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

[starlord]

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.

Abortions are 100% about children. You don't get them for fun. You get them to avoid children. Men do not have that choice. Stop using strawmen. Men should have the same right to want/avoid children as women. You can keep using fallacies all you want, but it won't make sense at all. You're just warping things. Its not about "all men don't want responsibilities" Its more about "men should be afforded and given the same rights and choices regarding their own fates as women"

Is there a bias against men? Yes, that includes both legislation and perception.

now stop backpedaling.

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.

men do have a choice. they made the choice to risk their future. just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not there. they dont get the same choices because they bear unequal burdens. equalize the burden, then the choice should be equalized.

[Austilias]

men do have a choice. they made the choice to risk their future. just because you dont like it doesnt mean its there. they dont get the same choices because they bear unequal burdens. equalize the burden, then the choice should be equalized.

Women too made the choice to risk their future, but have at least two options at their disposal with which to negate that risk. Men however, take the risk as well; but have no say in the consequence. You believe that to be fair, and I disagree.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

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?

Don't want a baby?:

Men-Too bad?/Don't have sex.

Women- Don't have sex/abortion/adoption/make the baby daddy pay for you and the baby.

[Windfury]

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?

People (and yes this includes women) have a right to bodily autonomy. Being able to bang anyone you want whenever you want with no consequences is not a human right. Nor do a man's financial liberties come before the rights of the child he created. So yes, you are expected to exercise your opt out before you begin infringing on someone else's actual rights.

As above there is a vast difference between never ever having sex and not having sex where you are unsure of the outcome.

This all presumes you can truly know someone, and the simple fact is you can't.

It assumes you trust your partner. And of course trust between partners is possible. If you believe that it isn't possible to trust another person then I can really only feel terribly sorry for you, but really that's your choice to not trust in the end, and it's you that should have to deal with the consequences.

Your 'solution' does not account for the unexpected, nor does it particularly work in the real world.

I assure you I have never slept with someone where I haven't been completely sure we've been on the same page on these issues, and yet I am far from being a virgin. It's not actually that difficult in practice assuming you don't think you're entitled to never have to experience the consequences of your choices.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

now stop backpedaling.
men do have a choice. they made the choice to risk their future. just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not there. they dont get the same choices because they bear unequal burdens. equalize the burden, then the choice should be equalized.

Fine, women made a choice to risk their future, thus, abortion should be illegal.

[Laize]

Fine, women made a choice to risk their future, thus, abortion should be illegal.

They seem to think men should be the ones to shoulder a manufactured responsibility despite the fact that it was the woman's choice said responsibility exists.

Again, yes, both people chose to have sex knowing the possible outcomes. Upon conception, however, the ball is solely in the woman's court. No one seems to think she should have to shoulder the entire burden she chose to bear, however.

[starlord]

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.

okay since no one can be bothered:

Harry Blackmun wrote the Court’s opinion.
The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Burger and Douglas' concurring opinions and White's dissenting opinion were issued with along with the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade). The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.[22]

Right to privacy

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[23] Douglas in his concurring opinion in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."

Scalia's dissent acknowledged that abortion rights are of "great importance to many women", but asserted that it is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, because the Constitution does not mention it, and because longstanding traditions have permitted it to be legally proscribed.

from: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

take it up with them how abortion is a right that is not being applied equally.

[Windfury]

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.

So you're only talking about instances of male rape then?

Do you actually know how babies are made? It isn't entirely the woman's doing you know.

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.

So you knew the potential outcome and did it anyway? Why shouldn't you be responsible for the consequences of your actions in that case? Why do your personal hurt feelings and wants supersede the actual rights of the human your choices created?

[starlord]

Fine, women made a choice to risk their future, thus, abortion should be illegal.

thus nothing, tell us exactly why they shouldnt control their bodies.

[Wells]

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.

I'm about equal rights for equal situations. Women have to deal with things men don't with regard to pregnancy.

And you have a lot of self determination after the child is born, don't be hyperbolic. No one is even going to make you see the kid.

Repudiating a responsibility forced upon you against your wishes is malum prohibitum.

I don't see why not wanting the results of your decisions means you don't bear the responsibility for them.

And with that I'm done. The barely-under-the-surface bitterness towards women is not something I want tonight.

[Austilias]

People (and yes this includes women) have a right to bodily autonomy. Being able to bang anyone you want whenever you want with no consequences is not a human right. Nor do a man's financial liberties come before the rights of the child he created. So yes, you are expected to exercise your opt out before you begin infringing on someone else's actual rights

So the woman can exercise her right to be able to bang whomever she so chooses and is at liberty to forfeit the rights of the child she created via abortion/adopted, whereas a man must approach sex with an air of caution and simply suck it up and deal with any consequences? Hardly fair, and that's just the beginning. The presumption that the man must provide is evidently the default, but why should it be? Most states are quite content in providing financial aid for abortions; why should that aid cease once the foetus makes the transition to (born) baby?

It assumes you trust your partner. And of course trust between partners is possible. If you believe that it isn't possible to trust another person then I can really only feel terribly sorry for you, but really that's your choice to not trust in the end, and it's you that should have to deal with the consequences.

Why are trust and knowledge seen as one in the same? Countless men have trusted their wives/partners over the course of human history, but trust is not a valid substitute for knowledge. Like it or not, someone you trust and love may well betray you one day. I don't believe it will happen with my girlfriend, I can say with total confidence it won't; but that doesn't mean I can't be wrong in my trust, and the vice versa applies to me, to you, and everyone else.

I assure you I have never slept with someone where I haven't been completely sure we've been on the same page on these issues, and yet I am far from being a virgin. It's not actually that difficult in practice assuming you don't think you're entitled to never have to experience the consequences of your choices.

On your first point we're the same. The latter half however, highlights the hypocrisy; women are precisely entitled to never have to experience the consequences of their choices regarding sex; abortion and adoption are just two options which guarantee it. Men however, have no such alternatives.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

okay since no one can be bothered:


from: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

take it up with them how abortion is a right that is not being applied equally.

If current laws are your only defense against people wanting to change laws, then you can go ahead and get outta here =]

[Laize]

So you're only talking about instances of male rape then?

Do you actually know how babies are made? It isn't entirely the woman's doing you know.



So you knew the potential outcome and did it anyway? Why shouldn't you be responsible for the consequences of your actions in that case? Why do your personal hurt feelings and wants supersede the actual rights of the human your choices created?

Why? Because if the man doesn't want a child or isn't ready for one, he needs to have the ability to exercise his own family planning.

If we're going to say that aborting a fetus is acceptable (and I think it is) it logically follows that the man helped to create the fetus. The woman, then, has the choice to allow it to become a human, no?

Regardless of whether you accept that argument, however, the fact remains that the child is born against the hypothetical man's wishes to not be a father. This amounts to a (wholly perceived) obligation forced upon him. His wishes to not support the child (which, again, he never wanted) are treated as evil, and for what reason? Is only "evil" because it is illegal.

I say otherwise. I say forcing him to support a decision he had no legal ability to make (the birth/abortion of the child) is evil in itself. The unequal burden (due to sex differences) will always exist, but that only extends insofar as to deny him the ability to veto her abortion.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

So you're only talking about instances of male rape then?

Do you actually know how babies are made? It isn't entirely the woman's doing you know.



So you knew the potential outcome and did it anyway? Why shouldn't you be responsible for the consequences of your actions in that case? Why do your personal hurt feelings and wants supersede the actual rights of the human your choices created?

In this case, there is no human yet. You only seem to think the baby is born and alive and dancing around and hungry. We have repeatedly stated, the man should only be allowed to opt out at an appropriate time as to give the woman plenty of time to think about her own choice.

thus nothing, tell us exactly why they shouldnt control their bodies.

I am just using your warped logic that, since two people knowingly risked their futures, BOTH should have to live with the happy accident of being pregnant.

So why shouldn't I control my finances and my life? Because a woman doesn't want me to? Good reason.

---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 11:43 PM ----------

I'm about equal rights for equal situations. Women have to deal with things men don't with regard to pregnancy.

And you have a lot of self determination after the child is born, don't be hyperbolic. No one is even going to make you see the kid.

I don't see why not wanting the results of your decisions means you don't bear the responsibility for them.

And with that I'm done. The barely-under-the-surface bitterness towards women is not something I want tonight.

Same logic I use against abortion.

You are exaggerating and making things up if you think there is woman hate here. I am disgusted with the unequal laws, not women.

[starlord]

If current laws are your only defense against people wanting to change laws, then you can go ahead and get outta here =]

if you want to change the laws thats fine. good luck to you. but dont cry that its because of "sexism" that men cant get the same surgeries as women.

its equally sexist that women cant write their name in the snow with pee. we should make a law for that.

[Laize]

I'm about equal rights for equal situations. Women have to deal with things men don't with regard to pregnancy.

And you have a lot of self determination after the child is born, don't be hyperbolic. No one is even going to make you see the kid.

I don't see why not wanting the results of your decisions means you don't bear the responsibility for them.

And with that I'm done. The barely-under-the-surface bitterness towards women is not something I want tonight.

I know you're done but I feel the need to reply with a reiteration of the fact that the situations ARE unequal. However, this only (or should only) extend insofar as denying him veto power over her choice to have (or not have) an abortion.

Nothing about her bodily autonomy is violated by him opting out. The child (if born) is worse off but the mother will have known she wouldn't have his assistance in advance. From that point the decision to bring a child into the world without support of the father lies squarely on her shoulders as it always has.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

if you want to change the laws thats fine. good luck to you. but dont cry that its because of "sexism" that men cant get the same surgeries as women.

its equally sexist that women cant write their name in the snow with pee. we should make a law for that.

I haven't asked for the same surgeries as women. That is again, lying and putting words in my mouth.

Women can do that, they make a special applicator for it. They can stand and pee at urinals now =].

Again, its sexism and should change.

[Austilias]

its equally sexist that women cant write their name in the snow with pee. we should make a law for that.

Why? Women can't write their name in the snow with pee; men can. Women can get pregnant; men can't.

No one's disputing the facts, simply the consequences. Women don't have to pay alimony to men because they can write their name in the snow with pee, yet men have to pay alimony to women if they get pregnant; because they can get pregnant.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I know you're done but I feel the need to reply with a reiteration of the fact that the situations ARE unequal. However, this only (or should only) extend insofar as denying him veto power over her choice to have (or not have) an abortion.

Nothing about her bodily autonomy is violated by him opting out. The child (if born) is worse off but the mother will have known she wouldn't have his assistance in advance. From that point the decision to bring a child into the world without support of the father lies squarely on her shoulders as it always has.

wasn't one of the reasons people get abortions is because they don't think they can support them financially? In this case, if the man opted out, the option is still there si she can't afford it.

[Laize]

wasn't one of the reasons people get abortions is because they don't think they can support them financially? In this case, if the man opted out, the option is still there si she can't afford it.

Exactly. Nothing about her situation has changed. She still has the same choices she always had.