Modern Feminism - What's the deal?

[Zhangfei]

Unborn children can't become born children against their mother's will. They can become born children against their father's will.

Are you suggesting that it's wrong for women to be in control of their own body? Unless the foetus can gestate elsewhere, this train of reasoning can only appear to me to be sexist.

Right, because equating elective female sterilization to "having your insides opened up and scooped out" isn't emotite at all

I equated abortion to any internal surgery, because that's what it is.

You completely missed the point, not surprisingly, that you chose to get the mortgage and forced someone else to pay for it.

No, you missed the point that indentured servitude was about paying for your travel to colonial America through work, while getting board and food. I parodied your nonsense argument and then you took it seriously, proving my point.

Who is talking about a man being able to dissolve his responsibility toward a child that he agreed to support before it was born?

Whether you choose or not to support/want the child, if you're responsible for it you're responsible for it? It's the child's rights that you're disputing but only for men, not women.

[oblivionx]

thats right, thats why no one is considered a parent until a child is born of them.

But they can try a murderer twice for killing a pregnant women.

[starlord]

Did you seriously just argue that the desire to abandon your parental responsibilities is proof that you're unsuitable for being a parent and thus should not be held legally liable for said responsibilities?

I don't think that supports your argument.

i argued that the child would not benefit from remaining in said parents care.

children do benefit from child support.

[DisposableHero]

Are you suggesting that it's wrong for women to be in control of their own body? Unless the foetus can gestate elsewhere, this train of reasoning can only appear to me to be sexist.

No, I am suggesting that it is wrong for women to choose fatherhood for men against their will. This is why I am arguing for a form of legal parental surrender for men.

[starlord]

But they can try a murderer twice for killing a pregnant women.

thanks to the "ban abortion" crowd.

[iggie]

They don't, but they should, through legal means to dissolve their financial obligation.

This sums up my thoughts exactly. If a woman refuses an abortion a man should be able to have legal leeway to get out of 18 years of servitude. The fact is women don't want this, as it's a huge perk of entrapping a man.

Are you suggesting that it's wrong for women to be in control of their own body? Unless the foetus can gestate elsewhere, this train of reasoning can only appear to me to be sexist.

One could argue the woman gave up control of that part of her body when she decided to have sex. That's not much different from the age old feminist argument a man could just "not have sex".

[Zhangfei]

No, I am suggesting that it is wrong for women to choose fatherhood for men against their will.

Yes, but you're saying that because of equal rights and that a person with the same right as you might make a choice you dislike. A woman has the same rights to her body a man does. A man, unless he's raped, is not "forced" into fatherhood.

This is why I am arguing for a form of legal parental surrender for men.

And I'm pointing out the rights and responsibilities are the exact same as is, so I consider this sexist.

One could argue the woman gave up control of that part of her body when she decided to have sex.

One could. Then again, one could argue there's a teapot orbiting Saturn. One can argue anything, the rationality and legality is what we're discussing.

[Tinykong]

I equated abortion to any internal surgery, because that's what it is.

A vasectomy is male sterilization, what does an abortion have to do with women having the same elective sterilization?

Have you ever had an abortion? When done early enough, it's an out patient procedure with absolutely no surgery.

No, you missed the point that indentured servitude was about paying for your travel to colonial America through work, while getting board and food. I parodied your nonsense argument and then you took it seriously, proving my point.

Right, because only the text book definition of a word can be used.

Whether you choose or not to support/want the child, if you're responsible for it you're responsible for it? It's the child's rights that you're disputing but only for men, not women.

It's not a child until it's born. The man should be free to dissolve his responsibility prior to birth.

[oblivionx]

Are you suggesting that it's wrong for women to be in control of their own body? Unless the foetus can gestate elsewhere, this train of reasoning can only appear to me to be sexist.



I equated abortion to any internal surgery, because that's what it is.

Thing is that what is in the women's body is actually genetically half of someone else.

A half that has no rights, no say and can be compelled to pay for it by law even if they didn't want it.

[iggie]

i argued that the child would not benefit from remaining in said parents care.

children do benefit from child support.

If custody hearings were anywhere near fair, I'd love to see a woman shelling out for 18 years. The fact is the system is made FOR women AGAINST men. Of course any changes made to it makes females feel threatened. Sort of like how initial womens rights threatened men.

[Zhangfei]

A vasectomy is male sterilization, what does an abortion have to do with women having the same elective sterilization?

That they both can do what they want with their body.

Have you ever had an abortion? When done early enough, it's an out patient procedure with absolutely no surgery.

Right? So's some stomach observation surgery. Both sexes can do what they want with their body. My wife doesn't tell me what I can or can't do.

Right, because only the text book definition of a word can be used.

Well it'd help, or you're a pistachio!

It's not a child until it's born. The man should be free to dissolve his responsibility prior to birth.

A woman can't sign away her legal responsibilities to the child, why should a man?

A half that has no rights, no say and can be compelled to pay for it by law even if they didn't want it.

The right to control your own body trumps everything and anything else.

[Endus]

Yes, but you're saying that because of equal rights and that a person with the same right as you might make a choice you dislike. A woman has the same rights to her body a man does. A man, unless he's raped, is not "forced" into fatherhood.

You're still acting as if children are a necessary and unavoidable consequence of having sex.

They aren't. They haven't been for 40 years, at least legally speaking. There is absolutely nothing about having lots and lots of sex that means you're going to have a kid. The only way that happens is if you get a woman pregnant, and then that woman chooses to continue the pregnancy to term and have a baby.

Your entire argument falls apart when you include abortion as a valid option. A woman's choice to ignore one valid option does not mean it does not exist. It's her choice, sure, but the consequences of that choice should be hers, as well.

[iggie]

Yes, but you're saying that because of equal rights and that a person with the same right as you might make a choice you dislike. A woman has the same rights to her body a man does. A man, unless he's raped, is not "forced" into fatherhood.

A woman, unless she's raped, isn't forced into motherhood. She makes the choice for the man and herself. That in itself is unfair. If you can't acknowledge that imbalance you need to rethink your logic.

A woman can't sign away her legal responsibilities to the child, why should a man?

Abortion
Adoption

Oh look, two options. Tard.

Infracted: Please do not insult other users

[starlord]

If custody hearings were anywhere near fair, I'd love to see a woman shelling out for 18 years. The fact is the system is made FOR women AGAINST men. Of course any changes made to it makes females feel threatened. Sort of like how initial womens rights threatened men.

arguing that "men have no parental obligations because its only womens choice to make children" will surely help.

[Endus]

A woman can't sign away her legal responsibilities to the child, why should a man?

Yes. They can. We went over that already. Not only adoption, but also legal abandonment.

[Zhangfei]

You're still acting as if children are a necessary and unavoidable consequence of having sex.

No, you keep straw manning this. I keep suggesting sex CAN lead to children and you should be aware of this. The fact a woman can decide what she wants to do with her own body keeps negating the "abortion as solution." We already clarified both morally that you can argue for all sorts of evil to "fix" things the way you perceive; secondly, we clarified medically lots of behaviour is legitimate because we have medical solutions (where you shifted the goalposts, if I recall.)

If you have consensual sex without knowing full well what the woman's opinion is, then it always falls back on you. It by definition already has fallen on her.

Technically, the man could commit suicide to eliminate his responsibilities to the child. It's not illegal to do so, so why are you not bringing this into the debate? It's a "valid option," as you insist.

Yes. They can. We went over that already. Not only adoption, but also legal abandonment.

These things occur after birth to a child.

A woman, unless she's raped, isn't forced into motherhood. She makes the choice for the man and herself. That in itself is unfair.

No, her control of her own body may end up with results you dislike but it is not unfair. I equate this to the gun rights movement; I dislike guns and want them removed. Some people like guns and own them. It's not unfair that they get to own guns because it's their right to own guns. I have to suck it up, just like whichever parent doesn't want to be involved in the child's life has to support it when the other parent does, man or woman.

[Tinykong]

That they both can do what they want with their body.

You said a man could "just have a vasectomy" and a woman could not. You are simply wrong. An abortion is not elective sterilization.

Right? So's some stomach observation surgery. Both sexes can do what they want with their body. My wife doesn't tell me what I can or can't do.

Again, you don't understand what's being talked about. This is in reference to your "emotive language" claims. Abortions aren't always surgeries that "scoop out your insides." Emotive language is emotive.

A woman can't sign away her legal responsibilities to the child, why should a man?

She can end her responsibilities via abortion and other means, and a man should have the same legal ability.

[Eroginous]

I equated abortion to any internal surgery, because that's what it is.

Yes, because having an abortion is the same as having your appendix out, which is the same as having surgery to remove cancer. Is there ever going to be a time when you begin to use actual logic?

This train of argument goes back to "why can men get a vasectomy but a woman can't? It's not equal!" sort of argument. Biology makes people different, you'll just have to suck it up. It's still equal rights being applied.

Except for the part where women can get a tubectomy which is the rough equivalent of a vasectomy.

It's not a right. The right to your own body is mutually applicable.

To be blunt, because I think you don't understand what rights are, but to emphasise this fallacy you keep suggesting men have a right to an abortion too.

Rights are given to people by popular consensus. IE, our society gives women the right to bodily autonomy. That same society recognizes that someone has to take responsibility for a child once it's born, regardless of circumstance. In most cases, our society automatically gives certain rights to a mother unless it's otherwise proven that she is unfit to have those rights.

In most cases, our society forces men to earn certain rights and only gives those rights to men when a mother is deemed unfit. Yet in nearly every case, a man is forced to be financially responsible for a child that shares his DNA, regardless of circumstances, even going so far as to imprison those men if they cannot take financial responsibility.

Can you explain to me how that's equality?

[oblivionx]

The right to control your own body trumps everything and anything else.

When you frame the argument as that's all it is.

Helps when you refuse to even call it a baby I bet.

[Rukentuts]

Helps when you refuse to even call it a baby I bet.

It tends to help when you call it what it is.