"No means no!" but only for women

[Deleted]

I'm done here. Enjoy the manchild circlejerk going on in this thread. The law isn't going to change, period. If anything, some of you show exactly why it shouldn't.

Ow, and now the personal attacks come when you can't get it your way with words. Typical behaviour. The fact that you do hate males isn't a reason to not change the rules.

[Azadina]

Ow, and now the personal attacks come when you can't get it your way with words. Typical behaviour. The fact that you do hate males isn't a reason to not change the rules.

The fact you hate women, and want personal gains with no responsibility isn't a reason to change it either. Never will be.

As I said before, there is no reasonable discussion to be had, if one side is full of shit. You demonstrated that. You did exactly like I predicted at start. Especially with your rambling how women can have abortion at will, even AFTER I already showed evidence how your claim was completely false. That's being full of shit. There's no reason, there's no logic. End of discussion.

[Deleted]

The fact you hate women, and want personal gains with no responsibility isn't a reason to change it either. Never will be.

As I said before, there is no reasonable discussion to be had, if one side is full of shit. You demonstrated that. You did exactly like I predicted at start. Especially with your rambling how women can have abortion at will, even AFTER I already showed evidence how your claim was completely false. That's being full of shit. There's no reason, there's no logic. End of discussion.

Right, i "hate woman" because i want them to pay up for their own decisions. The only side that is full of shit here is they side you are on. You have failed to respond on any of the points given.

There is plenty of discussion to be had, if only your side would actually want to discuss anything. But you do not, you only want to have a free ride when ever you choose to. I did not do exactly what you predicted, you however did the exact same thing again that i pointed out when we started this. You start to throw around some personal attacks like "menchild". The fact that you fail to understand that limiting something is not the same as taking someone's right away.
If there is anyone here that is "full of shit" then it is you, you fail to counter even one of the points that where given. All you do is say "that is not true" and think you have made some point.
This behaviour is typical of entitled people, this is something that most females have common in our society, so not all that weird to see on this forum.

[Aggrophobic]

No, she can surrender the child once it is born and sever her maternal responsibilities. It is absolutely not "just like you do". Also, stop pretending the person you are speaking to is the hypothetical father. Your inability to logically separate the person you are speaking to from the position they are taking is why so frequently these discussions deolve into ad hominem.

And a father caring for a child can have his child adopted as well. Whats your point?

- - - Updated - - -

No, you only hold the father responsible for having sex, not the mother as she has an opt out. The having sex isn't why this child came to be, this child came to be because the mother wanted the child. That is the only reason for this child to be there, so the only one who wanted to have this child should be the only one responsible.

No, thats not how it works.
Having to go through an abortion is not just a thing you do every day like it's nothing. It can be a rather horrible experience. Pretty much forcing a woman to do this becuase she can't support a child on her own is downright cruel.

It's great that the choice is there but it's not something you should use as contraceptive.

[Stormdash]

how to get out of custody

step 1: tell courts you want sole custody

step 2: drop kid off at adoption center

Um... not really, no. "Custody" and "parental rights" are not the same thing.

[Deleted]

How many times are you moving the goalpost?

well you see the state is barred from stopping you from having an abortion.
it is under no obligation to provide you with one or help you or anyone else providing them.

- - - Updated - - -

And a father caring for a child can have his child adopted as well. Whats your point?

Nope.
The man requires approval from the mother, she does not require his.

[Fencers]

there is a mother and a sperm donor.

Which are both humans, producing another human. There is no separation or disengagement in the fact it requires two humans to create another human.

Why you are arguing a point about men not being humans essentially? No court will hear such a plea that as a man one is merely the 'sperm donor' rather than the father of another human after mating with a woman.

If you are telling me how you feel it should be- okay. But what's the point of arguing fantasy and nonsensical notions?

They don't - they get to abort and adopt unilaterally.

This doesn't make sense. If a mother has a child and is the legal guardian of that child, at a minimum, she has a legal obligation to care for the child's needs. Unless otherwise absolved by the courts. In fact, all legal guardians have this legal burden.

If a mother aborts or gives a child away for adoption; than the point is moot. There is no child to care for any longer.

Asserting one does not take care of a child they have no responsibility toward when that child either doesn't exist or not legally their charge is nonsense. When one has a child's guardianship- they have to care for them barring neglect. There is no possibility of 'they don't' except in cases of neglect- which is illegal.

The number and the mechanic does not interest me, the legal institution of slavery does.

Now that's just ridiculous unless a man was forced into ejaculating inside a vagina.

[Azadina]

No, thats not how it works.
Having to go through an abortion is not just a thing you do every day like it's nothing. It can be a rather horrible experience. Pretty much forcing a woman to do this becuase she can't support a child on her own is downright cruel.

It's great that the choice is there but it's not something you should use as contraceptive.

Yup.

Something some of the people here haven't really figured out; downplaying the impact of woman having to deal with pregnancy and/or abortion to nothing, is the best way to gain zero sympathy for their cause. It's downright insulting.

[Fencers]

Yup.

Something some of the people here haven't really figured out; downplaying the impact of woman having to deal with pregnancy and/or abortion to nothing, is the best way to gain zero sympathy for their cause. It's downright insulting.

There are also complications that can arise from abortion (and pregnancy too) that endanger or compromise the health of the mother. This is partly why women are given so much agency in the decision making- because the physical reality of pregnancy is owned solely by the woman.

As I said earlier, the issue can never be equal. Only one half of our species give birth.

[Nitro Fun]

There are also complications that can arise from abortion (and pregnancy too) that endanger or compromise the health of the mother. This is partly why women are given so much agency in the decision making- because the physical reality of pregnancy is owned solely by the woman.

As I said earlier, the issue can never be equal. Only one half of our species give birth.

An abortion is far less risky than a pregnancy. If you're so worried about risks of pregnancy then get an abortion.

[Fojos]

All I'm hearing is manchildren complaining. Pointless to even discuss the matter, when one side just whines and complains, while demanding freedom of all consequences.

Right. Great going with the feminist "argumentation".

[gamingmuscle]

An abortion is far less risky than a pregnancy. If you're so worried about risks of pregnancy then get an abortion.

I don't think that is true...

[Quibble]

Case A: Two people have unprotected sex, and it results in pregnancy..
Because they did not use any form of birthcontrol, I think it's entirely fair that the guy has to take responsiblity for being stupid..

Case B: Two people have protected sex, and it results in pregnancy..
Because they used some form of birthcontrol, it's obvious that pregnancy was not intended.. And if the woman suddenly decides she wants a baby, but the guy does not.. then he should not be forced to pay for the child, however, in choosing not to pay, he would also not be allowed any contact with the child either.

It is entirely irrelevent that the natural consequence of unprotected sex, is a child.. because in Case b, they WERE NOT having unprocted sex...

Sex is not used for the child baring purposs only.. forcing a guy that used a condom (because he does not want kids) to pay for the choice of the woman, is imo fucking despicable..

I know.. that given a guy the legal right to abort out of being a father, is just gonna open up a lot of problems with shitty people, that will have unprotected sex and then claim they did use a condom.. so it becomes a case of he said, she said..

But we also already have rape cases, and woman that cheat their partners into unprotected sex, like saying they are on the pill.. or make holes in condoms..

So, I don't understand why only the women have the choice..
There is just as many shitty women as men
So, wouldn't equality be when there is as many cases of men being shits that lie about birtcontrol, as women cheating men into inpregnating them?

[Nitro Fun]

I don't think that is true...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ab...80M2BS20120123

Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.

Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.

Experts say the findings, though not unexpected, contradict some state laws that suggest abortions are high-risk procedures.

-

Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, found that between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born.

That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion.

Yes, it's true.

[Deleted]

And a father caring for a child can have his child adopted as well. Whats your point?

- - - Updated - - -



No, thats not how it works.
Having to go through an abortion is not just a thing you do every day like it's nothing. It can be a rather horrible experience. Pretty much forcing a woman to do this becuase she can't support a child on her own is downright cruel.

It's great that the choice is there but it's not something you should use as contraceptive.

That is exactly how it works, it is always a choice, it doesn't matter that it is a hard choice and it does not matter that it can be a horrible experience as both these things are highly subjective. If the woman did not want to go through an abortion and if the woman doesn't have the means to support that child and if the woman can not find a partner and if she does not want her child to be taken from her then she should not have sex. This is a hell of a lot more choice then the males get, according to you males who do not want to become a parent should not have sex, notice how the lack of the word "and" in this.

No one ever said that it should be used as the contraceptive of choice, but it is still a choice to have a baby or not.

- - - Updated - - -

Yup.

Something some of the people here haven't really figured out; downplaying the impact of woman having to deal with pregnancy and/or abortion to nothing, is the best way to gain zero sympathy for their cause. It's downright insulting.

Right, the "feels card" now there is an compelling argument

[Deleted]

Yes, it's true.

Because death is the only complication that matters...

[Deleted]

Right. Great going with the feminist "argumentation".

If they can't win they start pointing fingers and after that you will get the personal attacks. Just like a child stamping its feet to get its way, nothing more then that.

[Fencers]

Case B: Two people have protected sex, and it results in pregnancy..
Because they used some form of birthcontrol, it's obvious that pregnancy was not intended.. And if the woman suddenly decides she wants a baby, but the guy does not.. then he should not be forced to pay for the child, however, in choosing not to pay, he would also not be allowed any contact with the child either.

The problem with Case B here is we (society & the law) assume that any vaginal intercourse can potentially lead to pregnancy. Even if protection is used (which can fail or be ineffective); thus the acceptance of vaginal intercourse carries with it an inherent risk of pregnancy (every woman is told this by her doctor straight up when getting BC).

Desire for or not pregnancy does not absolve either party of the sometimes result of vaginal intercourse; pregnancy, potentially leading to the birth of human. That 3rd human being the responsibility of it's legal guardians by law and default- the parents.

[Quibble]

The problem with Case B here is we (society & the law) assume that any vaginal intercourse can potentially lead to pregnancy. Even if protection is used (which can fail or be ineffective); thus the acceptance of vaginal intercourse carries with it an inherent risk of pregnancy (every woman is told this by her doctor straight up when getting BC).

Yes, there is always a risk for pregnancy.. but the whole point of birth control, is to try and prevent a pregnancy.. Because the participents do not want a child.

So, if you use a birth control and it fail... and the women, suddenly without consent of the guy, chooses she want the kid, then that choice should not be forced on the guy..

And the whole argument people keep bringin up, "then you shouldn't have sex", is just stupid.. since sex is not used for the sole purposs of child baring.

[Aggrophobic]

That is exactly how it works, it is always a choice, it doesn't matter that it is a hard choice and it does not matter that it can be a horrible experience as both these things are highly subjective. If the woman did not want to go through an abortion and if the woman doesn't have the means to support that child and if the woman can not find a partner and if she does not want her child to be taken from her then she should not have sex. This is a hell of a lot more choice then the males get, according to you males who do not want to become a parent should not have sex, notice how the lack of the word "and" in this.

No one ever said that it should be used as the contraceptive of choice, but it is still a choice to have a baby or not.

- - - Updated - - -



Right, the "feels card" now there is an compelling argument

Well, to be fair. Most women did not "make the choice" to become women. They were born that way.
If men could carry children then they would have had the right to get an abortion and aslo get the right to not have an abortion if that is their choice.

It is as fair as it's going to get.

I'm thankful that the lawmakes of most civilized countries do not agree with your ways of seeing things and I really hope you never have to get yourself in a situation like this. Not for your own sake but for the childs.