"No means no!" but only for women

[Flarelaine]

Oh look, cognitive dissonance again
It's the "woman's body" but it's not the man's life. His choice to not support the pregnancy must be ignored. Switch from freedom to responsability in 5 words.

I understand the "focus" of the argument aka the body used to deliver the child. Except if it's just a body issue, then you should be perfectly fine with the following ;
Her body her choice, fine, she can be the sole decisionary to terminate the pregnancy.
But then if the man have no say in the pregnancy, he can bail out of child support, because at this point, the body is not an issue anymore and it should be his life, his choice

Do you really need a flowchart? There are decisions following decisions. You get yours as well. Plenty of them, in fact. You can decide to not have sex with a woman you do not trust. You can decide to ask her about contraception. You can decide to use contraception yourself if she does not. You can decide to use contraception yourself if she says she does but you do not trust her.

If you still have sex and forgo contraception, however, you are out of decisions. It's time for you to man up, grow a pair and face the consequences of your decisions.

[prwraith]

I swear this biological equality argument is making me sick. of course we're not equal biologically. Doesn't mean we can't be legally equally.

Men should have all the right in the world to say no to having a kid be their legal responsibility.

[Dispraise]

I swear this biological equality argument is making me sick.

The "I failed basic fifth-grade biology, and don't think I should have to use protection or in any way be held liable for the consequences of my actions" argument is making me sick. So, squaresies.

[Deleted]

Except men don't have to spend 9 months being pregnant.

nine months is less than 18 years.
Not seeing your point.

Making abortions illegal forces women to go through pregnancy while men have to go through nothing.

Have you not heard of the law that forces men to take care of the kids? (its called child support, and is the topic of discussion).

But if you want to pretend like men have it so bad then feel free. Either way those men will get no sympathy from me.

Not interested in sympathy, we would like you to consider this using your brain for about 5 seconds.

[Azadina]

And I, for one, wholeheartedly support your right to bodily autonomy, and access to the same level of care a woman would receive when you seek to abort any fetuses you happen to have growing inside of your body.

Yup, me too. Oh, and so does the law. I don't see how the law discriminates so badly against him, it's the same for both.

[Gangresnake]

Point B.

Really, you quoted a statement that contains two simple points, and ignored one of them? And you are talking about "cognitive dissonance"? Really, how can one be so intellectually dishonest?

I didnt ignore it
I just want you to make up your mind

"The child need both parent"
So if the mother doesnt want it it's straight to the trash because freedom, but if the man doesnt want it, or doesnt want to pay child support, fuck him because "Responsability" ?
If you hold the firm belief that 2 parents are needed then no problem, the woman can freely abort, if you dont she can raise the kid by herself; it's her choice after all.

But if the man have no choice in keeping the baby or not, he cannot be compelled to pay child support, it's pretty simple stuff, I'm actually wondering how you're not getting this basic concept.

[May90]

I didnt ignore it
I just want you to make up your mind

"The child need both parent"
So if the mother doesnt want it it's straight to the trash because freedom, but if the man doesnt want it, or doesnt want to pay child support, fuck him because "Responsability" ?
If you hold the firm belief that 2 parents are needed then no problem, the woman can freely abort, if you dont she can raise the kid by herself; it's her choice after all.

But if the man have no choice in keeping the baby or not, he cannot be compelled to pay child support, it's pretty simple stuff, I'm actually wondering how you're not getting this basic concept.

Points A and B explain it well to you. But you don't care about the well being of the child, you only care about your freedom to have unprotected sex and avoid any responsibility, so what's the use talking...

[tiptopmemer]

Why does an mmo video game board keep talking about issues which arent relevant to them, most people who post on here are shut ins with thousands of posts.

[Dhrizzle]

If a woman has a right to terminate or bring to term an unborn child, I don't think it's unreasonable to allow a father to choose, with similar conditions, if he will financially keep the child. Personally I'd find him as repugnant for abandoning his child as I would a woman liquidating her unborn child, but that would be equitable.

I fully support a man's right to choose to abort any child they are carrying inside them, as long as that is the case we have equality.

[Gangresnake]

Points A and B explain it well to you. But you don't care about the well being of the child, you only care about your freedom to have unprotected sex and avoid any responsibility, so what's the use talking...

As you said problem is point B.
You say you care about the well-being of a child, and that he need both parents, cool.
So it should be your logical conclusion that if the father doesnt want the child, the child should be aborted because he'll obviously miss one of the two key elements. But you go to the complete opposite and say that you should forcefully chain the father to the child and/or force him to pay child support.

This is why I'm wondering what the fuck is your point, it's not equality, it's not freedom, so what kind of principle are you defending here ?

[Deleted]

A) It is the woman's body, hence she alone makes the choice.

If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.

B) If the child is born, it needs care from both parents.

Mandatory adoptions for single mothers, or just tell the woman she made a stupid choice, and will not have to learn to live with that choice.

- - - Updated - - -

This is why I'm wondering what the fuck is your point, it's not equality, it's not freedom, so what kind of principle are you defending here ?

Its called 'because vagina' -

[May90]

As you said problem is point B.
You say you care about the well-being of a child, and that he need both parents, cool.
So it should be your logical conclusion that if the father doesnt want the child, the child should be aborted because he'll obviously miss one of the two key elements. But you go to the complete opposite and say that you should forcefully chain the father to the child and/or force him to pay child support.

This is why I'm wondering what the fuck is your point, it's not equality, it's not freedom, so what kind of principle are you defending here ?

Now you are missing point A. Point A PLUS point B is the reason for the law being as it is. Come on, you can do it!!!

[Deleted]

Now you are missing point A. Point A PLUS point B is the reason for the law being as it is. Come on, you can do it!!!

Your points have been answered, you just fail to understand it. you want to push your own opinion and class it as a fact. he has answered you and many others too but you just placing your fingers in your ears and ignoring like a childish little brat you are.

[bergmann620]

I wasn't aware so many people had a problem with abortions.

I have a problem with abortions. That's why I decided I won't have any. I don't get to make that decision for anyone else, though.

Not sure what this has to do with anything I've had to say, though.

[Mehrunes]

Funny you should mention it, when you seemingly can't figure it out.

You have choices, but not bothering to take them is no one elses fault but YOURS. Did you get a vasectomy? No? Why are you complaining about having no choice then? You CHOSE to not take responsibility, at the time it was afforded to you. Now you want to complain when you wasted your choice due to laziness, and tried dumping all the responsibility of contraception to the woman. Boo hoo. Your own fault.

Cognitive dissonance is still on your part since tubectomy is a thing that's actually equivalent to what you're arguing here and the rest is more anti-abortion rhetoric. How convenient anti-abortion arguments are when they are to be used against something you don't like, amirite?

[Not A Cat]

nine months is less than 18 years.
Not seeing your point.

Have you not heard of the law that forces men to take care of the kids? (its called child support, and is the topic of discussion).

Not interested in sympathy, we would like you to consider this using your brain for about 5 seconds.

9 months of pregnancy is much more than men have to go through in 18 years. Also enough people evade paying child support as it is, and you want to give those people the right to just not support the child altogether? My brain is telling me that these people just want an easy out instead of taking responsibility.

[Kraenen]

I fully support a man's right to choose to abort any child they are carrying inside them, as long as that is the case we have equality.

Wouldn't that be a bit like gays having the equal right to marry a woman?

[May90]

My brain is telling me that these people just want an easy out instead of taking responsibility.

Taking responsibility is a sign of maturity. We are on the Internet, so...

[prwraith]

The "I failed basic fifth-grade biology, and don't think I should have to use protection or in any way be held liable for the consequences of my actions" argument is making me sick. So, squaresies.

It has nothing to do with really any of what you said. it has everything to do with men having the right to say no to kids, the same right women have. Regardless of whether condoms or birth control were used. Both of which can indeed fail.

[Dispraise]

it has everything to do with men having the right to say no to kids

And, hey, it turns out you already do. Glad that's /topic, then.