Page 1 of 97
1
2
3
11
51
... LastLast
  1. #1

    Why is it that women can opt out of taking care of a child but men can't?

    After a long debate in real life regarding this issue, I have decided to change my stance on the issue. I no longer believe that any man (or woman) has a right to not be responsible for an already born child (I am still pro-choice). No more child support, but men have to take care of their kids every other week (assuming that there is nothing wrong with them or they are not criminals).


    It's a child, not a wallet.


    NOTE: Changing my views does not mean I flip flop, it means I actually think for myself... times and times against.
    Last edited by Darsithis; 2014-02-18 at 04:26 PM.

  2. #2
    Because they are utterly different circumstances.

    Do we really have to argue this again?
    Quote Originally Posted by xanzul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So if the states get together and work with the Legislative Branch to write an amendment to the federal constitution, you think the Judiciary (SCOTUS) could strike it down for being 'unconstitutional'?
    Uh...yes. Absolutely.

  3. #3
    You just said it takes two to fund a child's life.
    Why would it be ok for a man to opt out when you made it clear that one would need the additional income to fund the necessities for a child's life.

    Also, use a freaking condom. 98% effective, so much easier than having to pay child support/bring a child into the world you aren't prepared for.

    I also don't think abortion is the same as child support, but w/e.
    Friends: Will help you move.
    Best Friends: Will help you move the Bodies

  4. #4
    In before a lock...

    My view goes like this:

    When it comes to abortion, the man gets 1 vote while the woman gets 2 votes.

    My reasoning is that both sexes get 1 vote based purely on moral decision, but the woman gets a second vote purely because it's HER body. I really don't have a say what goes on with her body... even despite my having help CAUSE the situation to her body in the first place.

    And, no, my reasoning doesn't mean the woman always wins due to majority vote. It might shock you to know that many women DON'T want to have an abortion either. :P
    Isn't it immature that you call him Donald "Dump"?
    I agree, it's childish and stupid - and that's my point. it's meant as a deliberate mockery of his blatant disrespect via using "Crooked Hillary", and thus I can call him "Dump" since he dumps his campaign promises, dumps campaign managers, dumps his wives, wants to dump the first amendment, dumps common-sense war ethics and dumps the use of proper English in favor of a mongrel white-trash dialect.

  5. #5
    Well this has religious implications I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.
    “What was God doing before the divine creation? Was he preparing
    hell for people who asked such questions?” - Stephen Hawking


  6. #6
    Deleted
    I predict 99 pages.

    But, when a man has intercourse with a woman and gets her pregnant; He ultimately consents to her being able to choose what she does with her own body, that being, carrying the fetus to term or not.

    And by consent, i mean agree, and when i say agree, i mean he doesn't get to control another human being.

    Her bodily autonomy trumps any indignation he may feel over his recklessness.

    Regardless, the payment of CS is made by the parent whom doesn't have custody for the CHILD itself.

    Some situations see men exploited, but deliberately doing so is a rarity; It often boils down to a man going bareback without thinking.

    And as such, why should the child suffer because you thought with a second brain?
    Last edited by mmoc1aca3196c5; 2014-02-18 at 06:18 AM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Thalian View Post
    To start it off, no I am in no way a MRA.
    Your mouth says "no" but your body says "yes."

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Because they are utterly different circumstances.
    But they don't have to be.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    Because they are utterly different circumstances.

    Do we really have to argue this again?
    They don't have to be, legally speaking.

    Which is what this thread is about, welcome to the actual topic of discussion.

    You're welcome.

    Call on me anytime you want the very obvious explained again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    I dont care if they are allowed to donate, but I think we should have an option to refuse gay blood if we need to receive blood.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    But they don't have to be.
    When it is a question of male bodily autonomy, you might have a point. Until then, you can take your 'its not faaaaaaair' and just shove it in your ear.
    Quote Originally Posted by xanzul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So if the states get together and work with the Legislative Branch to write an amendment to the federal constitution, you think the Judiciary (SCOTUS) could strike it down for being 'unconstitutional'?
    Uh...yes. Absolutely.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    But they don't have to be.
    Do we have the technology/medicine to give a man a uterus yet?

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Vokal View Post
    They don't have to be, legally speaking.
    Yes, they do. Your ignorance of the law isn't surprising.
    Quote Originally Posted by xanzul View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    So if the states get together and work with the Legislative Branch to write an amendment to the federal constitution, you think the Judiciary (SCOTUS) could strike it down for being 'unconstitutional'?
    Uh...yes. Absolutely.

  13. #13
    Deleted
    I agree, they don't have to be.

    A man can tell a woman to carry the fetus to term, if, and only if, he agrees to insert a watermelon or two where the sun doesn't shine for a few months.

    It's only fair right?

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    When it is a question of male bodily autonomy, you might have a point. Until then, you can take your 'its not faaaaaaair' and just shove it in your ear.
    Why does it have to be anything to do with male or female bodily autonomy.

    Step 1 : At any point before month X of the pregnancy, either party (Male or female) can elect to no longer have anything to do with the child.
    Step 2 : not required, 1 step did it all.

  15. #15
    Even if your characterization of abortion as "opting out" wasn't problematic, and I think it is, the faultline in the comparison with men "opting out" (also problematic) is that in the latter case there is still nevertheless a child that needs care. Being that a child exists in the latter case, and the state has an interest in ensuring that all children within its jurisdiction receive a minimum of care, the least burdensome solution is for the state to legally compel the child's biological parents to provide that care. If those individuals can't, than the state typically takes direct measures through its foster care system.

    This applies to both parents. A mother who is financially capable can "opt out" no more easily than a father. Some jurisdictions make exceptions for financial hardship, wherein a parent can legally make a child a ward of the state and do so anonymously, but this is to reduce the phenomenon of "dumpster babies," or parents abandoning their children out of fear that they have no other recourse.

  16. #16
    The Lightbringer Siri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Eolian
    Posts
    3,555
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    Why does it have to be anything to do with male or female bodily autonomy.

    Step 1 : At any point before month X of the pregnancy, either party (Male or female) can elect to no longer have anything to do with the child.
    Step 2 : not required, 1 step did it all.
    Abortions, regardless of when you do it, can come with complications and it's not reasonable to essentially force that upon another person.

  17. #17
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by schwarzkopf View Post
    Why does it have to be anything to do with male or female bodily autonomy.

    Step 1 : At any point before month X of the pregnancy, either party (Male or female) can elect to no longer have anything to do with the child.
    Step 2 : not required, 1 step did it all.
    So you'd accidentally get a woman pregnant and run away, screwing the child to a lifetime of low income and a single parent household?

    That's...

    Pretty scummy in fairness.

    And why?

    Because biology says you can't have a uterus.

  18. #18
    Because it's inside her body. Duh.

    Take it up with human biology.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  19. #19
    a women's body has to support the baby for nine months and the man can go scuba diving for all that matters
    EXAMPLE: Jane is a model. Her and her manager, Bob, have sex drunk and she ends up pregnant. This will ruin her career. She wants an abortion. He wants to keep the baby. She has final say because it is her body. She has the abortion and Bob gets over it. End of story.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohe View Post
    Abortions, regardless of when you do it, can come with complications and it's not reasonable to essentially force that upon another person.
    I didn't say either party can elect to FORCE the other person to do anything, I only said you could decided your OWN fate.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •