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

[Austilias]

What? No its not. We do it all the time.

Doing something all the time does not make it right. Likewise, there are many cases where it isn't done; the majority of governments in the world electing not to submit to terrorist demands/blackmail efforts for example where the well-being of a hostage is at stake.

dem bitches love abortions.

Can't recall having said anything about women loving abortions, simply that it is one of several get-out-of-jail-free cards they have at their disposal, and one they have full control over.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Why is because they have bodily autonomy. They can abort because its their body. A man's body is not at stake. His bodily autonomy is not an issue. Why should he have the right that a woman derives from bodily autonomy?

Equal rights are for equal situations. Pregnancy is an inherently unequal position.

No, a womans choice/livelihood should not take precedence over a mans just because she is a woman. What part of fucked up gender bias don't you get? A mans liberty, life, and money should not be taken away just because a woman feels like raising a child on her own. She knows the risk, she knows she has two other options.

[Windfury]

If the guy does not want a kid and provides adequate notice so she can make an informed decision there is no good reason to force him to finance her choice.

Except for the fact that he made the baby (well half of it)?

Guys have an opt out, it's called not having sex with a person you don't have an understanding with/are positive you are on the same page about the issues with. If you're not sure of the outcome and choose to take the risk anyway then the results are going to be partially your responsibility. Why should the rights of children be infringed because guys don't want to be more careful about who they sleep with?

[Austilias]

Equal rights are for equal situations. Pregnancy is an inherently unequal position.

Sure, no one's disputing that women should have full bodily autonomy regarding abortion/pregnancy etc. The point that's being made is on behalf of the not unreasonable desire that a woman's bodily autonomy should not affect a man's financial autonomy.

[starlord]

Not at all, women should be free to have full autonomy over their bodies; but it's a slippery slope to put bodily autonomy over fiscal/material autonomy. The matter however is relatively simple;

Women hold all the get-out-of-jail-free cards; Women, like men, know the consequences and likelihoods of conception during sex, yet are at liberty to employ measures such as the morning-after pill/abortion/adoption etc once the child is born. They hold all the cards over the child, and all the cards over the man involved, regardless of the motives/actions that lead to the conception.

Men however, are at the mercy of women; his financial well-being subject to what the woman decides. Should she keep the child, it doesn't matter what he wants; the woman if she wanted, might simply abort or forfeit the child, whereas the man is subject to law regardless of what he desires.

---------- Post added 2013-01-19 at 03:36 AM ----------



I can't recall you having stated that in these cases the father should be absolved of responsibility to the child he did not want and whose conception he had no say in, however.

if he was raped, then you might have a point. thats not been the focus of the thread however.

p
Nope, the women have abortion and adoption at their disposal; the man has nothing.

whoever has full custody has adoption at their disposal. women are financially responsible for any existing children they have, same as men. doesnt matter if the father tricked her and ran off or not.

[Austilias]

Except for the fact that he made the baby (well half of it)?

Guys have an opt out, it's called not having sex with a person you don't have an understanding with. If you're not sure of the outcome and choose to take the risk anyway then the results are going to be partially your responsibility. Why should the rights of children be infringed because guys don't want to be more careful about who they sleep with?

I was hoping someone would chip in with this.

Women: Abortion/Adoption/Keep the child

Men: Chastity/Abstinence/Economic responsibilities to the child regardless of his views/desires or the circumstances surrounding its conception

Sound fair? Yeah, no. It's called having your cake and eating it.

[Grizzly Willy]

"if a woman pokes holes in a mans condom, thats just plain rape"

I'm still hung up on this one. Why isn't this wrong when their partner deliberately sabotaged their birth control?

[Laize]

Except for the fact that he made the baby (well half of it)?

Guys have an opt out, it's called not having sex with a person you don't have an understanding with. If you're not sure of the outcome and choose to take the risk anyway then the results are going to be partially your responsibility. Why should the rights of children be infringed because guys don't want to be more careful about who they sleep with?

You keep wanting to blame the guy. No complaints about women who don't at least consider their wishes. No, it's all the guys fault.

Anyway, I'm not buying it. In our hypothetical scenario, the woman is given ample time to make an informed decision on whether or not to abort. If she decides not to, she accepts the burden of caring for the child herself. Is that simple.

You can provide no compelling reason a man should bear a burden he doesn't want if the woman's wishes conflict with his.

[starlord]

That has to be the worst hypothetical I have heard in this whole thread, and it does not make any sense to the current topic.

Again, you twisted many if not all of those "quotes" to further your own agenda. Good try.

i didnt twist a thing. you said yourself that since women can get abortions, that means men have unequal rights.
you either dont know what rights that stems from, or are.. twisting things to support our arguments.

its a fact that there is no "right to not have children".

[Deleted]

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

[Austilias]

ts a fact that there is no "right to not have children".

There is if you're a woman, and it manifests itself in abortion and adoption.

[starlord]

I'm still hung up on this one. Why isn't this wrong when their partner deliberately sabotaged their birth control?

it is wrong, but its not rape. thats an exaggeration.

[Wells]

It's in no way bullshit. Every child born is a result of the mother's decision to not abort.

There are no two ways around this fact.

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

No, a womans choice/livelihood should not take precedence over a mans just because she is a woman.

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.

Sure, no one's disputing that women should have full bodily autonomy regarding abortion/pregnancy etc. The point that's being made is on behalf of the not unreasonable desire that a woman's bodily autonomy should not affect a man's financial autonomy.

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.

[starlord]

There is if you're a woman, and it manifests itself in abortion and adoption.

no. the right to bodily autonomy can manifest itself as abortion, and the ability to decide whats best for your child manifests itself as adoption.

[Xanjori]

it is wrong, but its not rape. thats an exaggeration.

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?

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

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

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Except for the fact that he made the baby (well half of it)?

Guys have an opt out, it's called not having sex with a person you don't have an understanding with/are positive you are on the same page about the issues with. If you're not sure of the outcome and choose to take the risk anyway then the results are going to be partially your responsibility. Why should the rights of children be infringed because guys don't want to be more careful about who they sleep with?

The same could be said about women and abortion. Why is the child being infringed upon because women aren't careful with who they sleep with?

I will save some time and skip to the part where you say "the child is unborn and just a fetus, the woman wouldn't be infringing upon or killing the child" ... okay, the same applies to a many wanting to opt out, the baby isn't alive, so he isn't infringing on anything.

[Austilias]

it is wrong, but its not rape. thats an exaggeration.

That's where we'll disagree. The main, underlying theme of rape in my eyes is sex on grounds one did not want.

If a woman is overpowered and her attacker has sex with her forcibly, that's rape; it was sex, but not on the grounds that the woman involved wanted.

If a woman tells her partner that she has taken certain contraceptive measures and either does not tell him that she has tampered with his/her contraceptive measures, or tells him she hasn't that's rape; it is sex, but not on the grounds that the man involved wanted.

[Wells]

The same could be said about women and abortion. Why is the child being infringed upon because women aren't careful with who they sleep with?

A fetus isn't a child. At least as far as the law is concerned.

I will save some time and skip to the part where you say "the child is unborn and just a fetus, the woman wouldn't be infringing upon or killing the child" ... okay, the same applies to a many wanting to opt out, the baby isn't alive, so he isn't infringing on anything.

/facepalm The man isn't opting out of responsibility for a fetus. He's saying that should his child come to term he won't support it.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

i didnt twist a thing. you said yourself that since women can get abortions, that means men have unequal rights.
you either dont know what rights that stems from, or are.. twisting things to support our arguments.

its a fact that there is no "right to not have children".

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

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

[Windfury]

I was hoping someone would chip in with this.

Women: Abortion/Adoption/Keep the child

Men: Chastity/Abstinence/Economic responsibilities to the child regardless of his views/desires or the circumstances surrounding its conception

Sound fair? Yeah, no. It's called having your cake and eating it.

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.

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.