1. #3301
    The Unstoppable Force Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    23,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    You sound exactly like a person arguing against abortion in some parts and contraception in other parts.
    Indeed. It's this hypocrisy which is why I stopped responding.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.

  2. #3302
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    You sound exactly like a person arguing against abortion in some parts and contraception in other parts.
    Only if you're deliberately being obtuse. Pro-lifers want to control a woman's body. I don't. Anti Contraception people want to control your sex life. I don't. All I'm saying is that if your actions result in a child you have an obligation to take care of it to the best of your ability.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Indeed. It's this hypocrisy which is why I stopped responding.
    So what is this then?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  3. #3303
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Only if you're deliberately being obtuse. Pro-lifers want to control a woman's body. I don't. Anti Contraception people want to control your sex life. I don't. All I'm saying is that if your actions result in a child you have an obligation to take care of it to the best of your ability.
    It's not deliberately being obtuse to recognize the same arguments that are made for other causes.

    Bergtau's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability that somebody will mention Godwin's Law approaches 1.
    Hitler wasn't all bad, I mean, he DID kill Hitler.
    An accident is something that you did not mean to do at all. A mistake is something that you regret doing.

  4. #3304
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    It's not deliberately being obtuse to recognize the same arguments that are made for other causes.
    Frankly, this whole "ANYONE WHO ADVOCATES YOU DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS IS JUST LIKE A PRO LIFER" shit is pretty worn out dude.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  5. #3305
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Frankly, this whole "ANYONE WHO ADVOCATES YOU DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS IS JUST LIKE A PRO LIFER" shit is pretty worn out dude.
    It's the way you use it without any regard to the opposing argument as if it is the final word on the matter.

    Bergtau's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability that somebody will mention Godwin's Law approaches 1.
    Hitler wasn't all bad, I mean, he DID kill Hitler.
    An accident is something that you did not mean to do at all. A mistake is something that you regret doing.

  6. #3306
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    It's the way you use it without any regard to the opposing argument as if it is the final word on the matter.
    Its really not. I'm saying that an action can result in a child. Take all the measures you want to lessen that chance. If you're a woman you can abort because your bodily autonomy > the chance that fetus will come to term. But once it comes to term and there is now a child with no ability to care for itself those who created it are obligated to care for it. Its really simple.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  7. #3307
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Frankly, this whole "ANYONE WHO ADVOCATES YOU DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR ACTIONS IS JUST LIKE A PRO LIFER" shit is pretty worn out dude.
    Nah man, have sex without any remorse! Screw responsibility, that's a thing of the past.

    My view: I'm not Pro-Life, too many times the argument is turned around to something completely absurd. I'm Pro-Child. Ever have one? It'll change your views pretty damn quickly.

    inb4 rape scenario

  8. #3308
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Being forced to support a child he created doesn't violate a man's reproductive rights.
    You are talking about after a child is conceived and I am talking about before it is. If there is no child conceived I do not see why a man cannot state that he does not want children and will not support them and not have that legally up held in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Women would then have the option to either sex with the man knowing that there is a chance she may become pregnant and end up being the sole provider for the child. If she chooses to have sex with the man after knowing that she is agreeing to the terms and conditions. And if an unwanted pregnancy does happen she still has the following options

    1. Have the baby and keep it knowing she will be the sole provider.
    2. Have the baby and put it up for adoption
    3. Abortion (if that is not a non-option for her)

    The only thing that changes for the woman is option one and that is only that she would not have the financial backing of a man.

    Now when a woman over looks the man's wishes for whatever reason it does violate a man's reproductive rights because he no longer has a choice in with who and when he becomes a father.

    How is giving a man the option to "walk away" before a child is even conceived hurts the woman or the child? How?
    My question has never been answered

  9. #3309
    I've answered that question at least 2 dozen times.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  10. #3310
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    It hurts them because they will be worse off financially?

  11. #3311
    Quote Originally Posted by Maelstrom51 View Post
    Not when there's the option to abort and not have the child.
    If she chooses to abort, we are no longer talking about child support. If the woman chooses to abort, should a man share in the expance involved? You only want responsobility for the part you like?

  12. #3312
    Quote Originally Posted by duskylol View Post
    I'm Pro-Child. Ever have one? It'll change your views pretty damn quickly.
    I'm not sure why people think being more emotional about a topic is a good way to reach correct conclusions.

  13. #3313
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I'm not sure why people think being more emotional about a topic is a good way to reach correct conclusions.
    If anything it should lead one to be more wary, no? Not saying that it should automatically invalidate an argument, but it should raise more concerns.

  14. #3314
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebildays View Post
    My question has never been answered
    Because she is the one paying for everything. A woman can't just walk away, even though it's because of an action both of you took. What you are suggesting is to give the man influence over a woman's body, because that gives you the rights and obsolves you of responsobility resulting from sex. You want a right over a woman's body, even if that right amounts to extortion. The right to dictate, abort or I will not pay for it, is a noble right to strive for...

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 03:22 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    If anything it should lead one to be more wary, no? Not saying that it should automatically invalidate an argument, but it should raise more concerns.
    Getting emotional over this thread, is like getting emotional over a Sam Kinison joke...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV1dyV9d_1k

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 03:30 AM ----------

    This was my first exposure to men's rights movement:


  15. #3315
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Because she is the one paying for everything. A woman can't just walk away, even though it's because of an action both of you took. What you are suggesting is to give the man influence over a woman's body, because that gives you the rights and obsolves you of responsobility resulting from sex. You want a right over a woman's body, even if that right amounts to extortion. The right to dictate, abort or I will not pay for it, is a noble right to strive for...
    No, there is no influence over a woman's body. Because what I am suggesting takes place before a child is conceived and yes it gives the option for a man not to be responsible for what happens after sex. But you are failing to see the big important part of the suggestion, if a woman knows that the man is not going to pay child support she has a choice not to have sex with that man and to walk away. Him saying he will not pay for a child does not take over the rights of a woman's body and if she chooses to have sex with a man knowing he will not pay a dime that means she is okay with paying for everything. That she, herself, choose to pay for everything; it is a big difference between after finding out you are pregnant that you will have to foot the bill and finding out before a child is conceived that you may have to foot the bill.

    The man is not telling her to abort, give the child up for adoption, or anything else, I don't really know where you are getting that from. The goal of what I am suggesting is that men be given a legal option to have their wishes up held in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Yes, if a person engages in an activity that involves a risk (pregnancy) they should be held responsible for the outcome of that decision but in the spirit of compromise I have given an option. And with in that option is the option for the woman to walk away find a sexual partner that shares her same values and ideals when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy, she is in no way forced to have sex with the man. If she chooses to still have sex with a man knowing that he does not have to pay child support and she will have to foot the bill how is that unfair to her when she willingly choose that option?

  16. #3316
    The Insane smrund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    15,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Its really not. I'm saying that an action can result in a child. Take all the measures you want to lessen that chance. If you're a woman you can abort because your bodily autonomy > the chance that fetus will come to term. But once it comes to term and there is now a child with no ability to care for itself those who created it are obligated to care for it. Its really simple.
    Except, you're not. A woman with sole custody could put her kid up for adoption, if she doesn't have sole custody, then the mother and father may choose this option jointly. I suppose you could say that is a form of "caring for it", but it's not really obligating a specific person to care for it, just whoever wants to take care of it. Shouldn't we be trying to create more people who want to take care of kids rather than simply forcing whoever happened to donate their genetic material to their creation to care for them?

    The fact that you produced the child really has little bearing on your obligation to take care for it. A parent can very easily throw their hands up and say "I'm not dealing with this!" and give their kid to the foster system.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
    Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  17. #3317
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebildays View Post
    No, there is no influence over a woman's body.
    How is saying, if you have the baby I won't pay for it, not trying to influence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebildays View Post
    Because what I am suggesting takes place before a child is conceived and yes it gives the option for a man not to be responsible for what happens after sex. But you are failing to see the big important part of the suggestion, if a woman knows that the man is not going to pay child support she has a choice not to have sex with that man and to walk away. Him saying he will not pay for a child does not take over the rights of a woman's body and if she chooses to have sex with a man knowing he will not pay a dime that means she is okay with paying for everything. That she, herself, choose to pay for everything; it is a big difference between after finding out you are pregnant that you will have to foot the bill and finding out before a child is conceived that you may have to foot the bill.
    You already have that right. Men can already write up a contract to obsolve them of taking care of the child, before it's conceived. That's what happens at sperm banks. What you are asking for is already in place...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebildays View Post
    The man is not telling her to abort, give the child up for adoption, or anything else, I don't really know where you are getting that from. The goal of what I am suggesting is that men be given a legal option to have their wishes up held in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Yes, if a person engages in an activity that involves a risk (pregnancy) they should be held responsible for the outcome of that decision but in the spirit of compromise I have given an option. And with in that option is the option for the woman to walk away find a sexual partner that shares her same values and ideals when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy, she is in no way forced to have sex with the man. If she chooses to still have sex with a man knowing that he does not have to pay child support and she will have to foot the bill how is that unfair to her when she willingly choose that option?
    What you are arguing for already exists. This is how sperm banks function. You can already have a contract you both agree to, where you are not responsible for a child, before you have sex.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 04:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Except, you're not. A woman with sole custody could put her kid up for adoption, if she doesn't have sole custody, then the mother and father may choose this option jointly. I suppose you could say that is a form of "caring for it", but it's not really obligating a specific person to care for it, just whoever wants to take care of it. Shouldn't we be trying to create more people who want to take care of kids rather than simply forcing whoever happened to donate their genetic material to their creation to care for them?

    The fact that you produced the child really has little bearing on your obligation to take care for it. A parent can very easily throw their hands up and say "I'm not dealing with this!" and give their kid to the foster system.
    Are you saying that a woman can just walk away from a child she just gave birth to? The inherent paternity, obligation and custody is hers, because it comes out of her. She cannot deny the baby is hers...

    A woman not dealing with her pregnancy, results in a baby. If a man gets drunk when he has a baby on the way, nothing us wrong. A woman doing the same causes irreversible damage. A woman throwing her hands in the air and saying she is not dealing with it, has extremly different results than when a man does it.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 04:36 AM ----------

    Why does this only mention women specifically:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/919a

  18. #3318
    The Insane smrund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    15,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    Are you saying that a woman can just walk away from a child she just gave birth to? The inherent paternity, obligation and custody is hers, because it comes out of her. She cannot deny the baby is hers...
    Yes, she can. Most of the time a woman who just gave birth but doesn't want to be a parent can adopt out her child right away. She can then go on to pretend the child isn't hers just as much as the man does.

    A woman not dealing with her pregnancy, results in a baby. If a man gets drunk when he has a baby on the way, nothing us wrong. A woman doing the same causes irreversible damage. A woman throwing her hands in the air and saying she is not dealing with it, has extremly different results than when a man does it.
    "Irreverible damage" say what?

    I'm really starting to get sick of all this treatment of pregnancy as a life-threatening medical condition. Chances of death or injury due to pregnancy is minimal. Pregnancy is classified as a "disability" or a "illness" simply so that existing law can be applied to it and people don't have to think real hard and make new laws.

    As for throwing her hands in the air, I was referring to after birth. Although it's rare, you can give up your children at times beyond birth. It's just more difficult. And if someone really didn't want to have their kid and the System wouldn't willingly take it, they can become a horrible parent and the System will take the child.

    I'm not saying throwing her hands in the air will make the pregnancy go away. We've already established that even for a man this won't work out well either, since the woman could just get the courts on his ass about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
    Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  19. #3319
    Quote Originally Posted by smrund View Post
    Except, you're not. A woman with sole custody could put her kid up for adoption, if she doesn't have sole custody, then the mother and father may choose this option jointly. I suppose you could say that is a form of "caring for it", but it's not really obligating a specific person to care for it, just whoever wants to take care of it. Shouldn't we be trying to create more people who want to take care of kids rather than simply forcing whoever happened to donate their genetic material to their creation to care for them?

    The fact that you produced the child really has little bearing on your obligation to take care for it. A parent can very easily throw their hands up and say "I'm not dealing with this!" and give their kid to the foster system.
    I don't really support people being able to put kids up for adoption unless they can demonstrate some reason it would be in the child's best interest. I'm not even saying they should be forced to be dads. If they don't ever want to be there then fine, but they should at least fund their own child.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  20. #3320
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    The well being of a child is not enouph rational reason?
    No, it's not. Why should the man's wishes to not be a father be completely ignored?

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-02 at 08:22 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Being forced to support a child he created doesn't violate a man's reproductive rights.
    The hell it doesn't. He never wanted to create a child. Its very existence ostensibly goes against his wishes.

    Choosing when and if you become a father is the essence of reproductive rights.
    Last edited by Laize; 2012-12-02 at 08:22 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •