Men should have the right to ‘abort’ responsibility, Swedish political group says

[Deleted]

No. I just checked. Nowhere in his posts does it mention the state raising the kids.
Just taking them away. Same as is the case when parents are abusive or cannot care for them due to other reasons.

It was her bringing it up, tilli thinks "being forced to give a child up for adoption" = "the state raising the children so they can do the same as the Khmer did"

[Noradin]

The state isn't taking kids when the parents are abusive, they relocate them.

Ok so you are objecting to the wording. So lets call it "relocating them"--which was the intended meaning anyway--and you will agree?

- - - Updated - - -

It was her bringing it up, tilli thinks "being forced to give a child up for adoption" = "the state raising the children so they can do the same as the Khmer did"

I know. Ironic that she is the one now arguing semantics.

[Mumba]

Yes, let's make this a discussion about freedom vs responsibility or men vs women. Who cares about what's best for the child?

[Noradin]

Yes, let's make this a discussion about freedom vs responsibility or men vs women. Who cares about what's best for the child?

Society for one, because apparently there are cases where the parents cannot be trusted to do so (not necessarily due to malice).

[Pann]

In what language does "She could prefer to keep the current lifestyle." specifically say "...nefarious women would want the man to stay, when they could use "think of ze children"? Not in English, that's for sure. And you're back to thinking that women can't be idiots who may go at the guys money in an idiotic way. Fascinating assumption.

I don't know. I was talking about your second sentence in this post; http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post39352391 you know the one where you claimed not to have said anything about women being in a relationship. I really am not sure how or why you've managed to tie the two completely different points together, but you're right that is not English.

Of course women can be idiots but to suggest that they decide to get pregnant in order to get money from a man, when there are easier and more profitable methods that do not require much intelligence to pull off, is idiotic in itself

[Drakain]

This is actually an interesting notion that illustrates why gender issues are so messy. If I understand some of the views in this thread many of you advocate for, or at least tolerate, these two scenarios:

Scenario 1:

Man and woman have sex. Woman gets pregnant. Woman, for whatever reason, does not want to have a child and has an abortion, despite the fact the man does want the child. This is okay because woman has a reproductive right that supersedes her partner's rights, whatever those may be.

Scenario 2:

Man and woman have sex. Woman gets pregnant. Woman decides she wants to have the child. Man does not want the child and would prefer she abort the child. Despite the fact the man doesn't want the child, he legally obligated to provide financial support. This is okay because it is assumed that the child with a single parent will be a financial burden on society, otherwise, and that the child is entitled to financial support from both parents.

I see both points of view, but I don't see how this doesn't relegate male rights to second class status, at least in this scenario.

[Drakain]

How do you address the differences between abortion and financial severance by having financial severance? I am trying to hold your hand through this, but there's a limit to what I can do.

- - - Updated - - -



No right is violated in scenario 2, so male rights aren't diminished relative to women's rights or in general.

Everyone has a right to their property, men and women both, and money is property. Here, the balance of power is substantially slanted in one gender's favor. If a woman decides to keep a child, then the man - who has no say in the decision whatsoever - will be financially on the hook for the next 17 to 18 years and, at least in many States in the US, can be criminally liable if they fail to satisfy those obligations.

[Jotaux]

How do you address the differences between abortion and financial severance by having financial severance? I am trying to hold your hand through this, but there's a limit to what I can do.

I didn't ask you to hold my hand since you are bit behind on this topic and would just drag me down.

[Deleted]

Unless he was raped, he has a say in the decision. Just because you don't like the consequences of your actions doesn't mean you aren't responsible for them. If you want to talk property rights, then if you decide it is wrong to deprive him of property because he didn't get his way, then surely you must recognize it is wrong to deprive the taxpayers of their due return on the investment of their taxes because you can't be bothered to deal with your choices. After all, they truly didn't have a decision in your choice to risk getting someone pregnant and creating a child who now needs to be clothed and fed.

- - - Updated - - -



I never said you asked for it; it's just obvious you need it because you are utterly incapable of formulating an even remotely sensible argument. All you do is kind of flail your hands in some sort of half-trollish manner anytime someone challenges your assertions.

Oh look, we are back at the "dont have sex" stance, gee, how sexist.

[Drakain]

I don't think you can have it both ways. Why can't you say that unless the woman was raped, she shouldn't have the power to financially encumber her partner for the next 17 - 18 years of his life. If she consented to the sexual encounter, then why isn't it fair to she she assumed the risk that she would have to take care of the child without her partner's support? It's a double standard where the only thing that matter is what the woman wants to happen after they have sex.

And I don't think "it would be a burden on society" isn't a particularly good reason to relegate a class of people's rights, wouldn't you agree? Don't many governments already have entitlement programs designed to address inequities without requiring a specific class of people to finance them?

[Jotaux]

Oh look, we are back at the "dont have sex" stance, gee, how sexist.

And he says my arguments are nonsensical.

[Pann]

Oh look, we are back at the "dont have sex" stance, gee, how sexist.

Why is that sexist?

[Noradin]

Why is that sexist?

Because it is only directed at men, women can abort if contraception fails.
And women cannot be tricked into keeping the child against their will.

[Noradin]

Don't undertake any action you are not prepared to shoulder the consequences of. This is not specific to sex and pregnancy and parenthood.

Very good! We are back to: "No abortions without proof of medical necessarity." for women.
Your logic, not mine. I'm all for minimizing the unwanted consequences if possible.

[Deleted]

Very good! We are back to: "No abortions without proof of medical necessarity." for women.
Your logic, not mine. I'm all for minimizing the unwanted consequences if possible.

Not sure how that even plays into banning abortion.

[Pann]

Because it is only directed at men, women can abort if contraception fails.
And women cannot be tricked into keeping the child against their will.

Why is it only directed at men? A woman having an abortion is dealing with the consequences of failed contraception.

Tricked!?! You do know how babies are made? Right? If you think that you can be tricked into having a child against your will then you should not be having sex at all, I say this not because you are a man but because you seem utterly incapable of taking responsibility for your actions.

[Drakain]

Not sure how that even plays into banning abortion.

I think it's the fact that a woman can get an abortion that he's referencing, not advocating for banning them.

It seems more fair that if a mother cannot avoid giving birth to a child that the father cannot avoid providing support for that child.

But what we're talking about is a situation where the mother does not have to give birth to the child, but chooses to and, as a consequence of her decision, the father cannot avoid providing financial support. It's a scenario where there is an unequal exposure to risk.

[Deleted]

It's a scenario where there is an unequal exposure to risk.

Yeah, like women dying in childbirth and such.

[Deleted]

Not sure how that even plays into banning abortion.

Simple, if all it takes for a man to have sex in order to consent to parenthood, then why not have the same rule apply to woman?

[Deleted]

Yeah, like women dying in childbirth and such.

And men dying at work, if you want to talk strawmen that is..