Should men also have the "right to choose"

[piasabird]

Men have the right to keep their pants on.

Keep the little one in your Britches,
And keep the big one between the Ditches!

 

[nehalem256]

Men have the right to keep their pants on.

Keep the little one in your Britches,
And keep the big one between the Ditches!

And women don't?

 

[nehalem256]

Maybe this will help you...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape
You really have to stretch the definition of rape to make lying by the woman about birth control to trick the man into having sex without a condom with her equal to a man taking off a condom mid-intercourse then continuing against the woman's objection anything close to equal...
Because doing so would most likely involve the use of force or the threat of it. In another word coercion.

A woman lying about using the pill is despicable but not the same.

Which is why your posts along these lines are extremely stupid.

: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape

See the bolded. A man who has been lied to about a woman taking birth control pills is incapable of valid consent due to the fraud perpetrated by the woman.

EDIT: And lying about using birth control is no a form of coercion?

 

[Jhhnn]

See the bolded. A man who has been lied to about a woman taking birth control pills is incapable of valid consent due to the fraud perpetrated by the woman.

EDIT: And lying about using birth control is no a form of coercion?

It's merely fraud, not coercion.

And it doesn't matter in the slightest wrt a man's legal obligation to his offspring.

Contraception is a shared responsibility by people who engage in hetero sex. Given the possibilities of contracting deadly STD's, those who engage in sport fucking w/o condoms are extremely stupid, anyway, regardless of other methods of contraception employed.

Any man who absolutely wants to avoid fathering children with his partner needs to take his own precautions, regardless of what she might claim. And at that, he needs to recognize the fact that no form of contraception or combination of methods is 100% effective. That's true for women, as well.

Should those efforts fail, should conception occur, then the responsibilities & choices fall to the woman, because it's her body, fetus & all. A man can be supportive or persuasive wrt any decisions she might make, but they're still her choices, because it's her body.

Assertions as to what she should or shouldn't do are besides the point, *because it's her body*. No amount of obfuscation alters that. She doesn't need to have an abortion because the man wants it, nor does she need to bear the fetus to term because he wants it. She doesn't even need to let him know she's pregnant. She doesn't need to keep the newborn, either, but can surrender it to what she sees as better care at a safe haven in many parts of the country.

Should a child be born & she decides to claim the father, then shared responsibility for the child resumes, whether he likes it or not. That is what our society has determined to be in the best interests of the child, the possibility of the child's existence being known by both parents when they engaged in sex in the first place.

It really doesn't matter what discussions or promises took place beforehand, either, because she has the right to change her mind, because it's her body.

Sex is not mandatory for survival- it's not like breathing, so both partners need to ask themselves if they're willing to accept the broad range of outcomes that may occur, regardless of how remote some of them might seem at the time.

As an aside, Safe haven infants aren't a burden on the taxpayers, anyway, because pre-screened & qualified affluent adoptive parents very much want infants-

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...-or-rescue-facilities-baby-girl-nick-silverio

 

[nehalem256]

It's merely fraud, not coercion.

And it doesn't matter in the slightest wrt a man's legal obligation to his offspring.

So if a man is raped you think he is still obligated to support his offspring. Are you running for Senate in Missouri by chance.

Contraception is a shared responsibility by people who engage in hetero sex. Given the possibilities of contracting deadly STD's, those who engage in sport fucking w/o condoms are extremely stupid, anyway, regardless of other methods of contraception employed.

Which is irrelevant to women raping him.

Any man who absolutely wants to avoid fathering children with his partner needs to take his own precautions, regardless of what she might claim. And at that, he needs to recognize the fact that no form of contraception or combination of methods is 100% effective. That's true for women, as well.

Women do not need to recognize this as they can take RU-486 and only have to suffer a slightly heavier period than normal.

Should those efforts fail, should conception occur, then the responsibilities & choices fall to the woman, because it's her body, fetus & all. A man can be supportive or persuasive wrt any decisions she might make, but they're still her choices, because it's her body.

So you finally agree that the responsibilities fall on the woman. Glad to see you finally come around.

Assertions as to what she should or shouldn't do are besides the point, *because it's her body*. No amount of obfuscation alters that. She doesn't need to have an abortion because the man wants it, nor does she need to bear the fetus to term because he wants it. She doesn't even need to let him know she's pregnant. She doesn't need to keep the newborn, either, but can surrender it to what she sees as better care at a safe haven in many parts of the country.

Should a child be born & she decides to claim the father, then shared responsibility for the child resumes, whether he likes it or not. That is what our society has determined to be in the best interests of the child, the possibility of the child's existence being known by both parents when they engaged in sex in the first place.

So according to you the father has no right to the child unless the mother says so. And this is somehow in the best interest of the child.

No words exist to explain you sexism.

It really doesn't matter what discussions or promises took place beforehand, either, because she has the right to change her mind, because it's her body.

So in your view women should not be held to any contracts they make.

Again I do not even know what to say to your blatant sexism.

Sex is not mandatory for survival- it's not like breathing, so both partners need to ask themselves if they're willing to accept the broad range of outcomes that may occur, regardless of how remote some of them might seem at the time.

Unless you are the woman. She is not required to accept any outcome and can change her mind at any time no matter what promises she has previously made.

As an aside, Safe haven infants aren't a burden on the taxpayers, anyway, because pre-screened & qualified affluent adoptive parents very much want infants-

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...-or-rescue-facilities-baby-girl-nick-silverio

And this means that women should be able to abdicate their responsibilities why?

 

[blankslate]

EDIT: And lying about using birth control is no a form of coercion?

If lying was to be considered a form of coercion then every guy who ever lied to get into someone's pants is now a guilty of coercing a woman into sex... nice job there... got any other completely stupid posts to make?

It's getting kind of interesting, however, to see how many completely idiotic posts you can cram into this thread

 

[Jhhnn]

So if a man is raped you think he is still obligated to support his offspring. Are you running for Senate in Missouri by chance.

Which is irrelevant to women raping him.

Rape was not mentioned in the post I replied to.

Women do not need to recognize this as they can take RU-486 and only have to suffer a slightly heavier period than normal.

Correct. So what?

So you finally agree that the responsibilities fall on the woman. Glad to see you finally come around.

The responsibilities of gestation & delivery, or lack thereof, yes.

So according to you the father has no right to the child unless the mother says so. And this is somehow in the best interest of the child.

No words exist to explain you sexism.

He has no rights to the fetus. He has rights to the child, if he knows it exists & cares to exercise them along with the inherent responsibility. Women have always been able to leave their social group, move away, to deny paternity. Right & wrong are immaterial to that.

So in your view women should not be held to any contracts they make.

Again I do not even know what to say to your blatant sexism.

Illegal contracts are unenforceable.

Unless you are the woman. She is not required to accept any outcome and can change her mind at any time no matter what promises she has previously made.

She gets to choose the outcome of pregnancy, because it's her body, yes.

And this means that women should be able to abdicate their responsibilities why?

Because the sire has obviously already abdicated his, and because one's obligation to their child is to do their best by it, so sometimes that's letting somebody else do it, somebody who has much greater means. I seriously doubt you're advocating that women who can't afford children should keep them, or that the state should enable them to do so. Quite the contrary.

 

[nehalem256]

If lying was to be considered a form of coercion then every guy who ever lied to get into someone's pants is now a guilty of coercing a woman into sex... nice job there... got any other completely stupid posts to make?

It's getting kind of interesting, however, to see how many completely idiotic posts you can cram into this thread

I am not the one who argued having sex with passed out women was not rape.

And there are obviously degrees of lying as coercion. As birth control usage is central to having sex. Lying about its use is rape.

Similar to how if I had a twin brother. And I pretended to be him to have sex with his gf I would have no problem considering that rape.

 

[nehalem256]

The responsibilities of gestation & delivery, or lack thereof, yes.

so their is no responsibility. Any choice they make is valid.

He has no rights to the fetus. He has rights to the child, if he knows it exists & cares to exercise them along with the inherent responsibility. Women have always been able to leave their social group, move away, to deny paternity. Right & wrong are immaterial to that.

Right and wrong is the point of discussion. You are saying you have no problem with women deny a man his father.

And you further argued this was about the best interest of the child.

WTF does not begin to explain your stupidity and sexism.

Illegal contracts are unenforceable.

There is nothing illegal about a woman agreeing to carry a child. So what is your point?

She gets to choose the outcome of pregnancy, because it's her body, yes.

So you were lying when you said both partners need to accept the outcomes of sex.

Because the sire has obviously already abdicated his, and because one's obligation to their child is to do their best by it, so sometimes that's letting somebody else do it, somebody who has much greater means. I seriously doubt you're advocating that women who can't afford children should keep them, or that the state should enable them to do so. Quite the contrary.

Not obviously. As you have no problem with a woman denying the child to the father.

I am saying if a woman is free to abdicate her responsibilities, then the man should be free as well. Its a little thing called equality.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am not the one who argued having sex with passed out women was not rape.

And there are obviously degrees of lying as coercion. As birth control usage is central to having sex. Lying about its use is rape.

Similar to how if I had a twin brother. And I pretended to be him to have sex with his gf I would have no problem considering that rape.

Neither is rape, but rather fraud. In both cases, the deceived was a willing victim. No force or threat of force was used.

 

[Jhhnn]

so their is no responsibility. Any choice they make is valid.

It is their responsibility to make a choice wrt their own bodies, yes.

Right and wrong is the point of discussion. You are saying you have no problem with women deny a man his father.

I made no moral judgments wrt to that, merely pointed out it has always been something that women could do.

And you further argued this was about the best interest of the child.

WTF does not begin to explain your stupidity and sexism.

I did not argue that such was in the best interests of the child, at all.

There is nothing illegal about a woman agreeing to carry a child. So what is your point?

My point was the other side of it- that any contract where she agreed to abortion beforehand was unenforceable, as would any penalties wrt the contract you propose.

So you were lying when you said both partners need to accept the outcomes of sex.

No.

Not obviously. As you have no problem with a woman denying the child to the father.

Not what I said.

I am saying if a woman is free to abdicate her responsibilities, then the man should be free as well. Its a little thing called equality.

There is no equality in a man refusing to support his children and a woman w/o the ability to support a child giving it to people who can and will, quite joyfully.

Failing to acknowledge that reveals the depth of your selfishness & depravity.

 

[blankslate]

I am not the one who argued having sex with passed out women was not rape.

Anyone with common sense knows that having sex with someone who's unconscious does count as rape. The first time you brought it up it wasn't even worth responding to.

If you take that to mean that I'm arguing that having your way with someone who isn't conscious to participate then that is truly idiotic.