Should men also have the "right to choose"

[nehalem256]

You can disagree with my feeling all you want, but I have never suggested to legislate based on it. I am able to separate emotion from science.

There has and always will be a distinction between medical procedures and financial commitment. Could you imagine a court decision where the government compels you to give up an organ?

You mean like if someone signed a legal contract saying they would?

Which is basically the argument here. You are saying that when a man consents to sex he is making an implicit contract to provide monetary support for any resulting children. Logically one could say that also when a woman consents to sex she is making an implicit contract to carry and resulting fetuses to term.

It's a choice either way. And while technically the procedure directly harms the fetus, the result is the same as if you indirectly harmed the fetus (by cutting the umbilical cord). Would you be happier if the fetus was removed in tact to instead die on the operating table?

By having sex the woman agrees to consequences that include carrying the fetus to term. Why do you want to let a woman renege on her agreement?

And cutting the child out intact is still taking an active action to kill it.

It is the difference between seeing a homeless man on the street and doing nothing, verse stopping and putting a bullet in his head.

How can you stop a woman from cutting the umbilical cord attached to her body?

Hmm the difficulty of reaching your arm up into your own vagina?

That is not what you said. You brought forth a scenario which is murder, and said it is essentially what abortion is. If you didn't intend to imply abortion is murder you shouldn't have made the comparison.

It is murder if it is a person.

 

[nehalem256]

No it's lying. Because you can't really rape the willing. And the man can usually physically overpower the woman.

But he only consented to sex under the provision that the woman was using birth control. As the woman lied his consent is invalid. Therefore it is rape.

The analogy doesn't fit because the man has no immediate indication that the woman is lying about the pill (yeah it's a shitty thing to do but that very likely doesn't involve physical coercion). The woman is more likely to notice a man taking off a condom then trying to resume intercourse and if he uses physical force to continue then yeah it's rape.

Rape does not require physical coercion. Rape is sex without valid consent. Rape is rape.

God what a witless post you have made.

Im not the one blaming men for being raped. And wanting them to raise their rape babies.

 

[blankslate]

Rape does not require physical coercion. Rape is sex without valid consent. Rape is rape.

Im not the one blaming men for being raped. And wanting them to raise their rape babies.

No you're making fucking retarded argument that sex that occurs as a result of deception is the same thing as physically holding someone down and having intercourse with them.... but of course given the quality of your posts in this thread I guess we shouldn't really be surprised.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

He's also arguing that the right of the father overshadows the rights of the child once its born.

Good luck with that.

 

[nehalem256]

No you're making fucking retarded argument that sex that occurs as a result of deception is the same thing as physically holding someone down and having intercourse with them.... but of course given the quality of your posts in this thread I guess we shouldn't really be surprised.

I do not recall any mention of physical force being used.

And it would seem that if a girl passes out from drinking and you have sex with her that would not be rape according to you. Since no physical force is necessary.

And I am saying if you consent to sex on the basis of birth control being used and either partner lies about it then that would be rape. Not just if the man does it. No different then screwing an underage girl with consent; the consent is not valid.

EDIT: If lying about condom usage is rape. Then lying about Birth Control pill usage is rape. The fact that the man cannot verify the truth of the woman's usage is actually an argument for it being worse than not using the condom, because a woman woman still has the opportunity to get the morning after pill

Sorry if you do not consider a man being raped to be "legitimate" rape

 

[nehalem256]

He's also arguing that the right of the father overshadows the rights of the child once its born.

Good luck with that.

Read the OP. The "father" would be considered no different than a sperm donor.

 

[actuarial]

You mean like if someone signed a legal contract saying they would?

Which is basically the argument here. You are saying that when a man consents to sex he is making an implicit contract to provide monetary support for any resulting children. Logically one could say that also when a woman consents to sex she is making an implicit contract to carry and resulting fetuses to term.

Except there is a distinction between the physical and the monetary. The woman also has the same implicit financial commitment to any child, by the way.

By having sex the woman agrees to consequences that include carrying the fetus to term. Why do you want to let a woman renege on her agreement?

And cutting the child out intact is still taking an active action to kill it.

It is the difference between seeing a homeless man on the street and doing nothing, verse stopping and putting a bullet in his head.

Any analogy you put forth comparing this situation to two people is going to fail. The homeless man is not dependent on you for survival.

Hmm the difficulty of reaching your arm up into your own vagina?

Do you think Doctors are violating their oath by performing abortions.

It is murder if it is a person.

So you're just building straw men them? Neither I nor you claimed a fetus is a person.

 

[cybrsage]

Not what I said.

Run off with your usual strawman.

Then you lied. You refuse to clarify your statements so we are simply left with either you saying what I said or that you lied. It really is that simple, your deflection by using your strawman claim fetish is easily disregarded.

 

[cybrsage]

That's so wrong as to be laughable.

A slight majority of a very small sample of men would appear to support them.

Apparently, you think a majority is not a majority. Why do you lie to us and say you think this?

 

[cybrsage]

Very few of you have commented on this. Would you support this set of rules? If no, why not?

1. Woman and man both want baby - no abortion, both support baby.
2. Woman does not want baby, man does - abortion, no support.
3. Woman wants baby, man does not - no abortion, no support.
4. Woman and man both do not want baby - abortion, no support.

No one is forced to have an abortion and no one is forced to be a parent against their will. The woman still have more rights than the man, but it is as close to equality as is possible without banning abortions or forcing abortions.

 

[Jhhnn]

Which means if you are a liberal you are implicitly saying that abortion is not murder and the fetus is not a person.

Or you are condoning letting women commit murder.

More forcing of your own judgment onto others.

Conservatives want this to. They simply also want women to also take responsibility for having sex with men.

So what? They don't allow that men should be able to escape their own responsibilities under any circumstances, either.

And the bolded has nothing to do with this thread. READ THE OP. NO WHERE IS A WOMAN FORCED TO CARRY A MAN'S CHILD

Then why did you articulate that position earlier in post #399?

I have no problem with demonizing people who are forcing their choices on others.

Except, as I offered & you quoted, the people you demonize aren't forcing their will on the rest of us, at all. As a society, we extend benefits to them of our own collective free will.

Not to mention that you're the one attempting to force your will on others. You have, many times, advocated forced abortion for women who "can't afford" a child, and in this thread you advocate that the sires of their embryos should be able to force them into that position by denying his own responsibilities.

EDIT: Basically what you want is for women to be able have sex where the worst consequence they can suffer is a slightly heavier period, while men can get stuck with 18 years of child support. And you call this "equality"

Nonsense.

 

[Jhhnn]

Then you lied. You refuse to clarify your statements so we are simply left with either you saying what I said or that you lied. It really is that simple, your deflection by using your strawman claim fetish is easily disregarded.

I refuse to accept your bullshit. When I say "X", & you say "That must mean you said Y", it's a strawman.

 

[Jhhnn]

Apparently, you think a majority is not a majority. Why do you lie to us and say you think this?

Unadulterated trollery. A narrow poll with 100 male respondents is not representative of any majority opinion among the population at large.

 

[cybrsage]

I refuse to accept your bullshit. When I say "X", & you say "That must mean you said Y", it's a strawman.

As expected, you still refuse to tell us what you actually mean and then pretend everyone knows what you refuse to tell. You need a new shtick, this one is lame.

 

[cybrsage]

Unadulterated trollery. A narrow poll with 100 male respondents is not representative of any majority opinion among the population at large.

No one claimed it was. The simple claim of majority was made. You then said a slight majority is not a majority. Obviously a slight MAJORITY is a MAJORITY, but you lie and say it is not.

 

[nehalem256]

Unadulterated trollery. A narrow poll with 100 male respondents is not representative of any majority opinion among the population at large.

Why does the fact that they are male matter? Aren't women always saying that men should keep their nose out women's choices?

 

[Jhhnn]

As expected, you still refuse to tell us what you actually mean and then pretend everyone knows what you refuse to tell. You need a new shtick, this one is lame.

You never asked for clarification, at all, but rather demanded acquiescence to a strawman. If you really wanted clarification, you'd have omitted the strawman characterization attached to the demand. You never do, of course, because you're dishonest.

No one claimed it was. The simple claim of majority was made. You then said a slight majority is not a majority. Obviously a slight MAJORITY is a MAJORITY, but you lie and say it is not.

I pointed out that the concept of "majority" was meaningless puffery & projection in context. It still is.

 

[Jhhnn]

Why does the fact that they are male matter? Aren't women always saying that men should keep their nose out women's choices?

Trollery.

 

[cybrsage]

You never asked for clarification, at all, but rather demanded acquiescence to a strawman. If you really wanted clarification, you'd have omitted the strawman characterization attached to the demand. You never do, of course, because you're dishonest.

I see you still are doing your old, tired modus operandi. You need a new one, this shtick no longer serves you well.



I pointed out that the concept of "majority" was meaningless puffery & projection in context. It still is.[/QUOTE]

No, you did not. Face it, you busted yourself on that one.

 

[nehalem256]

More forcing of your own judgment onto others.

I am not forcing my judgement on others. There are 2 possibilities. 3 if you want to count not having enough balls to admit which option you believe.

So what? They don't allow that men should be able to escape their own responsibilities under any circumstances, either.

So you are now conceding that abortion is allowing women to escape their own responsibilities?

The difference is conservatives are for equality.

Then why did you articulate that position earlier in post #399?

If the fetus is part his then the woman has no right to destroy HIS fetus without his consent.

I see you are still have problems understanding the word if.

Or maybe you are arguing women have a right to destroy other people's property without their consent?

Except, as I offered & you quoted, the people you demonize aren't forcing their will on the rest of us, at all. As a society, we extend benefits to them of our own collective free will.

So it is ok for the majority to force their morals on the minority? Certainly an...interesting point of view.

Not to mention that you're the one attempting to force your will on others. You have, many times, advocated forced abortion for women who "can't afford" a child, and in this thread

Which is not what this thread about. And this is simple. 3 parties have conflicting interests. The child, society, and woman. Someone has to be imposed upon. As the first 2 parties did not contribute to the situation it would seem that morally choosing to impose on the woman is best.

you advocate that the sires of their embryos should be able to force them into that position by denying his own responsibilities.

A man has no responsibility to ensure a woman will not have to get an abortion.

As has been shown in this thread men and women have no inherent responsibility to their biological child as show by safe-haven laws, sperm-donation, and in fact adoption.

 

[cybrsage]

I am not forcing my judgement on others. There are 2 possibilities. 3 if you want to count not having enough balls to admit which option you believe.

He is going to choose option 3 and then call you a troll and a liar. That is his shtick.

 

[nehalem256]

He is going to choose option 3 and then call you a troll and a liar. That is his shtick.

That would explain why he has been arguing that he is not forcing his views on anyone. But instead he is having the 2 big guys behind him do it.

 

[blankslate]

If lying about condom usage is rape. Then lying about Birth Control pill usage is rape.

It's the act of continuing with intercourse after taking off a condom mid intercourse over the woman's objections that would be rape especially if forced was used.

Wow, the critical thinking failure of your post was amazing.

Deception is bad but it's not the same. Getting someone to have sex with you based on a lie doesn't fit the definition of rape... Unless of course you might be from bizzaro world.

 

[nehalem256]

It's the act of continuing with intercourse after taking off a condom mid intercourse over the woman's objections that would be rape especially if forced was used.

So then it is the woman's objection that makes it rape.

which would mean that this is true.

And it would seem that if a girl passes out from drinking and you have sex with her that would not be rape according to you.

Since she did not object D:

 

[blankslate]

So then it is the woman's objection that makes it rape. which would mean that this is true.

Maybe this will help you...

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

1.the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.

2.any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape

: 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

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.