"No means no!" but only for women

[Spectral]

If you want to go with that, its fine, but if biology isn't fair then a male would not have to do anything for something that he didn't want. Not his body, not his problem, biology isn't fair..

I really don't know why you want to stick your neck out for degenerates that refuse to take care of their kids. Someone has to take care of the kid - demanding that it be everyone other than the biological father is absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

yeah but we have elected to create a system where biological inequities are remedied.

I'm not enthusiastic about that, to put it lightly. I think it's silly and distortionary. On this topic, I prefer traditional approaches.

[Dezerte]

The problem with forced adoption is that there is a shortage of parents wanting to adopt. Which means that these parent-less children spend years in foster-care, which is not ideal or healthy for the child.

[Deleted]

I really don't know why you want to stick your neck out for degenerates that refuse to take care of their kids. Someone has to take care of the kid - demanding that it be everyone other than the biological father is absurd.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm not enthusiastic about that, to put it lightly. I think it's silly and distortionary. On this topic, I prefer traditional approaches.

Degenerates that didn't want to become a father you mean? That "someone" that should take care of the child is the one that wanted to have said child. If she can't take care of that child it should go up for adoption. The sooner the better, this child deserves to have 2 parents that love it.
If you want to fault anyone, fault the person that brings a child into the world that it can't take care off. Not the person that didn't want it to begin with.

So if you are not enthusiastic about this system you are not enthusiastic about child support? Because that is one of these things we created to remedy the biological inequities.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with forced adoption is that there is a shortage of parents wanting to adopt. Which means that these parent-less children spend years in foster-care, which is not ideal or healthy for the child.

Not really, there aren't many people that want to adopt a six year old or older, but babies, everyone wants to adopt a baby, there are waiting lists for that.

[bergmann620]

That makes no sense at all, it takes nothing away from the fact that it was her choice to have the baby. All babies are born by choice of the mother, not by accident.

A man plays a role in creating a pregnancy. That is his choice. I understand that you're unhappy with your options. Buy a Fleshlight.

[Deleted]

A man plays a role in creating a pregnancy. That is his choice. I understand that you're unhappy with your options. Buy a Fleshlight.

No, a man plays a role in having sex. Having the baby is 100% a choice. If having sex is the same as having babies then there should not be such a thing as an abortion now should there. Stop using anti abortion rhetoric.

[bergmann620]

No, a man plays a role in having sex.

What causes pregnancy?

Having the baby is 100% a choice.

It certainly is. That does nothing to alleviate the father's financial responsibility.

If having sex is the same as having babies

Having sex is the same as having babies? You really don't understand how this works, do you? You see, the word 'sex' is part of a larger phrase: "sexual reproduction". It's a process by which many animals create offspring. We humans find the act of sexual reproduction- of pushing a penis into a vagina- to be pleasurable, so we have found ways to perform the act with a minimized risk of the 'reproduction' part. If an 'oops' does happen, women have a couple of options- having the child, adopting out the child, or abortion. Since none (zero) of these options involves the man's body, they don't get a say in what happens.

then there should not be such a thing as an abortion now should there.

What are you on about?

Stop using anti abortion rhetoric.

No, seriously, what are you even talking about?

Here, let's build a perfect world for all of you folks that can't seem to square living in this one:

For all you theoretical 1-to-1 reproductive rights folks: If you get a woman pregnant, and she opts for an abortion, you must undergo a similarly invasive course of medical treatment, and you are forced to notify an analogous portion of your friends / family / coworkers of your participation in the creation and abortion of a fetus.

Also, keep in mind that the impregnation of a female who didn't specifically ask for your semen to be deposited inside her will now be considered assault.

[Deleted]

What causes pregnancy?

I do know what causes a pregnancy to continue..

It certainly is. That does nothing to alleviate the father's financial responsibility.

Because what?? Vagina??

Having sex is the same as having babies? You really don't understand how this works, do you? You see, the word 'sex' is part of a larger phrase: "sexual reproduction". It's a process by which many animals create offspring. We humans find the act of sexual reproduction- of pushing a penis into a vagina- to be pleasurable, so we have found ways to perform the act with a minimized risk of the 'reproduction' part. If an 'oops' does happen, women have a couple of options- having the child, adopting out the child, or abortion. Since none (zero) of these options involves the man's body, they don't get a say in what happens.

And there lies your problem, you do not seem to understand that with these options come choices. This means that having a child is 100% a choice that a woman makes. And since the man has zero say about this, it should be that the woman takes the responsibility of her choice.

What are you on about?

On you using anti abortion rhetoric, again.

No, seriously, what are you even talking about?

Here, let's build a perfect world for all of you folks that can't seem to square living in this one:

For all you theoretical 1-to-1 reproductive rights folks: If you get a woman pregnant, and she opts for an abortion, you must undergo a similarly invasive course of medical treatment, and you are forced to notify an analogous portion of your friends / family / coworkers of your participation in the creation and abortion of a fetus.

Also, keep in mind that the impregnation of a female who didn't specifically ask for your semen to be deposited inside her will now be considered assault.

What are you on about?? What part of anti abortion rhetoric do you not understand? What part of "if you have sex you bare the responsibility" is unclear to you??

The rest is just some incoherent mumbling about how men should have to suffer too, because "reasons".

[bergmann620]

Because what?? Vagina??

Because a man's obligation begins at conception, not birth.

And there lies your problem, you do not seem to understand that with these options come choices.

I understand that, 1000%. I do not, however, agree with your assumed point that those choices abrogate the father's responsibility.

If you shoot me, and the bullet lodges in my body, it is up to me and my doctor what I do about that bullet. You don't get a say, and my choice doesn't affect your liability.

This means that having a child is 100% a choice that a woman makes. And since the man has zero say about this, it should be that the woman takes the responsibility of her choice.

The woman is infinitely responsible for the results of her choice. The man is merely financially responsible. Seems like a bargain, to me.

On you using anti abortion rhetoric, again.

Quit making things up.

What are you on about?? What part of anti abortion rhetoric do you not understand? What part of "if you have sex you bare the responsibility" is unclear to you??

Yes, you bear the responsibility. The man's responsibility is to either cover part of an abortion, to be an actual father, or to pay support. The woman's responsibility is to decide to either abort, or keep, a child, and to assume a share of the responsibility for that decision. Adoption involves both biological parents except in cases of impossible logistics or sinister intent.

The rest is just some incoherent mumbling about how men should have to suffer too, because "reasons".

This entire thread is incoherent mumbling from people who theoretically have sex and think they should have zero accountability for their actions.

The end result of your argument is essentially that no rational woman should EVER have sex with a man lest she be 100% devoted to abortion. I guarantee that that is the conclusion that 99% of women would have should they be so unfortunate as to chance upon this thread.

[Mistame]

You are complaining about the state of law, while proposing a system that cannot work better because of problems of proof. There is an old saying, an elephant is a mouse built to government specifications. You're talking about taking the current batch of laws and rules about paternity and child support and adding yet another set of hearings.

How is a father refuting a claim to paternity adding "another set of hearings"? That's nonsense.

Hearings take the father's time and probably mean hiring a lawyer.

And? A few thousand thousand once vs 75-100k over the course of 18-21 years. Heck, it's worth that just prove a crazy bitch is crazy.

aside from being Kansas (the law's equivalent of Florida Man)

Dismissal due to location, brilliant.

he tried to do things without taking the proper legal steps:

The Colorado case is another example of amateur hour in court:

The Detroit case is an injustice, but it highlights the problems of expecting the courts to be able to sort things out.

No, they all highlight the flaw(s) in the system. Your sperm = your responsibility is absurd. Not your sperm = your responsibility is fucking insane.

The way the law is set up, if a 14 year-old girl pulls the "basting" trick (on an older guy), gets herself pregnant, not only is the "father" responsible, he's also now a "rapist". Why? Because "his sperm" and "reasons".

And no man should be forced to pay for another man's child. Period. Ever. There should be no limitations to DNA results, etc, in regards to child support. The "welfare of the child" is irrelevant.

That's exactly the kind of thing that I'm thinking when I say that an extra layer of hearings and proof isn't going to make things better, it will make them worse.

See, that's the thing with "proof". The onus lies on the accuser. If the court can establish questionable circumstances (easily done, since testimony is evidence), then logic dictates that the case be heard. The problem is that the court's actions are limited to what the laws say. Therefore, the laws need to be addressed.

I'm sure nobody on the Internet would pull my leg on such things, so I'd have to say ... you really need to work on who you partner up with.

I figured you go with the "don't sleep with crazy" bit. Unfortunately, I'm not gay so that's not an option.

The child had no choice in the circumstances of their birth.

And in the scenarios I've mentioned, neither did the man. That the child exists is not a valid argument.

But the kids are a different story.

No, they're not. Kids are not "special".

Right, biology isn't fair. That's why comparing this to other contracts is inherently fallacious - other contracts simply aren't comparable in any meaningful sense, as they don't involve two parties creating a child. That it's not "fair" is rather irrelevant - there's no way to make pregnancy and child-bearing "fair" and the obsession with fairness is pretty unhealthy.

Equality is not subjective. Two parties don't create a child. They create a zygote. A woman creates the child of her own volition. In case of pure negligence, your point is perfectly valid. When it's the result of either an agreement against pregnancy (the use of protection/contraception) and the woman changes her mind or maliciousness on the part of the woman, it's not.

It certainly is. That does nothing to alleviate the father's financial responsibility.

That's the problem. A "father's responsibility" should not be determined solely on the donation of sperm.

For all you theoretical 1-to-1 reproductive rights folks: If you get a woman pregnant, and she opts for an abortion, you must undergo a similarly invasive course of medical treatment, and you are forced to notify an analogous portion of your friends / family / coworkers of your participation in the creation and abortion of a fetus.

And if she uses his sperm without permission, he can have her legally obligated to abort the fetus.

Also, keep in mind that the impregnation of a female who didn't specifically ask for your semen to be deposited inside her will now be considered assault.

Sure. As long as manipulation of a situation to get oneself pregnant against the wishes of the male is classified as assault. And "basting", among other methods of "stealing sperm" are considered rape.

It really isn't about 1-to-1 "reproductive rights". If it is known and agreed prior to the encounter that neither wants a child, as indicated by the use of contraception/protection, and either the measures fail and the woman changes her mind (breach of verbal contract) or the woman acts in a malicious manner with the intention of ensuring she does get pregnant against the wishes of the man, the man should have the ability to opt out. It's pretty simple.

[Deleted]

The problem with forced adoption is that there is a shortage of parents wanting to adopt.

Not of newborns - Those have no trouble finding parents.

[bergmann620]

Sure. As long as manipulation of a situation to get oneself pregnant against the wishes of the male is classified as assault. And "basting", among other methods of "stealing sperm" are considered rape.

Except, it's not rape. It's either theft or fraud. Take your pick.

It really isn't about 1-to-1 "reproductive rights". If it is known and agreed prior to the encounter that neither wants a child, as indicated by the use of contraception/protection,

Use of contraception can mean several things. Further, one (male or female) can simultaneously desire to not have a pregnancy, yet to have a child should contraception fail.

and either the measures fail and the woman changes her mind (breach of verbal contract)

You have to establish both the desire to not become pregnant, and the desire to not carry to term. And you'd better do so in something a bit stronger than a verbal agreement. Ask women about how easy it is to breach a verbal agreement and get away with it in a rape case.

or the woman acts in a malicious manner with the intention of ensuring she does get pregnant against the wishes of the man, the man should have the ability to opt out. It's pretty simple.

That is pretty simple, alas, it is almost impossible to prove. Condoms, when used properly, are like 86% effective, so look forward to an assault charge 14 times out of every 100.


We can either usher in a new wave of inter-sex behavior, in which we have literal love contracts and men do preventative sperm-theft prevention kits to preserve evidence, which both essentially boil down to basically not having sex, or we can simply appreciate the value in being decent and empathetic to one another and participate in society as responsible adults.

- - - Updated - - -

Not of newborns - Those have no trouble finding parents.

White, healthy, newborns.

[Deleted]

Because a man's obligation begins at conception, not birth.

So, that is some more sexist anti abortion crap..

I understand that, 1000%. I do not, however, agree with your assumed point that those choices abrogate the father's responsibility.

If you shoot me, and the bullet lodges in my body, it is up to me and my doctor what I do about that bullet. You don't get a say, and my choice doesn't affect your liability.

If you would understand you would not bother with a stupid analogy. No one did anything harmful, a man does not do sex to a woman, they both have sex

The woman is infinitely responsible for the results of her choice. The man is merely financially responsible. Seems like a bargain, to me.

Infinitely responsible???? What does that even mean??? The woman is responsible for her own choice, the man should not be responsible for her's. "merely financial" seem rather odd, as you know, everything you can do in this life costs money, it is the fruits of his labour that he misses out on. The chance to start a family of his own with someone who he loves. Those are all at stake, just because some woman wants to have a baby that she can not take care off.

Quit making things up.

I do not make this shit up, you do, you make up this anti abortion rhetoric.

Yes, you bear the responsibility. The man's responsibility is to either cover part of an abortion, to be an actual father, or to pay support. The woman's responsibility is to decide to either abort, or keep, a child, and to assume a share of the responsibility for that decision. Adoption involves both biological parents except in cases of impossible logistics or sinister intent.

Cover part of the abortion, you mean, the free abortions? The ones that are sponsored by the state? And even if they are not sponsored where you live, then i would gladly pay for that.
Then you go again with how it is her choice, but again forget that it makes it her responsibility. And no, a mother doesnt need to have the okay of the father to put it up for adoption. A man should not be held responsible for the choices of a woman.

This entire thread is incoherent mumbling from people who theoretically have sex and think they should have zero accountability for their actions.

The end result of your argument is essentially that no rational woman should EVER have sex with a man lest she be 100% devoted to abortion. I guarantee that that is the conclusion that 99% of women would have should they be so unfortunate as to chance upon this thread.

The only ones with incoherent rambling are the ones trying to defend the current status quo.

The en result of my argument is essentially that the woman would lose nothing but the financial support of people who didn't want to become father.
Funny how its bad when something like this is "done to woman" but you have no problem what so ever to shove parenthood on males. Because according to you a male should not have sex unless he is 100% willing to become a parent. My way leaves much, much more choice for the woman then your view has for males.

[Mistame]

Except, it's not rape. It's either theft or fraud. Take your pick.

My scenario was perfectly valid in your inane analogy.

Use of contraception can mean several things.

Seriously? I mean, you can make up things it might mean. Mostly, it means that the provider of the contraception does not want children.

Further, one (male or female) can simultaneously desire to not have a pregnancy, yet to have a child should contraception fail.

And if both want to keep it should the contraception fail, then they're both responsible. If only the woman does, the responsibility is hers alone since the decision to keep it is hers alone.

You have to establish both the desire to not become pregnant, and the desire to not carry to term.

No, you don't. Contraception is used to prevent pregnancy, you know, that thing that you need before "carrying to term" is even a factor.

And you'd better do so in something a bit stronger than a verbal agreement.

Yeah, like the fact that contraception is used. There's also blood tests to confirm the use of contraception (or lack thereof, in the case she lied), spent condoms, etc.

Condoms, when used properly, are like 86% effective, so look forward to an assault charge 14 times out of every 100.

Condoms, when used properly, are 98% effective.

We can either usher in a new wave of inter-sex behavior, in which we have literal love contracts and men do preventative sperm-theft prevention kits to preserve evidence, which both essentially boil down to basically not having sex, or we can simply appreciate the value in being decent and empathetic to one another and participate in society as responsible adults.

I see. So we should be "empathetic" and "responsible" because the system is inherently flawed, biased against men and, just for good measure, "reasons". Got it.

[Deleted]

When i was 18, i managed to knock up my girlfriend, she was 19, she elected to have an abortion without bothering to involve me.
Intellectually I know that having that kid would have been the most stupid decision i (we) would ever make in my life - Still i hate her living guts to this day, and its been 8 years.

The thing is: Even if she did involve you, and let's say you had said you want the child - if she didn't, what difference had it made?

[bergmann620]

So, that is some more sexist anti abortion crap..

You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it logical or true.

If you would understand you would not bother with a stupid analogy. No one did anything harmful, a man does not do sex to a woman, they both have sex

You are correct if the man can guarantee 100% that he does not ejaculate inside the woman. There are many very harmful outcomes that arise out of having sperm deposited inside oneself.

Infinitely responsible???? What does that even mean??? The woman is responsible for her own choice, the man should not be responsible for her's. "merely financial" seem rather odd, as you know, everything you can do in this life costs money, it is the fruits of his labour that he misses out on.

It means that the woman bears the entire weight of a decision that can affect her and two other lives for the rest of all of their lives.

The chance to start a family of his own with someone who he loves.

Who would almost certainly never love him if she knew of his callous attitude toward his other offspring.

I do not make this shit up, you do, you make up this anti abortion rhetoric.

Every time you say 'anti abortion' you lose a tiny bit of your already dangerously low credibility.

Cover part of the abortion, you mean, the free abortions? The ones that are sponsored by the state? And even if they are not sponsored where you live, then i would gladly pay for that.

Yea, so you're just blatantly making shit up. Got it. TrumpPence2016!

And no, a mother doesnt need to have the okay of the father to put it up for adoption.

Once again, you demonstrate a stunning lack of knowledge:

Generally, adoption requires the consent of both parents, provided they meet certain requirements. To gain parental rights, including the right to object to adoption, biological fathers unmarried to the mother must not only establish paternity, but also demonstrate a commitment to parenting the child.

Funny how its bad when something like this is "done to woman" but you have no problem what so ever to shove parenthood on males. Because according to you a male should not have sex unless he is 100% willing to become a parent.

1) If both sides are attempting to prevent pregnancy, that means the woman absolutely has not consented to you leaking semen inside her. If you don't do that, no problem.

2) Paying child support doesn't make you a parent.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously? I mean, you can make up things it might mean. Mostly, it means that the provider of the contraception does not want children.

Tell me more about how gay men are terrified of making babies with each other.

No, you don't. Contraception is used to prevent pregnancy, you know, that thing that you need before "carrying to term" is even a factor.

There are a dozen methods one can use to decrease the risk of pregnancy. So far as I know, there are only a few to prevent disease.

Yeah, like the fact that contraception is used. There's also blood tests to confirm the use of contraception (or lack thereof, in the case she lied), spent condoms, etc.

Once again, at best, contraception indicates a desire to not get pregnant, not a desire to not carry a pregnancy to term.

I know this would require you to be conversant in social customs, but there is a much, much larger stigma associated with casual sex than with abortion.

I see. So we should be "empathetic" and "responsible" because the system is inherently flawed, biased against men and, just for good measure, "reasons". Got it.

You should be empathetic because the bulk of burden of maintaining the human species falls to women, and they lose out on a tremendous amount of equality because of that.

The system is only 'flawed' because you have the societal understanding of a bowl of turnip greens. You repeatedly talk about contracts and contraception... If you're wearing a condom, that pretty damn well indicates the woman doesn't want your semen inside her. If you leave it there, you might have some problems down the road.

I don't have a problem with the concept of no-fault severing of parental responsibilities... I have a problem with people who expect that to be the norm, and not something that you need to spell out up front.

You know damn well that the reason you want 'the contraceptive to be the agreement' is because if you did spell it out, few to no women would ever have sex with you. Why would anyone EVER agree to an act when they were the only one to at risk of negative repercussions?

- - - Updated - - -

And this is something else that needs to be said:

There seems to be this idea that abortion is both widely available and is merely a 'choice'. Depending on where you live, it can be damn near inaccessible, and in no case is it a thing where you snap your heels together three times and *poof* you're no longer pregnant!

Above, MehMeh talks about "What if a man wants to start a family of his own later?"

Yea. What if? What if, when the woman wants to start her family, she learns she's been rendered infertile, as a result of the abortion?

"Too bad, so sad!" right?

At the end of the day, I take solace in the fact that this post could hit 100,000 pages, and we'll never see legal or court action on this absurd topic. And just think- if you keep posting inane BS here, you'll never have to worry about accidentally getting someone pregnant =)

[Deleted]

The thing is: Even if she did involve you, and let's say you had said you want the child - if she didn't, what difference had it made?

well maybe i wouldn't still hate her after 8 years?
Maybe, after talking about it i would have come around - Or not, we will never know.

[Fencers]

I want to meet these theoretical women that the playboys of MMO-Champ are walking up to...

You guys supposedly are like, "Just so you know, if you agree to have sex with me, it signifies a legally binding (verbal) agreement to not support any possible resulting pregnancy in any way."

And you guys are acting like there's a single woman alive who is still pulling her pants down...

The reasoning and real-life experience on display in this thread is testament to how few of you will ever need to worry about child support.

THis post made me laugh so hard at work a co-worker asked if I was okay. Great wording and formatting.

[The Penguin]

Well, that's sex-negative or something, don't you know? It's critical that women be able to be sluts without shame and that men get some accordingly "equal right" to sluttery without consequences. When two people have a kid, that's society's problem, not the parent's responsibility.

Haha, very true. But it's still the most reliable sure-fire solution if you don't want to have a child.

I mean what's the woman going to do otherwise? Sneak into your house, find some pants you jizzed in, extract the semen and then impregnate herself with said extracted ejaculation? While to be fair, I have heard of like.. 1-2 cases have existed where women "have" done something akin to that, C'mon.

It's pretty straightforward. Don't bang every willing hell-hound who answers your cat-calls and you won't have a child.

A little self-restraint goes a long, long way.

[shadowmouse]

No, they all highlight the flaw(s) in the system.

That's what you want to believe. In two of the three cases you've referred to, the fathers failed to get necessary legal advice. In the third case, we can't recreate a twenty year old trail of evidence, but the judge seems to have followed the laws. The flaw in the system is that laymen walk into court without really understanding what they're doing and all too often make a hash of it.

Case in point:

See, that's the thing with "proof". The onus lies on the accuser. If the court can establish questionable circumstances (easily done, since testimony is evidence), then logic dictates that the case be heard. The problem is that the court's actions are limited to what the laws say. Therefore, the laws need to be addressed.

You don't understand courts and law nearly as well as you think you do. This is how laymen walk in thinking that they will invoke logic and get their ass handed to them because they should have been paying attention to the rules of civil procedure.

With that, I'll bid you a good evening. Feel free to rail at your perceived injustices and to date in circles where you seem to seriously talk about basting as something that doesn't involve turkey. I will happily continue to have sex with no such worries because ... I knew that I didn't want kids and I got a vasectomy years ago. Simple. Game over.

[Mistame]

Tell me more about how gay men are terrified of making babies with each other.

Your infantile attempt at satire aside, you understand that "contraception" is a different word than "condom", right?

There are a dozen methods one can use to decrease the risk of pregnancy. So far as I know, there are only a few to prevent disease.

Sigh.

Contraception
noun
1.
the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.

I get it, you mean "condom". Even still, the primary reason most heterosexual men wear a condom is to prevent pregnancy.

Once again, at best, contraception indicates a desire to not get pregnant, not a desire to not carry a pregnancy to term.

You're using semantics to make an argument that's not even relevant. Intent is what's relevant in the context of this conversation. Neither wanting a pregnancy, as evidenced by the use of contraception, is an agreement to not incur a pregnancy, and subsequently, a child. You can disagree, but it does not make it any less true.

I know this would require you to be conversant in social customs, but there is a much, much larger stigma associated with casual sex than with abortion.

So you posted this just to make a personal jab? It has no actual relevance to the conversation.

You should be empathetic because the bulk of burden of maintaining the human species falls to women, and they lose out on a tremendous amount of equality because of that.

If she chooses to keep an accidentally or maliciously obtained pregnancy, after knowing full well that the man didn't want a child, she's not entitled to "empathy" just because she's a poor, innocent woman who has "the bulk of the burden of maintaining the human species". I mean seriously, that's pretty "beta" garbage right there. Women are not "special". No one is.

The system is only 'flawed' because you have the societal understanding of a bowl of turnip greens..

Ah, personal attacks. Cool.

If you're wearing a condom, that pretty damn well indicates the woman doesn't want your semen inside her.

If I'm wearing a condom, that indicates I don't want my semen inside her.

If you leave it there, you might have some problems down the road.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're referring to bareback sex and not leaving the condom in the trash, etc, as the latter would be blatant victim blaming.

I don't have a problem with the concept of no-fault severing of parental responsibilities... I have a problem with people who expect that to be the norm, and not something that you need to spell out up front.

Pretty sure no one's asking for guys to have free reign to just dump loads into stank holes without consequences. In fact, I've been very specific on multiple occasions in regards to scenarios where exceptions need to be made and stated multiple times that the "free roam" guys should be held accountable. After all, they're ruining perfectly good cush.

You know damn well that the reason you want 'the contraceptive to be the agreement' is because if you did spell it out, few to no women would ever have sex with you.

This is hyperbolic at best.

There seems to be this idea that abortion is both widely available and is merely a 'choice'. Depending on where you live, it can be damn near inaccessible, and in no case is it a thing where you snap your heels together three times and *poof* you're no longer pregnant!

Nor is that big of a deal or that difficult to obtain. Hell, it's even free in some places.

At the end of the day, I take solace in the fact that this post could hit 100,000 pages, and we'll never see legal or court action on this absurd topic.

Certainly not as long as people are still acting like this is 50's and women are "special" because "vaginas" and "reasons", and "beta" cunts write the laws.

And just think- if you keep posting inane BS here, you'll never have to worry about accidentally getting someone pregnant =)

I don't have to worry about it as is, as I've already stated. :P