Boy... this makes me really eager to stop advocating mens rights...

[Deleted]

If abortion is illegal we move the pregnant woman to international waters like Women on Waves have been doing for more than 10 years in the west coast of Europe. Zealots like you can't stop abortion.

Dont forget the 255.000.000,00 children you kill everytime you jack off into a towel. Mass Murder, i kill people in the ammount of the worlds population in a Month.

[Deleted]

The problem is this, assuming everyone always uses condoms and they never accidentally break:

If a man sabotages, a woman can abort/put it up for adoption.
If a woman sabotages, a man has no choices at all.

I really wish, "don't sleep with psychopaths" was a legit argument. This is just blaming men for being "so dumb as to sleep with a crazy person, they should have known better" This is all too similar to the very stupid argument : "You were abused domestically by your significant other because you shouldn't have been dating a psychopath."

Yes, I addressed that. Men have it tougher there. Like I said:

The unbiased risk is up to each individual, with their gender being part of their individuality.

Men have less responsibility here. On the other hand, they cannot get pregnant. They don't have to run around with a baby for 9 months (although that can be seen as a disadvantage too :P). They can impregnate various women. They don't have to take responsibility if a woman sabotages. In the traditional sense its usually the woman who's frowned upon when she gets pregnant. So I provided you 4 options:

0) Don't have intercourse.
1) Take extra precautions.
2) Don't sleep with a psychopath.
3) Leave the responsibility to take the child to her (accept her sabotage).

I quite like the argument because of the thin line between the options (quite overlapping) and the responsibility they give to the man. Apart from option 3. That's basically akin to not dealing with the problem, but then again, it is her choice.

So we have options. No intercourse is a quite conservative approach. Number 1, would require additional sabotage tactics. Number 2 is like assumes you know she isn't quite sane in the head (or say, she's in 30y-35y). Its different from 1, complete abstention by default.

I used to be purely pro'life, but after reading good arguments, "don't have sex" just isn't a good enough argument. You're telling men "don't have sex" but giving women plenty of leeway for risk and humping whoever they want. But even when men use condoms, and they break or are sabotaged, its "sorry, suck it up and shut up, should not have had sex" thats not a real solution, and its not a fair or gender unbiased option either.

Condoms almost never break. If they break, that doesn't mean the woman becomes auto pregnant. Intentional, well stay away from the mentally ill women.

Now that I think of it there's another option: have different types of sex instead of intercourse. Masturbation, toys, anal, etc.

[Spectral]

Can we stop playing pretend with this "tricked into having a kid" shit? That happens almost never. Most people would agree it's pretty awful, but it's not really a valid basis to make overarching policies off of. Pretending that it's actually very common is just another version of misogyny.

[DisposableHero]

Can we stop playing pretend with this "tricked into having a kid" shit? That happens almost never. Most people would agree it's pretty awful, but it's not really a valid basis to make overarching policies off of. Pretending that it's actually very common is just another version of misogyny.

We have laws pertaining to a huge variety of unlikely occurrences. Their rarity does not defer the consequences for those involved, nor does it reduce the need for the laws to protect people from them. The substance of the debate should be, does fixing the problem create other more serious problems, but you really have to believe either women don't deserve to face the consequences of their choices alone, living in poverty doesn't suck and isn't a consequence, or abortion is some horrendous form of torture to arrive at those conclusions.

[Spectral]

We have laws pertaining to a huge variety of unlikely occurrences. Their rarity does not defer the consequences for those involved, nor does it reduce the need for the laws to protect people from them. The substance of the debate should be, does fixing the problem create other more serious problems, but you really have to believe either women don't deserve to face the consequences of their choices alone, living in poverty doesn't suck and isn't a consequence, or abortion is some horrendous form of torture to arrive at those conclusions.

This doesn't change that it's a disingenuous argument to have.

[Austilias]

Can we stop playing pretend with this "tricked into having a kid" shit? That happens almost never. Most people would agree it's pretty awful, but it's not really a valid basis to make overarching policies off of. Pretending that it's actually very common is just another version of misogyny.

Several issues;

1) Easy to say it happens almost never, hard to say it with statistics/evidence. It's a His Word vs Her Word scenario, or perhaps Her Word vs His Word, not really something that can be actually measured.

2) Saying the issue has no merit on the basis of numbers is a pretty poor approach. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. We make legislation and laws concerning the minorities of society and their protection all the time; men trapped in relationships and financial obligations should be no exception.

[Spectral]

Several issues;

1) Easy to say it happens almost never, hard to say it with statistics/evidence. It's a His Word vs Her Word scenario, or perhaps Her Word vs His Word, not really something that can be actually measured.

2) Saying the issue has no merit on the basis of numbers is a pretty poor approach. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. We make legislation and laws concerning the minorities of society and their protection all the time; men trapped in relationships and financial obligations should be no exception.

The reason it has no merit isn't because it's rare, it's because it's rare yet posters are treating it as a commonplace occurrence. Scroll through the thread and note the disingenuous presentation on the parts of MRAs; they're not framing this as a rare occurrence that would be better to solve differently, but as a major civil rights issue that oppresses all men.

[DisposableHero]

This doesn't change that it's a disingenuous argument to have.

How exactly? It happens, regardless of frequency, it carries onerous consequences for the innocent party, and not only does the law do nothing to discourage it, the law acts a vessel for the abuse. Saying, we should change the laws to better handle this is neither disingenuous nor misogynist. The question again becomes, does changing the law to prevent this sort of abuse create abuse or injustice elsewhere.

[Spectral]

How exactly? It happens, regardless of frequency, it carries onerous consequences for the innocent party, and not only does the law do nothing to discourage it, the law acts a vessel for the abuse. Saying, we should change the laws to better handle this is neither disingenuous nor misogynist. The question again becomes, does changing the law to prevent this sort of abuse create abuse or injustice elsewhere.

I regard pretending that the thread has been focused narrowly on something that everyone agrees is rare as disingenuous as well. I suppose that's what I'm coming to expect as standard though.

[DisposableHero]

I regard pretending that the thread has been focused narrowly on something that everyone agrees is rare as disingenuous as well. I suppose that's what I'm coming to expect as standard though.

I did not say that everyone agrees on the frequency. I am sure you and I do not agree on this. You were the one suggesting the subject should be dropped because it does not occur often. I said essentially no, the frequency is not what makes it important.

Do you have a counterpoint or do you just not like that I said no?

[Spectral]

I did not say that everyone agrees on the frequency. I am sure you and I do not agree on this. You were the one suggesting the subject should be dropped because it does not occur often. I said essentially no, the frequency is not what makes it important.

Do you have a counterpoint or do you just not like that I said no?

Right, like I said, you're happy to pretend it's a common problem. That's the whole point, the entire fucking thread is predicated on pretending that a rare occurrence is actually a deep violation of collective male autonomy.

[oxymoronic]

Why should it be illegal? Women will just perform the aborts themselves instead of going to a health care professional to do it for them or some back-alley abortion place.

+

That stinks awfully of "I want control over someone elses body".

If she doesn't want to have a baby then don't have sex? How can you justify killing an unborn child just because the mother doesn't want to carry him/her for 9months? Ask yourself again, would an advanced civilization kill their unborn children? I would appreciate an answer so I can accurately gauge your craziness meter.

[Wells]

If she doesn't want to have a baby then don't have sex? How can you justify killing an unborn child just because the mother doesn't want to carry him/her for 9months? Ask yourself again, would an advanced civilization kill their unborn children? I would appreciate an answer so I can accurately gauge your craziness meter.

You're demanding he assume your premise.

[oxymoronic]

Dont forget the 255.000.000,00 children you kill everytime you jack off into a towel. Mass Murder, i kill people in the ammount of the worlds population in a Month.

You should probably take a biology class. Those are just cells... once a totipotent zygote is formed you have an unborn child growing. No if ands or butts will change that. You can try to argue differently but my definition is proven by science while yours is recited by kids thinking they're cool.

[DisposableHero]

Right, like I said, you're happy to pretend it's a common problem. That's the whole point, the entire fucking thread is predicated on pretending that a rare occurrence is actually a deep violation of collective male autonomy.

No, like I said, the frequency is not what makes it a problem. The problem is there exists a particular miscarriage of justice that is sanctioned and enforced by law that carries consequences harsh enough to ruin lives. Who cares how often it happens.

This is maddening, its like saying murder for hire is vanishingly rare, so we'll let the murderers go if they do it for a living, can't run them out of a job after all.

[Kasierith]

You should probably take a biology class. Those are just cells... once a totipotent zygote is formed you have an unborn child growing. No if ands or butts will change that. You can try to argue differently but my definition is proven by science while yours is recited by kids thinking they're cool.

You've arbitrarily set the definition for child to conjoined genetic material while ignoring the multitude of mean by which we identify individual life.

[oxymoronic]

You're demanding he assume your premise.

maybe you should learn to read

"I would appreciate an answer" is hardly a demand.

And yes pretty much any adult would like to think we would evolve to a point where we don't have to kill unborn children. Just like any sane adults wishes at some point there will be no violence, gun deaths, etc...

---------- Post added 2013-01-23 at 07:13 PM ----------

You've arbitrarily set the definition for child to conjoined genetic material while ignoring the multitude of mean by which we identify individual life.

Who is we?

[Spectral]

No, like I said, the frequency is not what makes it a problem. The problem is there exists a particular miscarriage of justice that is sanctioned and enforced by law that carries consequences harsh enough to ruin lives. Who cares how often it happens.

This is maddening, its like saying murder for hire is vanishingly rare, so we'll let the murderers go if they do it for a living, can't run them out of a job after all.

Forgive me for not seeing a man having to pay a few hundred bucks a month as ruining his life in a similar manner to being murdered.

[DisposableHero]

Forgive me for not seeing a man having to pay a few hundred bucks a month as ruining his life in a similar manner to being murdered.

The difference in severity should reflect a difference in consequences, not an absence of consequences in the less extreme case, and certainly not state sanction and enforcement in the less extreme case.

[Deleted]

We have laws pertaining to a huge variety of unlikely occurrences. Their rarity does not defer the consequences for those involved, nor does it reduce the need for the laws to protect people from them. The substance of the debate should be, does fixing the problem create other more serious problems, but you really have to believe either women don't deserve to face the consequences of their choices alone, living in poverty doesn't suck and isn't a consequence, or abortion is some horrendous form of torture to arrive at those conclusions.

Reason we don't have law here is we can't prove. I think if you can prove without a shed of a doubt you can apply existing laws. Don't underestimate that. This said, Sweden has a rather weird way of making sure women who had unprotected sex with a man can have revenge.