Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[Rukentuts]

That is sperm, which she took into possession without man's consent?

So he was raped? Or are you going way off into left field?

[starlord]

If the man assumes but didn't ensure, that's on him. If the woman lies or misleads him in an attempt to get pregnant by him, he should NOT have any parental responsibility to that child, unless he wants it.

And no; birth control IS 100% effective. Not every individual method, for sure, but in the event that condoms/birth control medication/etc fails, there is still abortion.

Holy straw man, Batman. That isn't even remotely similar to anything I've described.

you said "since birth control exists, parental obligation is an archaic concept" yes?

Also, are you not aware that you CAN give up parental responsibility altogether? That's basically what adoption and legal abandonment entail, you know.

There are plenty of laws in Western nations that allow parents to abandon their children in a neutral environment, legally. This is already the case.

yeah, when they are unable to provide for their children or are deemed unsuitable. its not lightly done.

[Kasierith]

Hey, how about a man demands that a woman who got pregnant accidentally (failed contraception) and decided to keep the baby - returns his property (body part)? That is sperm, which she took into possession without man's consent?

That makes absolutely no sense, and I suggest that you stick with the very valid arguments for instituting change rather than wandering off into ridiculous subtopics.

[Cybran]

You both chose to have sex, right? Equal. You both have the right to control your own body, right? Equal. You both are responsible for a child when it's born, right? Equal. I fail to see what your emotive language proves apart from a misunderstanding of basic human rights and responsibilities.

The woman gets pregnant by accident/on purpose she decides to keep it and the man asks her to abort it. She abuses her biological advantage, gives birth to the child and uses her leverage in court to extort the man for the rest of his life.

If you refuse to see how Biased and Unfair this is I can't help you.

[Raiju]

yeah, when they are unable to provide for their children or are deemed unsuitable. its not lightly done.

not meant at this quote but at something equally ridiculous that you said -

Men are asking to abandon the fetus, not the child. It's the womans choice AFTER WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE whether to make it a child or not. It's directly comparable to abortion for financial reasons.

[Rukentuts]

The woman gets pregnant by accident/on purpose she decides to keep it and the man asks her to abort it. She abuses her biological advantage

Apparently bodily autonomy is an "abuse" now.

[starlord]

Again, women can legally abandon newborns in many states and countries. There are safe zones that allow for the infants to be dropped off, because the alternative for some of these women is to abandon the baby in a dumpster.

and? they are giving it to the state, because they are unable to provide for it properly. thats not nearly the same as someone perfectly able to provide for it dumping the sole responsibility on another person.

[Raiju]

Apparently bodily autonomy is an "abuse" now.

bodily autonomy can be abused =/= bodily autonomy is abuse. But please strawman more.

[starlord]

not meant at this quote but at something equally ridiculous that you said -

Men are asking to abandon the fetus, not the child. It's the womans choice AFTER WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE whether to make it a child or not. It's directly comparable to abortion for financial reasons.

men cant abandon a fetus because a fetus is not a child, and they have no obligation to a fetus.

[Rukentuts]

bodily autonomy can be abused =/= bodily autonomy is abuse. But please strawman more.

Bodily autonomy is a right. Only an infringement on said right is an abuse.

[Zhangfei]

The woman gets pregnant by accident/on purpose she decides to keep it and the man asks her to abort it. She abuses her biological advantage, gives birth to the child and uses her leverage in court to extort the man for the rest of his life.

If you refuse to see how Biased and Unfair this is I can't help you.

You consider wanting a child "abusing a biological advantage." What a lovely turn of phrase for being willing to give birth and become a mother despite a dismissive and unsupportive partner.

bodily autonomy can be abused =/= bodily autonomy is abuse. But please strawman more.

How can you "abuse" your own rights to yourself? An ugly tattoo? Self-harm?

[Raiju]

men cant abandon a fetus because a fetus is not a child, and they have no obligation to a fetus.

By that logic you would have to claim a child before it is yours - and not it be yours to begin with. That's WAY further than what people were asking for.

You can use a right to abuse people, that's just common sense.

[Endus]

you said "since birth control exists, parental obligation is an archaic concept" yes?

No. I didn't. Which is why you aren't quoting me directly.

I said, to paraphrase, that parental obligation should only exist for those who choose to bring a child into the world, as women are completely able to avoid doing so if they wish to, with current medical techniques.

You're deliberately misinterpreting, which is why I called it out as a straw man.

yeah, when they are unable to provide for their children or are deemed unsuitable. its not lightly done.

False. There's no measures used to determine whether a mother can abandon a child at these locations. She can abandon the infant even if she's a successful lawyer.

In some parts of Europe, it's literally a drop-box; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-hospital.html

Many US states have similar arrangements, here's Illinois', for example; http://www.saveabandonedbabies.org/r...law/index.html

The baby is abandoned anonymously. There are no measures to see if the parents qualify for it.

[starlord]

By that logic you would have to claim a child before it is yours - and not it be yours to begin with. That's WAY further than what people were asking for.

You can use a right to abuse people, that's just common sense.

there is no child to claim or otherwise until its born.

[Cybran]

Apparently bodily autonomy is an "abuse" now.

The best way for her to keep her bodily autonomy without her being able to enslave the man for the rest of his life is to give men the option to absolve finantial claims made against them for children he wanted aborted.

[Raiju]

there is no child to claim or otherwise until its born.

So what you're saying is I can take a child with no consequence if it is currently being born because it isn't yet claimed?

I will do my best to refrain from insults but that is akin to condoning slavery, "claim"? It's your child! What on earth do you think it is? Out to the highest bidder?

[starlord]

No. I didn't. Which is why you aren't quoting me directly.

I said, to paraphrase, that parental obligation should only exist for those who choose to bring a child into the world, as women are completely able to avoid doing so if they wish to, with current medical techniques.

and thus, only women are capable of it since only they have the choice. the father is rendered irrelevant.

You're deliberately misinterpreting, which is why I called it out as a straw man.

im bringing it to its logical conclusion.

False. There's no measures used to determine whether a mother can abandon a child at these locations. She can abandon the infant even if she's a successful lawyer.

In some parts of Europe, it's literally a drop-box; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-hospital.html

Many US states have similar arrangements, here's Illinois', for example; http://www.saveabandonedbabies.org/r...law/index.html

The baby is abandoned anonymously. There are no measures to see if the parents qualify for it.

because, as you said, the alternative is the dumpster. thats the definition of unsuitable.

[Endus]

and? they are giving it to the state, because they are unable to provide for it properly. thats not nearly the same as someone perfectly able to provide for it dumping the sole responsibility on another person.

Again. No. There is NO requirement that they be "unable to provide for it properly". You think it cries at a pitch that's a half note off and don't want a baby that doesn't cry perfectly? You're a millionaire heiress with nothing but free time? Doesn't matter, you can still drop the infant off and abandon it, no questions asked.

Seriously, educate yourself as to the laws on this.

And the entire point was that if the suddenly-pregnant woman decides that she can't support herself and a child without the father's support, she can get an abortion. There's no child, yet. There's still plenty of time to cancel the pregnancy. If she chooses to go forward, knowing the father won't be providing support, she's accepting sole responsibility.

Because, y'know, women do that all the freaking time already. Being a single mother isn't all puppies and rainbows, but many women manage it just fine without any support from the father. I'm not going to claim I can make that decision for them, but I absolutely do say they're capable of making that decision for themselves.

[Sackman]

That's because, it's kinda in her body.

It has been made clear noboldy is considering forced abortion, or removing the right of the woman to do what they want with their body.

You keep chiming in with these unnecessary quips that only make the discussion roam in circles.

[Cybran]

and? they are giving it to the state, because they are unable to provide for it properly. thats not nearly the same as someone perfectly able to provide for it dumping the sole responsibility on another person.

Who says they can't provide for it? They could just give it up to focus on their education and don't want to be chained for the rest of their life to a mistake?