"No means no!" but only for women

[Gangresnake]

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!!!

I am not missing point A at all. The women can terminate the abortion wheter she please.
What I am missing is your point B. You very clearly state that the child need both parents and that you care about the well-being of the children and yet you believe the pregnancy should go to term even if one parent (aka 50% of the required parties) is unwilling to fit that role ?

As I said, it's standard cognitive dissonance. When you look at the women you think "Freedom", and then you switch to the man and think "Responsability".
I personally think there should be freedom for both, if the man doesnt want it, there's no reason to chain him to the child or force him to pay child support, worse case scenario, the woman is free to abort if she doesnt want to raise it as a single parent and I dont see any argument that goes against that.

- - - Updated - - -

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

So you're anti-abortion right ?
Because that's what "responsability" actually is, a principle that have to be respected by both.

[Raelbo]

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

The logic here is astounding. For the well-being of the child, we should kill it before it is born.


Yes, I get it, people like you don't recognise abortion as anything more than a minor medical procedure to remove an unwanted growth. However a significant number of people regard a foetus as a small human being.

And I am not going to even try and argue about who is right and who is wrong because there is no right or wrong on this issue. It is an entirely subjective issue and every person is entitled to treat it as anything they so choose (within a reasonable set of parameters).

What people like you don't seem to get though, is that your attitude towards abortion is completely irrelevant when it comes to what someone else's attitude towards abortion is, and you do not get to decide how they should feel about getting one done on their foetus.

The implication of this is simple: If a woman believes that aborting your foetus is murder, then you can no more expect her to go through with an abortion than it would be for you to kill it after it was born, just because you didn't want to the financial responsibility.

And yes, I realise it is inconvenient. I realise it is not fair. But the reality is that an unplanned pregnancy is not fair on anyone: Not the mother, not the father, not the child. So the best we can really aim for is the least unfair outcome.

In an ideal world, we would get to scrutinise the pregnancy and figure out whether it was genuinely unplanned, and how the mother actually feels about abortion before forcing the father to accept responsibility, because I do agree that where:

a) a woman purposely falls pregnant because she wants a child without letting the father know of her intentions
b) a woman has no moral reservations about abortion, but wants a child even though the father was not involved in that decision

that the father should be absolved of responsibility. However where a woman genuinely believes that abortion = murder then you cannot force her into a choice between aborting or accepting sole responsibility for the child.


In practical terms however, it is something that would be basically impossible to police, for obvious reasons. Therefore the only rational course of action is to simply accept that if the mother chooses to carry the pregnancy and doesn't want to accept the full responsibility, then the father has to accept responsibility.


And really, I am getting so sick and tired of the narcissistic whining going on here about how tough this deal is for men. This is not something that just happens to you and there is nothing you can do to avoid it. There is so much that we as men can do to avoid landing up with this problem:

a) Take responsibility for your own contraception
b) Be circumspect about where your sperm lands up

There is no excuse aside from poor self control, immaturity and stupidity to get a girl, who has abortion issues, and whose children you don't want to father, pregnant. It's that simple.

As others have said, this entire argument about "equallity" and "fairness" is nothing more than a self-serving and narcissistic justification for you getting what you want while dodging any chance of ever having to accept an iota of responsibility for your actions and choices.

[May90]

I am not missing point A at all. The women can terminate the abortion wheter she please.
What I am missing is your point B. You very clearly state that the child need both parents and that you care about the well-being of the children and yet you believe the pregnancy should go to term even if one parent (aka 50% of the required parties) is unwilling to fit that role ?

As I said, it's standard cognitive dissonance. When you look at the women you think "Freedom", and then you switch to the man and think "Responsability".
I personally think there should be freedom for both, if the man doesnt want it, there's no reason to chain him to the child or force him to pay child support, worse case scenario, the woman is free to abort if she doesnt want to raise it as a single parent and I dont see any argument that goes against that.

Once again...

A) Woman has full choice, because it is her body.
B) After she has made her choice, in both cases both parents have equal responsibility, because either
1) kid doesn't get born, or
2) it gets born and needs both parents.

Instead of rambling endlessly, just point out which of these you disagree with and why.

[Gangresnake]

The logic here is astounding. For the well-being of the child, we should kill it before it is born.

The logic is pretty simple, either you believe in responsability or you believe in freedom, you cant selectively switch it depending on which gender is on the grill.

Yes, I get it, people like you don't recognise abortion as anything more than a minor medical procedure to remove an unwanted growth. However a significant number of people regard a foetus as a small human being.

I have no problem with that, read above what I consider the side of "responsability".

And I am not going to even try and argue about who is right and who is wrong because there is no right or wrong on this issue. It is an entirely subjective issue and every person is entitled to treat it as anything they so choose (within a reasonable set of parameters).

Except "Every person" is not entitled to treat it as anything they so choose, the law decide how it's treated.

What people like you don't seem to get though, is that your attitude towards abortion is completely irrelevant when it comes to what someone else's attitude towards abortion is, and you do not get to decide how they should feel about getting one done on their foetus.

That's where I can happily say : Right back at you champ.
Your attitude toward abortion is completely irrelevant when it come to what someone else's attitude toward abortion is.
And it's the citizen who get to decide how it should be treated, hence why we're having this entire discussion.

The rest has already been discussed above, you dont think women can handle responsability so you think they should just get a bail-out whenever they want; but when it come to father "there is no excuse", cognitive dissonance #45

- - - Updated - - -

Once again...

A) Woman has full choice, because it is her body.
B) After she has made her choice, in both cases both parents have equal responsibility, because either
1) kid doesn't get born, or
2) it gets born and needs both parents.

Instead of rambling endlessly, just point out which of these you disagree with and why.

I'm not rambling aimlessly, I'm simply asking to make up your mind. Which you just did.

What you said above is more understandable because you finally removed the well-being of the child out of the equation, so you do end up with the following logic :
The right of the "woman to dispose of her body" trump every other rights, aka both the well-being of the child, who do not get two willing parents and the right of the man who do not get any say in the decision that will heavily affect his life

That's a RadFem opinion, and now i can simply say to you : I disagree and I think it create a terrible society.

[DeadmanWalking]

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 ?

The principle is called 'Pretending to be a victim so he can justify victimizing others."

[May90]

I'm not rambling aimlessly, I'm simply asking to make up your mind. Which you just did.

What you said above is more understandable because you finally removed the well-being of the child out of the equation, so you do end up with the following logic :
The right of the "woman to dispose of her body trump" every other rights, aka both the well-being of the child, who do not get two willing parents and the right of the man who do not get any say in the decision

That's a RadFem opinion, and now i can simply say to you : I disagree and I think it create a terrible society.

What are you talking about... Well-being of the child is in B.

I guess poor reading comprehension is a necessity on the Internet to hold all these detached from reality beliefs, isn't it?

[Not A Cat]

So you're anti-abortion right ?
Because that's what "responsability" actually is, a principle that have to be respected by both.

Well I guess that depends on when you deem a person to be a person. I personally think they become a person once they exit the womb, and that's when parental responsibility needs to be taken. If you think differently and that's why you keep bringing up abortion then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

A man and woman have intercourse, they both choose to do so. The woman gets pregnant, she has a choice to make of whether to go through with the pregnancy, or not. The man doesn't get this choice because he doesn't have to go through pregnancy. However, if the woman goes through pregnancy, delivers a child into the world and decides to care for it, the man has to take responsibility and provide some form of support. In regards to parental responsibility, the woman is already taking it by being a mother to the child. The father also has to take responsibility in this way, even if it's just financially. Now of course another way around this is putting the child up for adoption which waives both the mother and the father of their parental responsibilities. This scenario is going with the assumption that the father does not want the child.

Women shouldn't be forced to get an abortion because the man refuses to take parental responsibility with the alternative being raising a child without support. Meanwhile the man has nothing to worry about despite the fact that he also made a choice to have sex. So it's unfair either way, however the law is currently on the side of the mother.

[Gangresnake]

What are you talking about... Well-being of the child is in B.

I guess poor reading comprehension is a necessity on the Internet to hold all these detached from reality beliefs, isn't it?

No it's not. Well being of the children is actually in A. Where both parents get to decide if they want a child.
Which you do not believe in about that and put the right of the women instead.
And then you pretend chaining the unwilling father to the kid with no say in the decision is somehow taking the "Well-being of the child" into account.

It's not rocket science dude, you cant tell me your favorite color is blue and then 10s later your favorite color is red. I'm asking a question about hierarchy.
Here it's the same thing, you have to decide between the parents and the children and by letting the mother be the sole decision maker you simply chose to pick the mother.

[Mehrunes]

The logic here is astounding. For the well-being of the child, we should kill it before it is born.

It's not even a person before it's born, regardless of abortion being banned or not. And the logic in what you quoted isn't particularly the logic of the person you're responding to. They just said what should be the logical conclusion of the person they were replying to themselves, for said third person to be consistent.

Yes, I get it, people like you don't recognise abortion as anything more than a minor medical procedure to remove an unwanted growth. However a significant number of people regard a foetus as a small human being.

And the law hardly considers it as a small human being given that's mostly argument of pro-life proponents that the lawmakers securing abortion argued against since even before abortion has been legalized.

And I am not going to even try and argue about who is right and who is wrong because there is no right or wrong on this issue. It is an entirely subjective issue and every person is entitled to treat it as anything they so choose (within a reasonable set of parameters).

Yes your other posts in this thread (or even the later part of this one) or any other thread on that matter you participated in totally aren't arguing what's right and wrong here.

What people like you don't seem to get though, is that your attitude towards abortion is completely irrelevant when it comes to what someone else's attitude towards abortion is, and you do not get to decide how they should feel about getting one done on their foetus.

Who said anything about deciding what a woman should do with the fetus inside of her for her?

The implication of this is simple: If a woman believes that aborting your foetus is murder, then you can no more expect her to go through with an abortion than it would be for you to kill it after it was born, just because you didn't want to the financial responsibility.

She still has the option. Whether she chooses to use it or not is her, well, choice. As long as she has that option the ultimate responsibility for carrying pregnancy to term rests on her. Yet she has the power to transfer some of that burden of the man regardless of his input.

And yes, I realise it is inconvenient. I realise it is not fair. But the reality is that an unplanned pregnancy is not fair on anyone: Not the mother, not the father, not the child. So the best we can really aim for is the least unfair outcome.

Yeah, let's just sacrifice men on the altar of "least unfair outcome". It's men, who gives a shit about them or that the least unfair outcome is unfair more to them than it is to women. And "least fair outcome my ass". What's more fair, women having an out if everything else fails and man not having one, or both having one? Hard question for sure, but I'll go with option A

In an ideal world, we would get to scrutinise the pregnancy and figure out whether it was genuinely unplanned, and how the mother actually feels about abortion before forcing the father to accept responsibility, because I do agree that where:

a) a woman purposely falls pregnant because she wants a child without letting the father know of her intentions
b) a woman has no moral reservations about abortion, but wants a child even though the father was not involved in that decision

that the father should be absolved of responsibility. However where a woman genuinely believes that abortion = murder then you cannot force her into a choice between aborting or accepting sole responsibility for the child.

But women's opinions (in this case, objectively wrong ones) should have the power to force her choice (because it's still a choice) and the results of them on men? And what's exactly wrong about her taking responsibility of the child only she wants?

In practical terms however, it is something that would be basically impossible to police, for obvious reasons. Therefore the only rational course of action is to simply accept that if the mother chooses to carry the pregnancy and doesn't want to accept the full responsibility, then the father has to accept responsibility.

So women having all the power. Least unfair solution indeed.

And really, I am getting so sick and tired of the narcissistic whining going on here about how tough this deal is for men. This is not something that just happens to you and there is nothing you can do to avoid it. There is so much that we as men can do to avoid landing up with this problem:

a) Take responsibility for your own contraception
b) Be circumspect about where your sperm lands up

Considering that pregnancy involves two people, the exact same thing applies to women. Why aren't you complaining about their whining? Is it because you're not even arguing who's right and wrong? /s

There is no excuse aside from poor self control, immaturity and stupidity to get a girl, who has abortion issues, and whose children you don't want to father, pregnant. It's that simple.

The same applies to getting pregnant in case of a woman. And yet pandering to stupidity and immaturity in this case is swell.

As others have said, this entire argument about "equallity" and "fairness" is nothing more than a self-serving and narcissistic justification for you getting what you want while dodging any chance of ever having to accept an iota of responsibility for your actions and choices.

Well, given how fetus is "a small human" the argument that women should have equality in terms of bodily autonomy is self-serving and narcissistic justification for women getting what they want while dodging any chance of ever having to accept a iota of responsibility for their actions and choices. Glad we got that covered.

[May90]

No it's not. Well being of the children is actually in A. Where both parents get to decide if they want a child.
Which you do not believe in about that and put the right of the women instead.
And then you pretend chaining the unwilling father to the kid with no say in the decision is somehow taking the "Well-being of the child" into account.

It's not rocket science dude, you cant tell me your favorite color is blue and then 10s later your favorite color is red. I'm asking a question about hierarchy.
Here it's the same thing, you have to decide between the parents and the children and by letting the mother be the sole decision maker you simply chose to pick the mother.

In A, the child does not exist yet, neither does its well being. In B:2, it exists, hence its well being is crucial.

In A, both partners are free to do whatever they want with their bodies. In B:2, it is no longer about just them, hence they both gain responsibility for raising the child.

It is full equality of consequences in all cases. If you want equality of choice, well, develop a way to get men impregnated.

[Raelbo]

The logic is pretty simple, either you believe in responsability or you believe in freedom,

Awesome. I'll just stop you there because your argument fails before it has even begun. You're applying the wrong logic function to the concepts. I believe in responsibility and freedom. Or put another way, freedom has to be coupled with responsibility. Unless of course you're a child.

Except "Every person" is not entitled to treat it as anything they so choose, the law decide how it's treated.

The law does not dictate one's moral standpoint on such issues. Laws which permit abortion do not dictate how any individual feels about the issue. In fact the whole basis for making abortion legal is exactly because of what I argued: Every person gets to decide for him/herself whether abortion is right or wrong ethically and morally and legally they are supported.

That's where I can happily say : Right back at you champ.
Your attitude toward abortion is completely irrelevant when it come to what someone else's attitude toward abortion is

So tell me, chump, what exactly is my attitude towards abortion, hmm? Please quote from my argument where my attitude towards it is even hinted at.

And it's the citizen who get to decide how it should be treated, hence why we're having this entire discussion.

We each get to decide what our attitude towards abortion is. For the mother this could dictate what her options are in the face of an unwanted pregnancy. For the father this would dictate how he would feel about the mother's decision, but ultimately cannot determine the outcome of the decision to abort or not. At best the father can try to persuade the mother into sharing his viewpoint, but at the end of the day, the decision is entirely up to her.

The rest has already been discussed above, you dont think women can handle responsability so you think they should just get a bail-out whenever they want;

Nice attempt at a strawman here. I have argued absolutely nothing of the sort.

but when it come to father "there is no excuse", cognitive dissonance #45

Let me be clear here: Differences in male and female physiology dictate that the question of unwanted pregnancy cannot be symmetrical. Recognising this FACT and the implication thereof does not imply any cognitive dissonance. My thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes are totally consistent, they simply cannot be applied in the same way to men and women for the same reason that one cannot put a square peg into a round hole.

I am able to apply a consistent set of principles to a complex problem by expanding my thought processes. Sadly you seem too limited to do this, so you're attempting to force a simple solution on a problem that is too complex for such a solution.

[Notter]

You can't really ask a woman to kill her fetus can you?

sure you can.
it's the man's fetus. she's just keeping it warm.

[Gangresnake]

In A, the child does not exist yet, neither does its well being. In B:2, it exists, hence its well being is crucial.

In A, both partners are free to do whatever they want with their bodies. In B:2, it is no longer about just them, hence they both gain responsibility for raising the child.

It is full equality of consequences in all cases. If you want equality of choice, well, develop a way to get men impregnated.

Except you're pretending to not understand that B is the direct result of A.

In A you know that one parent is unwilling to raise the child and YOU TAKE THE CONSCIOUS CHOICE to let the pregnancy happen knowing that one parent is unwilling therefore hindering the future of the child.
In B the child is here and suddenly the child well-being happen to be "important" once again, and thus the father must face the consequences of presence or child support, despite having no say in the matter.

It's a logical hoop that is fairly easily debunked, as seen above, the well-being of the child isnt the priority here. In step A it's the mother, in step B it's the mother.

Hence why your opinion is a RadFem opinion, pretty simple stuff.

[May90]

Except you're pretending to not understand that B is the direct result of A.

In A you know that one parent is unwilling to raise the child and YOU TAKE THE CONSCIOUS CHOICE to let the pregnancy happen knowing that one parent is unwilling therefore hindering the future of the child.
In B the child is here and suddenly the child well-being happen to be "important" once again, and thus the father must face the consequences of presence or child support, despite having no say in the matter.

It's a logical hoop that is fairly easily debunked, as seen above, the well-being of the child isnt the priority here. In step A it's the mother, in step B it's the mother.

Hence why your opinion is a RadFem opinion, pretty simple stuff.

I've never said that I thought the choice to have a child when the partner doesn't want it is a morally right one. If you were so careless as to not bother to spend a few seconds putting a condom on, then you can still try to persuade your partner to not have a child, despite having impregnated her.

Your opinion reeks of extreme immaturity and irresponsibility. You don't care about the mother, you don't care about the child, you don't even care putting a condom on - and yet you want to run away from all the consequences just because you "don't want" a child. Dude, I don't want many things too... I don't want to go to work every day, I want to keep getting the benefits in terms of money and work only when I feel like it. Quickly, change the law so it fits my shortsighted desires!!!

[Deleted]

Tough luck. Biological difference between men and women isn't fair, and never will be. You don't see women here complaining about lower physical strength and lower metabolism. Should we?

If you want to play that card then you are fresh out off luck, if biology isn't fair then a woman would be lucky if the male would want to support it, its not his body, not his problem.

[Gangresnake]

Awesome. I'll just stop you there because your argument fails before it has even begun. You're applying the wrong logic function to the concepts. I believe in responsibility and freedom. Or put another way, freedom has to be coupled with responsibility. Unless of course you're a child.

An actual child would say "I want both!". Breaking news. You cant.

The law does not dictate one's moral standpoint on such issues. Laws which permit abortion do not dictate how any individual feels about the issue. In fact the whole basis for making abortion legal is exactly because of what I argued: Every person gets to decide for him/herself whether abortion is right or wrong ethically and morally and legally they are supported.

I never talked about moral standpoint. You use the word "Treat is as". And now you switch to the "Moral standpoint". So I have no problem repeating myself : "Every person" is not entitled to treat it as anything they so choose, the law decide how it's treated.

So tell me, chump, what exactly is my attitude towards abortion, hmm? Please quote from my argument where my attitude towards it is even hinted at.

It's hinted right below actually.
"Therefore the only rational course of action is to simply accept that if the mother chooses to carry the pregnancy and doesn't want to accept the full responsibility, then the father has to accept responsibility."
It's pretty fucking clear, if the women dont want to take responsability then the man have to : your argument, right there.

We each get to decide what our attitude towards abortion is. For the mother this could dictate what her options are in the face of an unwanted pregnancy. For the father this would dictate how he would feel about the mother's decision, but ultimately cannot determine the outcome of the decision to abort or not. At best the father can try to persuade the mother into sharing his viewpoint, but at the end of the day, the decision is entirely up to her.

Once again you're off topic, you didnt talk about opinions, you talked about how you "treat it". And once again : "Every person" is not entitled to treat it as anything they so choose, the law decide how it's treated. The ctrl+c ctrl+v sure is handy today.

Nice attempt at a strawman here. I have argued absolutely nothing of the sort.

Yes you did, right above

Let me be clear here: Differences in male and female physiology dictate that the question of unwanted pregnancy cannot be symmetrical. Recognising this FACT and the implication thereof does not imply any cognitive dissonance. My thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes are totally consistent, they simply cannot be applied in the same way to men and women for the same reason that one cannot put a square peg into a round hole.

That's funny because I recognize it too, by saying that the right to abortion should remain to the mother.
"My body my choice" explain why the mother should get to keep it, it doesnt explain why the man cannot chose to cop out of the children if he chose to.

I am able to apply a consistent set of principles to a complex problem by expanding my thought processes. Sadly you seem too limited to do this, so you're attempting to force a simple solution on a problem that is too complex for such a solution.

Other way around I'm afraid, I have yet to see a single argument explaining why the person who dont get a say in the decision of abortion must face the consequence anyhow.

- - - Updated - - -

I've never said that I thought the choice to have a child when the partner doesn't want it is a morally right one. If you were so careless as to not bother to spend a few seconds putting a condom on, then you can still try to persuade your partner to not have a child, despite having impregnated her.

Your opinion reeks of extreme immaturity and irresponsibility. You don't care about the mother, you don't care about the child, you don't even care putting a condom on - and yet you want to run away from all the consequences just because you "don't want" a child. Dude, I don't want many things too... I don't want to go to work every day, I want to keep getting the benefits in terms of money and work only when I feel like it. Quickly, change the law so it fits my shortsighted desires!!!

Dont bother wasting time with the "condom argument". The man could have taken a condom. The woman could have taken a pill. We're way past that timeline.

My opinion is based on fairness. Your put all the responsability on the man and all the freedom on the woman. I simply ask "Why" and get no answer.
Atleast no actual answer, because your non-stop smileys and "you cant read lol" really dont fucking matter to me, which by the way really "reeks of maturity". You can feel a grown man able to handle a simple discussion through the optic fiber.

[May90]

Dont bother wasting time with the "condom argument". The man could have taken a condom. The woman could have taken a pill. We're way past that timeline.

My opinion is based on fairness. Your put all the responsability on the man and all the freedom on the woman. I simply ask "Why" and get no answer.
Atleast no actual answer, because your non-stop smileys and "you cant read lol" really dont fucking matter to me, which by the way really "reeks of maturity". You can feel a grown man able to handle a simple discussion through the optic fiber.

All outcomes put equal responsibility on both parents... You are simply denying reality at this point. Blabbering in the process.

[Gangresnake]

All outcomes put equal responsibility on both parents... You are simply denying reality at this point. Blabbering in the process.

No they really dont. Because the mother get a choice in the matter and the father does not. There's this thing called "accountability".

Keep posting as many ad-hominems and smileys as you like, the only thing I see is that you have no leg to stand on.

[May90]

No they really dont. Because the mother get a choice in the matter and the father does not. There's this thing called "accountability".

Keep posting as many ad-hominems and smileys as you like, the only thing I see is that you have no leg to stand on.

All outcomes put equal responsibility on both parents. Just take a deep breath and try to read what is actually said... Or don't, who cares.

[Gangresnake]

All outcomes put equal responsibility on both parents. Just take a deep breath and try to read what is actually said... Or don't, who cares.

Once again, they dont, the man dont get a say in the matter and the consequence on his life will be decided by the mother.

I think you should take your own advice and take a deep breath yourself, all these smileys make you look pretty flustered here.

PS : Gonna stop the quote war here, I like discussions, not babysitting.