No, but perhaps more equal than the current state of affairs.
Which does nothing to negate the point I was making.its a rhetorical question.
Well if the fact we're biologically different means that we should simply accept innevitability and do nothing to work towards achieving greater equality. Perhaps men should get more pay for a physical labour job given that they're inherently more physically capable than a woman?Pregnancy can't be equal you know. Trying to "fix" equality in regards to pregnancy won't happen unless men can give birth aswell.
What? Sweeping generalisation. Financial cost? Much like being forced to pay for a child you do not want and are not responsible for (in the event of sabotaged birth control which the article we're discussing would suggest isn't all too unlikely). Physical? Minor, at best, unless complications occur. Emotional cost? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. You think men don't care? It's not going to emotionally affect a person knowing that their child is growing up somewhere without them? You think it doesn't affect a man to know that his child has been aborted? Sometimes even without his knowledge/concent. Bullshit. Think before you post.So men would essentially get a get out jail free card...that is hardly equal.
An abortion has a financial,physical and emotional cost.
yes, because when he chose to have sex with her he chose to put his fate in her hands.
hes not supporting her right to choose, hes supporting a child that he chose to help make.If a kid is born it is entirely because of the woman's choice. A man should not be de-facto obligated to financially support a woman's right to choose.
Even the president of NOW agrees with that stance.
See that's where we fundamentally disagree. Just because nature placed us on unequal footing in this matter does not mean nothing can or should be done to equalize it.
As an aside, are you drunk or otherwise impaired? I have to read your posts twice to get context... almost every time.
Which is a direct result of her right to choose. If she chose not to abort she's forcing him to financially support her right to choose not to abort.hes not supporting her right to choose, hes supporting a child that he chose to help make.
If he is unwilling and gives her plenty of time to make an informed decision, he should be held harmless for child support. Her right to choose bodily autonomy should not supersede his right to reproductive autonomy (Where that does not violate her rights).
yes, we should just accept the fact that men & women have different reproductive organs.Well if the fact we're biologically different means that we should simply accept innevitability and do nothing to work towards achieving greater equality. Perhaps men should get more pay for a physical labour job given that they're inherently more physically capable than a woman?
---------- Post added 2013-01-18 at 05:48 AM ----------
he cant be affected by them unless hes with her all the time in any case.
Sperm donor.
Jokes aside, there is none. There are absolutely jobs that men (generally) can perform better than women just like there are probably jobs women can (generally) perform better than men.
Employment compensation should be based on qualifications and performance. If someone can't perform the task as well as someone else, they shouldn't get paid as much. Would you argue that?
This doesn't answer the actual question.
And if you would say it does, then I pose to you that male muscle tissue develops slightly differently from female muscle tissue in the same way that female mammary glands are more enhanced than male mammary glands, and the fact that the female penis is smaller than the male one but basically the same, and that ovaries and testicles are pretty much the same but different... If we go that rote and just accept it, then we háve to accept that males will be treated better in a physical environment, that males will have better chances of getting a job in physical labour because 'we have different reproductive organs.'
I'm pretty sure you're not trying to advocate sexism... So loose the double standards.
And yet this physical change only occurs when it's his own.he cant be affected by them unless hes with her all the time in any case.
So the whole idea of 'toss him out the moment you think the condom leaked so that he has no rights the the child' is rather nasty.
sure, as soon as technology advances to the point where men can carry children.
im on an iphone and typing out long posts is extremely difficult.As an aside, are you drunk or otherwise impaired? I have to read your posts twice to get context... almost every time.
no, hes financially supporting a child. she must also support it. the "right to choose" exists whether or not legislation supports it.Which is a direct result of her right to choose. If she chose not to abort she's forcing him to financially support her right to choose not to abort.
he had plenty of time to make an informed decision on "do i want to risk getting this woman pregnant?". stop trying to make child support about "evil women". "evil men" trick women into having children all the time, thinking they will have his support for it. if they then dump it on him, she still pays child support.If he is unwilling and gives her plenty of time to make an informed decision, he should be held harmless for child support. Her right to choose bodily autonomy should not supersede his right to reproductive autonomy (Where that does not violate her rights).
I'm just going to point something out that seems to be very overlooked here, just a few Points that bother me.
1. Even if the Laws were made because of fathers not paying to support their children, And I'm far more inclined to believe they were made because of the social climate of the times, many of these laws are many decades old, and were written by men who were long into their later years who remembered the days when the mother stayed home and cooked and cleaned and raised the children and the father worked, so naturally many of them put this model into the legislation. No one can argue that in many situations there is a gender bias that favors financial assistance to the woman.
2. many posts talk about immature irresponsible men who will have sex with a woman get her pregnant then want nothing to do with the child, my problem here is these same posts generally talk about how terrible these men are, and while I don't disagree that they are behaving in an inappropriate way I have to point out, Men in general are not that complicated, we send pretty clear signals there is just as much blame on the women who sleep with these men to be responsible for their choices. I do not for one second believe that before you slept with this irresponsible immature man who wants to run off and leave you with a baby to raise, he was running a youth out reach program and organizing his churches soup kitchen, and in every way was the model of an honest respectable man, and it was just after sleeping with you that he proved to be this horrible person. He was a jerk and a player when you slept with him you thought it would just be a bit of fun, but then oops you got pregnant now you want him to be responsible but you don't want to point out that you were equally irresponsible to begin with. that is where I say BS.
all of those differences are far more neglible than "capable of giving birth". and i dont know its a double standard that men & women both have the right to bodily autonomy. i guess if we put "except when it comes to uteruses" it wouldnt be a double standard?
i dont know where you got this idea.And yet this physical change only occurs when it's his own.
So the whole idea of 'toss him out the moment you think the condom leaked so that he has no rights the the child' is rather nasty.
y people argue whit darenyon ? you dudes know that you will NEVER EVER win against a feminist idk y you guys are trying and btw wen a women make a child wen the guy don't want one we have to live whit 18 YEARS of payment to somebody that used you to make a child that you did not want and most of the time they do it for money there is allot of women that use that said child support to buy thing for her self ad not the child .... even in canada women mari than make a child than divorce right away just to get money that what happen wen men have 0 rights
No.
im on an iphone and typing out long posts is extremely difficult.
There's your problem. Get an android.
The legislation does not support a bilateral right to choose. We're saying it should.no, hes financially supporting a child. she must also support it. the "right to choose" exists whether or not legislation supports it.
You're placing the entirety of his situation on him. That's dishonest and ridiculous. As you said, it takes two to tango and HIS fate should not be entirely in HER hands.he had plenty of time to make an informed decision on "do i want to risk getting this woman pregnant?". stop trying to make child support about "evil women". "evil men" trick women into having children all the time, thinking they will have his support for it. if they then dump it on him, she still pays child support.
he is french Canadian that is how they speak.
Infracted.
Last edited by mmoc58a2a4b64e; 2013-01-18 at 04:51 PM.