"No means no!" but only for women

[May90]

I think he means to say, that if you and I agree to not get charged for robbing a jewelry store, then the law is not allowed to charge us

Want to go get some jewelries?

Grab some for me too!

[Witchblade77]

Are you also in favor of shaming female rape victims for laying out the speech about consequences of getting drunk or what they wear on those late nights?

not the same thing.
1. rapists don't just rape at night
2. they don't just rape those who are skimpily dressed. or drunk
3. while I do think that women could use more caution, they are STILL NOT ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN THEIR RAPE. or men since men get raped too. rape by definition means that the person didn't consent to the act of sex.

when you chose to have sex? you accept the consequences.

This isn't the same thing..

In one case, I personally take the risk and no one else is forcing me to do something I do not want..

In the other case, I take a risk of pregnancy, on the assumption that if that risk does turn out to happen, the other party, WHICH agreed with me to not concieve a child, would end that pregnancy...

Now instead, that person changes her mind and forced me into something I don't want.. the two situations are not the same.

they agreed that they wanted to prevent conception. they did NOT agree to abortion. they didn't change their minds, consequences changed.

[Deleted]

You don't get charged for a crime for refusing to do a crime.

That has been known to happen as well whenever certain socialism-related ideologies have gained influence. But that's another matter.

[Fencers]

I do not think that having sex is consenting to become a parent, no matter how you try to spin it.

It's the law. There is no spin.

No contraceptive is 100% fail safe. By having intercourse one is taking a risk of pregnancy & disease. One is told this explicitly when they get birth control, during sex education, in books, by one's doctor, et cetera.

The problem here is that the risk is far from being equal.

It will likely never be equal.

Your whole approach is only valid when you do not take contraception (that includes abortion) into this equation.

Abortion is not a contraceptive.

Use of contraceptives does not guarantee zero risk of pregnancy. Having sex can result in pregnancy- if one chooses to engage in sex, the result of pregnancy is a responsibly of those engaged in the sex.

The decision to have a birth is solely placed on a woman because off biology, and i do not see anyone argue against this. You can say that this is "regardless of intent or want" but that doesn't make it true.

I said pregnancy can occur regardless of want by involved parties and that the outcome is independent of one's (potential) personal want.

You can not defend the rules by stating the rules, that is just not how it works.

I do not mean to defend them- I was explaining the operation and assumption the law and social climate make in relevance to reply.

The fact that the mother has made the active decision that she would want this child makes this her decision and not failing contraceptives.

She could not get pregnant without sex &/or the ejaculate of a male. It still requires two humans to make another human.

Responsibility for that 3rd person, is decided by the law to be the burden of the parents by default.

[Grimreaper]

However a lot of people are using these cases to argue for things like "legal" or "financial" abortions where a man who had consenting sex can wash his hands of the consequences and I can not agree with someone shirking their responsibilities in that way.

If a contraceptive was used and failed, absolutely. It should be his right to do so. Like i said, both parties were in an agreement to NOT concieve a child. If it still happens, one parent should not be able to have a change of heart and force the financial child responsibilities onto the other. This is already the case for women, why cant it be so for men aswell? Yes yes, you cannot force the woman to not have the child, but you should be able to not be counted as a parent for it when you clearly didnt want to have it in the first place.

[Grimreaper]

What is this bullshit, how can a woman FORCE a man to become a parent?

Well... she could be bigger, stronger and meaner..

[Fencers]

This is just false..

Unless he engaged in sex against his will, the man was not forced. In cases outside of abuse (I support stronger laws protecting men here), both partners agree to the risks of having sex.

It is completely true (in fact it could not be an untrue statement without eliminating itself) that unless a man or woman is forced into sex they have the responsibly of the outcomes of sex.

Just because the birth control fails to work, does not suddenly give you the right to change your mind, and then force this choice on someone else..

The choice isn't forced- it is consented when you consent to sex. Sex has potential outcomes and responsibility.

you're completly ignoring the men, and only listen to the wants of the woman..

I am ignoring men by speaking on the necessary inclusion and (where appropriate) the defense of men under the law? Your assertion is nonsensical.

I find it sad, that you believe it is okay for one part of a previously understood agreement, to suddenly change their mind and force this new want on the other party.. Force them to something they never agreed to.

Whoa, whoa. I never said any of this was 'okay'. I simply explained or stated the reasoning for the US law and social climate to place responsibility on the humans engaged intercourse and it's various results.

Arguments I made were for greater equity in laws to protect men in cases of sexual abuse and assault.

[Deleted]

Which are both humans, producing another human.

They produce a Non-human zygote.
The woman creates the child.

But what's the point of arguing fantasy and nonsensical notions?

because, you are proffering this situtation:
A man and a woman light a fire, then the man leaves.
The woman takes some kindling, keeps it alive, and then 9 months later lights a house on fire.
And the man is now an arsonist.
your position is the one that makes no sense what-so-fucking ever.

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.

No see she can give the child up for adoption, without the father's consent - At this point, since the father is clearly, the father - She has now made a unilateral decision to give up the kid, robbing the father of his kid, something that if the father did it, would count as Kidnapping
- But no jurisdiction cares, because we live in a patriarchy that hates women.

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

They make statutory rape victims pay child support you do know that?

[Synbios]

The thing a lot of people seem to not realise is that pregnancy is easily reversible with no ill consequences for anybody. I don't expect men to be able to force a woman to terminate pregnancy, but it's pretty common sense that he should be able to opt out of all responsibilities regarding a future child if the woman willingly and selfishly chooses to keep the pregnancy going despite the desires of the man. As it stands, women hold the life of men they have sex with at their mercy, and that is not acceptable. We use outdated laws based on religious fanaticism and traditions to deal with modern problems and it needs to change.

[Deleted]

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).

So abortion can be made illegal.
It neatly sidesteps this issue regarding bodily autonomy, because, she consented to sex, and the implications therein.
Oh my, very compelling.

- - - Updated - - -

"Sorry, Timmy, but your biological father wants to be a deadbeat so you're just going to have to settle for less"

yeah, because sorry Timmy, but your slut of a mother wasn't forced to do the obvious thing and adopt you, so you get to live a shitty life as a spawn of a single mother.

- - - Updated - - -

Having sex is accepting the risk of becoming a parent. If you can't understand or accept that you shouldn't be having sex.

What is your position regarding abortion?

[May90]

Well... she could be bigger, stronger and meaner..

This is what happens when a goblin guy gets an orc girlfriend.

[Fencers]

They produce a Non-human zygote.

Which becomes a child eventually. Your wording implied birth earlier- "a mother and sperm donor..."

To be a mother she has to give birth to a child- which is the creation of two humans. Women typically can not spontaneously become pregnant with a child and give birth without a male human being involved at some point prior.

because, you are proffering this situtation:
A man and a woman light a fire, then the man leaves.
The woman takes some kindling, keeps it alive, and then 9 months later lights a house on fire.
And the man is now an arsonist.
your position is the one that makes no sense what-so-fucking ever.

That analogy doesn't make any sense. There is no inherent risk of arson in creating a fire. There is an inherent risk of pregnancy and transmission of STDs in having sex. The latter of which we have to agree barring criminal action.

No see she can give the child up for adoption, without the father's consent - At this point, since the father is clearly, the father - She has now made a unilateral decision to give up the kid, robbing the father of his kid, something that if the father did it, would count as Kidnapping

This is actually decided on a case by case basis. And courts try to make a decision for involuntary termination of guardianship/parentage based on the feasibility and best welfare for the child.

Most cases of involuntary termination of parental rights during adoption are decided against the father where and when abuse, non-involvement, extreme poverty, jail, etc are present on the father's behalf. Courts have rarely ruled in favor of involuntary termination of parental rights for the father where and when the father was proven to be the father & deemed capable of raising the child. In cases where the father gets custody the woman must pay child support by law.

They make statutory rape victims pay child support you do know that?

Only a handful of cases exist to this extent; and in cases in which the father of child was required to pay child support the courts ruled that non-consent was indeterminate. For example, two courts heard and upheld the decision of the Hermann case as far as I know.

[PragmaticGamer]

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.

*roll eyes*

Sure, go with the argument justifying slavery.

You have two lungs. You only need one to live. I'll send by the organ donor team to harvest one, because someone else needs one to LIVE.

Ergo, your body isn't your own, because someone else can claim a need to part of it.

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, all these guys who think that women should be disposable, should have to inform any woman they date of their opinions.

Just to prevent innocent women from being victimized by the stupidity of these men...

[pateuvasiliu]

Which becomes a child eventually

And?

If you can abort because it's not a person yet, why does the man pay for a kid when he only made a zygote?

That's some double standard right there.

The man makes a fertilised egg. The woman makes a baby. To put equal responsibility on the two when the man's contribution stops at conception is absolutely dumb.

[Azadina]

The thing a lot of people seem to not realise is that pregnancy is easily reversible with no ill consequences for anybody. I don't expect men to be able to force a woman to terminate pregnancy, but it's pretty common sense that he should be able to opt out of all responsibilities regarding a future child if the woman willingly and selfishly chooses to keep the pregnancy going despite the desires of the man. As it stands, women hold the life of men they have sex with at their mercy, and that is not acceptable. We use outdated laws based on religious fanaticism and traditions to deal with modern problems and it needs to change.

I know someone who would probably show you the no ill consequences of your nose breaking, if you said that BS infront of her.

You seem to be as willfully ignorant of possible effects, as the other ranters in this thread.

[Deleted]

Which becomes a child eventually. Your wording implied birth earlier- "a mother and sperm donor..."

yes and the kindling eventually burned down the house.

That analogy doesn't make any sense. There is no inherent risk of arson in creating a fire.

Oh?

This is actually decided on a case by case basis. And courts try to make a decision for involuntary termination of guardianship/parentage based on the feasibility and best welfare for the child.

My point is that not a single western jurisdiction requires the mother to inform the father once the kid is born - Even though, as all jurisdictions hold, he is legally responsible for said child from then on.
See normally, responsibilities and rights are paired, but not in this case, 100% of the liability, 0% of the rights -
because we live in a patriarchy that hates women.

Only a handful of cases exist to this extent;

A singular case existing in the entire fucking world, is still a greater fucking injustice than Anything women suffer in the west.

and in cases in which the father of child was required to pay child support the courts ruled that non-consent was indeterminate.

yes, which was Amazing, its like you and courts Don't know what the fuck STATUTORY RAPE is.

[Malkiah]

here's a far simpler solution:
1. get a vasectomy
2. get your goop checked every 6 months for 2 years, and then every 2-3 years after that to make sure it's still empty.
3. fuck all you want and never worry about it

the lack of responsibility that men take for contraception in western culture is disgusting.
it's an out-patient procedure, it took me more time to drive to the clinic and back than it took to get my tubes snipped, it was covered even by shitty US insurance, and it was the best thing i ever did in my life.

[Deleted]

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?

how did she manage to steal your semen?

[pateuvasiliu]

here's a far simpler solution:
1. get a vasectomy
2. get your goop checked every 6 months for 2 years, and then every 2-3 years after that to make sure it's still empty.
3. fuck all you want and never worry about it

the lack of responsibility that men take for contraception in western culture is disgusting.
it's an out-patient procedure, it took me more time to drive to the clinic and back than it took to get my tubes snipped, it was covered even by shitty US insurance, and it was the best thing i ever did in my life.

So I should sterilise myself and have surgery to get the same assurance a woman gets by default?

Yeah, no. How about dem equal rights?

[Grimreaper]

The choice isn't forced- it is consented when you consent to sex. Sex has potential outcomes and responsibility.

The point being that both parties have agreed to NOT concieve a child. One of them can decide to not go through with having the child if the contraceptive fails, the other part can not. One can very well say that a woman is forcing the man into paying for HER child, that only SHE wants to keep because SHE changed her mind.

- - - Updated - - -

here's a far simpler solution:
1. get a vasectomy
2. get your goop checked every 6 months for 2 years, and then every 2-3 years after that to make sure it's still empty.
3. fuck all you want and never worry about it

the lack of responsibility that men take for contraception in western culture is disgusting.
it's an out-patient procedure, it took me more time to drive to the clinic and back than it took to get my tubes snipped, it was covered even by shitty US insurance, and it was the best thing i ever did in my life.

Still not 100% failsafe. I know a guy in person who almost left his wife because he was sure she had been cheating on him, DNA check proved he was the father. Good thing they were already married and knew eachother, else he'd be stuck paying for someone elses child...