. I'd probably still take it myself because it is that big of a deal to me. But the solution isn't to have an "opt out" -- the man gets to do nothing to prevent pregnancy and just walks away. That's ludicrous.

So, yes, condoms aren't ideal. If there were no other birth control methods, I'd use them religiously. But, there are other options for women so I use other options. But I'd never not use any and then just get an abortion or "opt out" if that were possible for women.

I'm just glad that there are men out there like Hunter78 that is embarrassed as a man at what some of you guys have said. I know the men in my life -- from partners, to brothers to father -- would feel the same way and would think you're just a douchebag, not a man.
Posted by KL]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:49:50 -0700 The Stranger
THIS is why I love you, Dan Savage!
Posted by Already DTMF]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:39:13 -0700 The Stranger I apologize for not getting your point, but believe me, it isn't for lack of trying. I've reread your post, and it seems like you're saying couples in LTRs should always wear condoms because people cheat, which I assume you agree is a bit crazy? Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Not sure why you are arguing with me - doesn't seem like we disagree.

As for getting an STI at work, the only way I can make sense of that comment is by assuming you are a sex worker. Is that what you are saying? Apologies in advance if I'm missing something.
Posted by seandr]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:31:57 -0700 The Stranger
You're clearly not getting my point.

I'm just saying that a lifelong policy of never using condoms is extremely limiting if you also want to be reasonably safe. Most people want to be able to have sex in the context of maybe casual sex sometimes when they're single or have sex with new boyfriends or girlfriends before the relationship has entered a really LTR/monogamous/trust level.

"I estimate the probabilities of contracting various diseases from a given woman, multiply those probabilities by the severity of consequences of each disease, add those values up, and then compare the sum with upside of unprotected sex. If the number is negative, I put a condom on, but if it's positive? Party time!"

Exactly, you put a condom on. And if you were in such a situation where you calculated the number as negative and that person vehemently refused to wear a condom (or let you wear one, as the case may be) would you fuck them?

Exactly.

Finally, as to the personal digs, I don't have trust issues, the fact that I said I'm more worried about getting an STI at work should have made that clear to anyone who has any sense of logic, let alone someone who studied probability.
Posted by mydriasis]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:11:09 -0700 The Stranger Depends on the woman. Some are horniest just before their period.

@mydriasis @326:
You have a very bleak look at your partners, it seems.
Yes, lots of people in LTRs cheat. But if I am in a LTR, I am there because I trust that person. If I don't trust him, there's no point for me to stay in that relationship. And yes, trust is sometimes unfounded but that is part of life. And that small risk is a risk worth taking.
Posted by migrationist]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 01:11:47 -0700 The Stranger trying to have a kid.

We now practice a lazy version of FAM, which means the window of opportunity is brief. But, hey, at least there's a window. I will say, the one drawback with this method is that you can't "strike while the iron is hot" so to speak, or more literally, you can't have unprotected sex when your woman is at the horniest point in her cycle.
Posted by seandr]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:16:36 -0700 The Stranger Look, if you need the risk of catching an STD to be absolutely positively zero in order to have natural sex, that's your call. Frankly, I'd take that as a sign that you have an anxiety disorder, not to mention serious trust issues.

My approach (based in part on the fact that I've had graduate level training in probability theory) is that I estimate the probabilities of contracting various diseases from a given woman, multiply those probabilities by the severity of consequences of each disease, add those values up, and then compare the sum with upside of unprotected sex. If the number is negative, I put a condom on, but if it's positive? Party time!
Posted by seandr]]> Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:00:30 -0700 The Stranger