Boy... this makes me really eager to stop advocating mens rights...

[Wells]

You know? Fuck it, the last mens right's thread was awful enough

[starlord]

Well in the case of Assange wasn't it it was deemed rape because the woman wanted sex using a condom and he refused to use the condom? If that was how it was viewed wouldn't it apply both ways?

Unless a man was raped or the sperm was from a sperm donor, which would mean that statement isn't true.

different laws in different countries. these people dont even know about their own but cry "institutionalized sexism!" over things that are decidedly not. thats not to say it doesnt exist, but its hardly breen brought up over the quest to not pay child support.

[Austilias]

You know? Fuck it, the last mens right's thread was awful enough

That's nice. Take care now.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Then every child born is also the result of a man's decision to have sex.

Everyone who has to bear a child should not have to surrender their bodily autonomy to do so. As soon as a man has to bear a child he can abort as well.


Ignoring the fact of course that there is a child that needs to be cared for. Your desire to not support your child is trumped by the child's need to be supported.

No one is asking anyone to surrender bodily autonomy, Asking for a man to get a choice in this does not ask that she surrender autonomy.

You always use that last line as a default. Buts its garbage. In this hypothetical, a child is not born yet. So my desire can't take anything away.

[Laize]

Then every child born is also the result of a man's decision to have sex.

Again, incorrect. A child is conceived from two people's decision to have sex. It can only be BORN from a woman's decision to not abort.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

different laws in different countries. these people dont even know about their own but cry "institutionalized sexism!" over things that are decidedly not. thats not to say it doesnt exist, but its hardly breen brought up over the quest to not pay child support.

Decidedly not, by whom? Who decided that? You?

[Wells]

Actually one last thing.

Laize, why should I care. That's your usual fall back.

[starlord]

It sure sound slike the right to abort gives the "right to not have children"

no, thats like saying the right to free speech is the right to curse. you can, but thats the scope of the right.

And no, That is not what I have said words for word.

then explain again why women being able to abort is an inequality of rights.

[Austilias]

How can you make things precisely equal when only one gender can conceive? That's a fantasy. There are biological differences here and they are going to impact on outcomes. It is entirely possible for men to opt out without interfering with a woman's bodily autonomy via simply not having sex if they're not sure the outcome will be what they want. It's a perfectly viable option that satisfies both criteria.

So it's inhumane for men to seek an opt-out but entirely humane to demand that if men want to have an opt-out, they must forfeit a key aspect of our nature; sex. Yep, the cake is certainly being had and eaten. I agree completely; men shouldn't interfere with a woman's bodily autonomy. What i'm saying however, is that the man should be at liberty to maintain his own financial/material liberties. Why shouldn't the state provide for the child, for example? Depending on the country it is certainly quite happy to provide for abortions; is a woman suddenly no longer to state aid once the foetus is developed and the child is born?

By the way there's a pretty big difference between not having sex when you aren't sure someone is on the same page as you and never ever having sex. Men may just need to start being more careful about their partners and taking the time to make sure there's agreement before they sleep with someone. Oh noes you may have to have basically healthy and stable relationships with people you trust. How awful for you.

This all presumes you can truly know someone, and the simple fact is you can't. You could be married to someone for 30 years and they might one day take a notion to cease her contraceptive measures and tamper with yours; conceiving a child by you whilst also pursuing a new love interest she may have developed in that time. Your 'solution' does not account for the unexpected, nor does it particularly work in the real world.

[Mandible]

This popped up in the news and I felt it relevant. Alright, it's the Dailymail, but makes interesting reading...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...reavement.html

Interesting case, and sounds like those kids inherited their mothers disposition if there is any truth to it (seriously 20 years old and she goes off like that). Also I would personally keep far away from that woman, since she apparently can´t be trusted.

[Laize]

Actually one last thing.

Laize, why should I care. That's your usual fall back.

I don't recall saying you should. I was, however, under the impression that leveling the playing field was what progressives were about.

[starlord]

Decidedly not, by whom? Who decided that? You?

well you know what. if you think theres a case, take it to the supreme court or support someone who will.
clearly my basic knowledge of the legal system is insufficient to determine whether men & women having different bodies is sexism or not.

[Wells]

I don't recall saying you should. I was, however, under the impression that leveling the playing field was what progressives were about.

So you're pushing a cause but you don't think I should care about it?

[Austilias]

no, thats like saying the right to free speech is the right to curse. you can, but thats the scope of the right.

That's your opinion, which disagrees from the right. The 'scope' of the right is entirely up to personal interpretation, but if you posit the existence or a lack thereof of a "right to not have children", then you have to account for rights which guarantee precisely that; such as the right to abortion.

[starlord]

That's you opinion, which disagrees from the right. The 'scope' of the right is entirely up to personal interpretation, but if you posit the existence or a lack thereof of a "right to not have children", then you have to account for rights which guarantee precisely that; such as the right to abortion.

men are gauranteed abortions as soon as they get uteruses, just like women are garunteed vasectomys as soon as they get the appropriate organs. "the right to choose children" is not a right, the right to have surgeries is. men & women get different surgeries. if you look up the legalities of abortion thats what it comes down to.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

no, thats like saying the right to free speech is the right to curse. you can, but thats the scope of the right.

then explain again why women being able to abort is an inequality of rights.

No, it has nothing to do with cursing.. what a crazy example. Whats the point of having an abortion? = To not have a child.

I did not say that word for word, period. Stop shaping sentences to look bad to prove a point. Its terrible and pathetic.

Men have no choice in regards to their future. Women have 3. Again, men have ZERO. Its DO WHATEVER THE WOMAN WANTS. And thats messed up.

[Austilias]

men are gauranteed abortions as soon as they get uteruses, just like women are garunteed vasectomys as soon as they get the appropriate organs. "the right to choose children" is not a right, the right to have surgeries is. men & women get different surgeries. if you look up the legalities of abortion thats what it comes down to.

Yep, only women can get abortions. Still haven't seen much reasoning for why the man's financial autonomy should be at stake because of this however. To claim or perhaps think that single mothers are primarily the innocent party, and then create child support policies around that presumption, is similar thinking to that which prevailed in the UK for a long time regarding females being presumed as the better drivers and thus car insurance policy having been made to reflect this presumption; something that the EU has recently overruled.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

well you know what. if you think theres a case, take it to the supreme court or support someone who will.
clearly my basic knowledge of the legal system is insufficient to determine whether men & women having different bodies is sexism or not.

Yay for hyperbole!!! The legal system =/= moral/ethical fairness and equality, considering out government won't let two people of the same sex marry. So no, I don't look to them for enlightenment or anything.

[Austilias]

Men have no choice in regards to their future. Women have 3. Again, men have ZERO. Its DO WHATEVER THE WOMAN WANTS. And thats messed up.

Shh, men have complete chastity/abstinence and the expectation to know that their partner will never knowingly increase her chance to conceive or sabotage contraception at any point during the relationship. Those are fair expectations, right?

[Laize]

So you're pushing a cause but you don't think I should care about it?

In absolute terms? As someone who values a level playing field I think you should. I find it odd you don't, tbqh. You're all about equality unless its in terms of reproduction which I find a tad hypocritical. The only reason I want legislation for this is because the current legislation is biased against men. You find that acceptable. I do not.

You view abortion as only available due to bodily autonomy. That may be the case but the result is a system where men have no power to self-determination once the fetus is conceived. What's more, this situation is not the result of some biological fact (as many seem to think) but legislation which is based on a belief that a man not wanting responsibility for a chld he never wanted is malum in se. On objective examination, I can find no reason this should be the case.

Repudiating a responsibility forced upon you against your wishes is malum prohibitum. Nothing more. I, frankly, find nothing wrong with the idea that a woman should have to bear a burden she, alone, has the choice to accept or decline.

Yes, both made the choice to have sex. Both know the potential outcome. Only the woman has the choice to change that outcome once a pregnancy occurs (regardless of the reason for that choice) No one is attempting to deny her that right. Allowing her to force the man to financially support hat decision, however... THAT is malum in se.