"No means no!" but only for women

[Deleted]

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.

I never claimed that they made the choice to be a woman, and im not sure what this has to do with anything. The fact is, they are woman, and when it comes to becoming a parent or not, they have a choice.

If they do not want an abortion then they should be able to afford their choice, and not let their responsibility slide off to some one night stand.

I really hope that you never raise a child on your own, for the sake of the child of course. That you think it is fine for children to grow up in destroyed homes while being despised by half of their parents that is fine. I how ever do not think this is a very stimulating environment to grow up in.

You say it is all for the best of the child, while this is simply not true, you want what is best for woman. What the child needs doesn't enter into your decisions one single bit. This is about the feels and wants of females, what the children need or what is fair towards males doesn't enter into it.

[Fencers]

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.

Vaginal intercourse carries a risk. Neither party may have intended to conceive a child, but the act of vaginal intercourse (even just penile penetration of the vagina can lead to pregnancy); and the action of having intercourse in that manner can result in a child regardless of want.

The courts and society understand you may not have intended to make a child by use of contraceptives or other pregnancy prevention; but that is the inherent risk one takes when engaging in vaginal intercourse.

Want, just doesn't even matter.

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.

I have not seen such an argument here. Regardless, vaginal intercourse carries a risk of pregnancy whether pregnancy is desired or not. Because that is how human mating operates.

[THE Bigzoman]

Yeah, thats a really shitty situation right there and no, I don't think thats fair. Thoes situations are really, really uncommon however. It's not thoes situations that are being debated here though. Women raping men and children being conceived as a result of it just does not happen that often.

If you have a good solution that would not in any way hurt the child, shoot.

Possibly one where courts aren't entrusting a child's welfare to someone with an established history of stuatory rape.

Where's the rape/sex offender zealousness that society usually has?

[Fencers]

Possibly one where courts aren't entrusting a child's welfare to someone with an established history of stuatory rape.

Where's the rape/sex offender zealousness that society usually has?

The problem here is that some courts don't treat the sexual violation of men as seriously as they do women. There is social stigma attached to a man being raped as well. However, in the case of the latter it is totally irrelevant bullshit; there need not be such a stigma. Of the former, there exists an inequality under the law's view of sexual assault that rationally can be corrected.

[THE Bigzoman]

The problem here is that some courts don't treat the sexual violation of men as seriously as they do women. There is social stigma attached to a man being raped as well. However, in the case of the latter it is totally irrelevant bullshit; there need not be such a stigma. Of the former, there exists an inequality under the law's view of sexual assault that rationally can be corrected.

WHy isn;t a sitgma towards rape needed, exactly? I don't see where you're going with is.

We probably need a social stigma against it in order to correct the inequality you describe here.

[Quibble]

Want, just doesn't even matter.

Ohh but it does.. you however, are completly ignoring one party, and only want to listen to the women..

What the woman wants is all that matter to you..

If the woman, don't want the kid, she gets an abortion. Even if the guy wanted to be a father, all that matters to you, is the want of the woman.. (And I can accept this, because it's the woman going through the pregnancy)
If she wants it, you force the man, whether he wants to or not... (This, I can not accept..)

[Fencers]

WHy isn;t a sitgma towards rape needed, exactly? I don't see where you're going with is.

Social stigma towards rape leads to victim shaming, under reportage and a more lax environment for the conviction of rapist.

If one is the victim of a crime against their person or property; they should not be stigmatized into believing they are a 'slut' or 'not a real man' by circumstance of that crime.

We probably need a social stigma against it in order to correct the inequality you describe here.

Admirable, but unnecessary. Emotion does not need to accounted for rape to be seen as a crime under the law.

[THE Bigzoman]

Social stigma towards rape leads to victim shaming, under reportage and a more lax environment for the conviction of rapist.

If one is the victim of a crime against their person or property; they should not be stigmatized into believing they are a 'slut' or 'not a real man' by circumstance of that crime.

Admirable, but unnecessary. Emotion does not need to accounted for rape to be seen as a crime under the law.

I'm not sure where you're getting that a stigma towards rape would carry over to shaming victims of rape. The stigma would (and does) fall entirely on the perpetrators of rape.

That statement isn't really admirable. A society's moral compass and its laws aren't mutually exclusive from one another, and more often than not move in the same direction.

[Slybak]

"I can't rape a woman without violating the law, so I shouldn't have any legal obligations to my biological offspring."

A novel argument. I suggest any man who believes it should feel free to express it to every woman they meet. I suspect that this would be the most efficient way to avoid that which they fear, and it carries the added virtue of leading to fewer deprived children.

[May90]

How can a woman force a man to become a parent, short of trapping him in a dungeon, tying him up and then having "fun" with him?

[AndaliteBandit]

How will society benefit from men having the option of a 'financial abortion,' which would inevitably shift their financial burden to taxpayers instead?

[THE Bigzoman]

"I can't rape a woman without violating the law, so I shouldn't have any legal obligations to my biological offspring."

A novel argument. I suggest any man who believes it should feel free to express it to every woman they meet. I suspect that this would be the most efficient way to avoid that which they fear, and it carries the added virtue of leading to fewer deprived children.

Where are you getting this? My recent posts have been a bit tangential. I didn't make that argument.

[PragmaticGamer]

Men are expected to always not do something when women say no but when women wants to do something against a mans will, like forcing men to become parents, why doessn't mens no matter in that case? Surely it should be respected when men say they don't want to be forced to become parents?

Yeah, men gave consent when they STUCK THEIR DICK IN THE WOMEN...

Don't want to become parents? Well, then, it's a simple matter of keeping it in your pants.

Or get a vasectomy.

[Ilir]

Men are expected to always not do something when women say no but when women wants to do something against a mans will, like forcing men to become parents, why doessn't mens no matter in that case? Surely it should be respected when men say they don't want to be forced to become parents?

use condoms ? vasectomy ? male pill ?

You have plenty of choice - as a male - not to become a parent.

Don't be a moron.

[PragmaticGamer]

Yet people say consent to sex does not mean consent to parenthood as far as woman are concerned.

When you have to take all the risks, you get to decide whether or not the fetus is carried to term.

Until then, women aren't slaves to carry the fetus to term just because some man stuck his dick in her.

[Dezerte]

The issue here seems to be that some believe that unprotected sex is not consent, which with today's sexual addiction there really should exist no excuse for not knowing "I didn't know that is how babby is formed!?". Having unprotected sex is giving consent.

[Mistame]

It's a hard thing to make equal considering, biologically in this department, we aren't equal. Women have to bear the brunt of that burden up until childbirth.

They also choose to bear that burden. To be fair, if someone dude is just going around dropping loads in stank holes, yeah, he needs to pay. But there are no exceptions to the rule/law, which makes it inherently flawed. When operating under the premise that neither the man nor the woman wants a child (which is determined by the fact that one or both are using some sort of prevention) and a pregnancy occurs through either sheer bad luck or malice on the part of the woman, the man should have the ability to opt out of parenthood should the woman decide to keep it, as her keeping it violates the conditions of consent for the original encounter. And sorry, the "You have sex, you risk having a child" is no more valid of an argument than "Sex is for making babies."

Society generally doesn't seek to punish the innocent, i.e. the child.

The "for teh chilrinz" garbage aside, the mother is the one making the choice to keep the child of someone who doesn't want children. The mother is the one "punishing the innocent".

"Assholes in training", eh?

Yes. People are assholes. So by logical deduction, children are assholes in training.

Good thing you're not the one writing the laws.

Good thing for baby factories, for sure.

How will society benefit from men having the option of a 'financial abortion,' which would inevitably shift their financial burden to taxpayers instead?

Don't want to become parents? Well, then, it's a simple matter of keeping it in your pants.

No more a valid argument than "SEX IZ 4 BABIZ!"

When you have to take all the risks, you get to decide whether or not the fetus is carried to term.

Until then, women aren't slaves to carry the fetus to term just because some man stuck his dick in her.

If they choose to take all the risks, they're slaving themselves to the fetus, in spite of a man sticking his dick in them. Your argument is just as inane as the notion that sperm donors should pay child support.

[Slybak]

Where are you getting this? My recent posts have been a bit tangential. I didn't make that argument.

Thread title and initial post.

This "subject" comes up here every few months. The arguments are always the same - typically ignoring the "Sorry, Timmy, but your biological father wants to be a deadbeat so you're just going to have to settle for less" inevitability that such wanton scumbaggery will produce, but this one is pretty new. And I'm honestly impressed that it actually fell below my already basement-level moral expectations of MRA and MGTOW arguments.

[Fencers]

Ohh but it does.

No, it literally does not matter. The biological functions leading to pregnancy are divorced of want.

you however, are completly ignoring one party, and only want to listen to the women..

This is untrue and inconsistent with my posts herein; where I specifically said males are necessary to the process of creating a child.

If I had indeed ignored the male party then I could not argue for the their inclusion as a necessary and required component in pregnancy. Perhaps you misunderstood my posts or worded your own poorly. In either case, I will restate that males and females take an inherent risk by engaging in vaginal intercourse.

What the woman wants is all that matter to you..

That would be foolish and ultimately harmful to my argument. This again either makes no sense as a counter argument offered by yourself or you have misunderstood my posts herein.

If she wants it, you force the man, whether he wants to or not... (This, I can not accept..)

No one forces the man- unless he is the victim of a crime against his will or power.

By engaging in vaginal intercourse, both parties regardless of intent, are risking the conception of another human being. That human being once born is legally the charge of the conceiving parents unless absolved by the courts. The decision to go through with a birth is largely placed on the woman, as the sole and singular carrier of the potential baby the two made- regardless of intent, or want.

Typically the only way for a man to be forced into parentage is if they are sexually assaulted or abused in some manner. Which is a crime.

The courts get that one may not have intended to make a baby by using contraceptives, but by having vaginal intercourse the courts also assume one accepted the responsibility of those contraceptives failing. If another human being is the result of that failing, that onus is on the parents. Regardless of want.

[Shadowferal]

So...tis is about having children against a man's will...

Damn.
I thought this would be about turning down a gorgeous well-endowed woman's sexual advances, and how she goes about insisting...