Should men also have the "right to choose"

[Lithium381]

Rational people recognize all the possibilities going in, so women don't get re-rolls, at all. They knew they could abort if they so chose, if pregnancy did occur, no matter how unlikely. Both knew that was her choice, and her choice alone.

The rest is just wah-wah over waning male dominance in our society, over our loss of ability to tell women what to do. Three generations ago, societal pressure pretty much required guys who knocked up their partners to man-up & marry, support their own children, and it demanded that women accept those men, at least temporarily. Meanwhile, things have changed, and not in ways that support male dominance, at all. While the law & technology have broadened a woman's choices, men's choices remain unchanged or have been narrowed, and some resent that. You still have to support your own children, even if a woman's choice absolves some of that and not others.

You guys fail at logic trees, btw.

Really? It's about men forcing their will on women? How about this: The woman should have 100% responsibility of getting pregnant and taking care of the child or not getting pregnant if she chooses because she knew of the possibility of getting pregnant before she partook in that activity and there are MANY ways she could easily avoid pregnancy. See how lame that sounds? That's exactly what you're trying to lay on men.

How would giving the man this option in ANY WAY reduce a womans right to choose? This is the third time i've asked this and you've ignored every other time. She still retains 100% of her independence and i support the woman's right to choose!

 

[Lithium381]

Rational people recognize all the possibilities going in, so women don't get re-rolls, at all. They knew they could abort if they so chose, if pregnancy did occur, no matter how unlikely. Both knew that was her choice, and her choice alone.

and it would stay that way

 

[Lithium381]

I think i just realized, Jhnn, we're arguing different points. you think we're talking about the mans right to decide if the woman has the baby or not. that's not what this is about, she still gets to decide. the man just gets to decide if he's a father to the child or not and has any responsibility to it at all.

 

[schneiderguy]

Yes they should.

Unfortunately out of the two mainstream parties, one doesn't seem to care about men's rights (Republicans) and the other is adamantly opposed to gender equality (Democrats).

 

[nanette1985]

Only in your own twisted logic. They recognize the same risks that men do. Because it's their body, they have choices after the fact that men don't.

Too bad that the theoretical fetus can't be transferred from her body to his for gestation, at which point all of this mewling would cease entirely.

:thumbsup:

 

[Lithium381]

:thumbsup:

You voted disagree. Why?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No. I argued if a female is old enough to make adult decisions about her body with regard to becoming a parent obviously she should not be viewed as a child.

No, you argured that since it's legal for her to decide over her own body when it comes to abortion it should be legal for her to consent to sex WHICH IT IS.

YOUR problem is that while it's legal for her to have sex with an old ugly bastard such as yourself it is NOT legal for you to have sex with her.

In short, she is the master of her own body, just as it should be in a free society. YOU however, are the master of your own body, NOT hers.

That you don't understand such a simple and obvious as well as just concpt is astounding to me and almost everyone else i would think, well except for pedos like yourself who would argue anything to get away with raping children.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Really? It's about men forcing their will on women? How about this: The woman should have 100% responsibility of getting pregnant and taking care of the child or not getting pregnant if she chooses because she knew of the possibility of getting pregnant before she partook in that activity and there are MANY ways she could easily avoid pregnancy. See how lame that sounds? That's exactly what you're trying to lay on men.

How would giving the man this option in ANY WAY reduce a womans right to choose? This is the third time i've asked this and you've ignored every other time. She still retains 100% of her independence and i support the woman's right to choose!

Your argument is fundamentally flawed because you are trying to equate getting an abortion to taking Advil, when clearly it is a much more complicated on so many levels.

So no, I dont support men getting a free pass for an act where the consequences of something going "wrong" lie entirely with the other party.

This is why civilized society has decided that despite the way nature made us, everyone bears the same responsibility in the outcome.

There is a reason these laws were created, and it has nothing to do with Nehalem's delusions.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yes they should.

Unfortunately out of the two mainstream parties, one doesn't seem to care about men's rights (Republicans) and the other is adamantly opposed to gender equality (Democrats).

Two parties and a western world that know that men don't have exclusive rights to decide over female bodies.

Don't like that? Move to Saudi Arabia or some other sheithole where they will burn women alive over disagreements and it's perfectly legal to do so.

The US religious right (and the variations of it, including women hating atheists) and the Taliban have a LOT in common.

And yes, i can say that based on a long term studying of both as i was a British soldier in one of those sheitholes serving with US troops who weren't much better.

 

[monovillage]

I was assured by one woman that she was using birth control, it turned out later that she considered the "rhythm method" effective birth control. It turned out not to be important, but why should the man be held responsible if the woman lies or is wrong about the method of birth control she is using?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/rhythm-method/MY01003

 

[schneiderguy]

Two parties and a western world that know that men don't have exclusive rights to decide over female bodies.

Don't like that? Move to Saudi Arabia or some other sheithole where they will burn women alive over disagreements and it's perfectly legal to do so.

The US religious right (and the variations of it, including women hating atheists) and the Taliban have a LOT in common.

And yes, i can say that based on a long term studying of both as i was a British soldier in one of those sheitholes serving with US troops who weren't much better.

Your reading comprehension is lacking.

Nowhere in the OP does it say that men should have exclusive rights to decide what a female does with her body. It doesn't even suggest that men should have ANY right to decide what a female does with her body.

If women can have abortions, then the man's only financial obligation should be to cover the cost of the abortion if he does not want the child. If a woman CHOOSES to have a baby that the man does not want, the man should have no financial obligation in raising the child.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Your reading comprehension is lacking.

Nowhere in the OP does it say that men should have exclusive rights to decide what a female does with her body. It doesn't even suggest that men should have ANY right to decide what a female does with her body.

If women can have abortions, then the man's only financial obligation should be to cover the cost of the abortion if he does not want the child. If a woman CHOOSES to have a baby that the man does not want, the man should have no financial obligation in raising the child.

Are you retarded, abortion refers to termination of a pregnancy but IF the pregnancy is NOT terminated then a child is the result and that is the responsibility of both parents.

Am i repeating myself, yes i am

Are you stupid and cannot read, yes you are.

 

[mchammer187]

I agree with most of it except the time frame. Everything must be settled before anyone is pregnant and before sex occurs. If you can get a woman to sign a contract prior to engaging in sexual intercourse with you that she is well aware that you choose to not bear any responsibility than it should absolve the man.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I was assured by one woman that she was using birth control, it turned out later that she considered the "rhythm method" effective birth control. It turned out not to be important, but why should the man be held responsible if the woman lies or is wrong about the method of birth control she is using?

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/rhythm-method/MY01003

Translation: "I'm a fucking retard so i won't use a condom and i might have paid for that but rather than blaming myself for my own stupidity i'll hate women because that is what good god fearing men do, they hate women"

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I agree. If you can get a woman to sign a contract prior to engaging in sexual intercourse with you that she is well aware that you choose to not bear any responsibility than it should absolve the man.

Get the future child that may be to sign it and i'll agree.

Are you people completely retarded. this hs nothing to do with anything but the resulting CHILD, not the woman, not the man but the CHILD.

If you want real daft fucks to answer a question, get Americans.

 

[mchammer187]

Get the future child that may be to sign it and i'll agree.

Are you people completely retarded. this hs nothing to do with anything but the resulting CHILD, not the woman, not the man but the CHILD.

If you want real daft fucks to answer a question, get Americans.

So I guess a child should have to sign any adoption papers too? What about abortion papers?

I think men should be able to waive there right as long as it is before the fact but not after the fact.

 

[Ancalagon44]

I agree with Lithium381.

The fact is, even if you use protection, accidents can happen that result in pregnancy. But the woman still has a choice - she can still abort. If she chooses not to abort, why should I be forced to support something that neither of us wanted? Its not only me, its her too, which is why the hypothetical we were using protection in the first place. All of a sudden, stuff happens, and she refuses the perfectly good option available to her, of abortion. Why must I then support the child and her?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

So I guess a child should have to sign any adoption papers too? What about abortion papers?

I think men should be able to waive there right as long as it is before the fact but not after the fact.

Abortion has to do with the womans body, i get that you want to emulate SA and take it away like any good fundamentalist Islamist.

Adoption refers to the guardians as it should and should be agreed on by both parents. If the mother relinquishes custody the father should automatically get custody and if he then chooses to put the child up for adoption, he can.

This is how it works in every western nation except the US of A.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I agree with Lithium381.

The fact is, even if you use protection, accidents can happen that result in pregnancy. But the woman still has a choice - she can still abort. If she chooses not to abort, why should I be forced to support something that neither of us wanted? Its not only me, its her too, which is why the hypothetical we were using protection in the first place. All of a sudden, stuff happens, and she refuses the perfectly good option available to her, of abortion. Why must I then support the child and her?

I swear to god..... you're so fucking retarded that you being on the internet is a fucking miracle.

Child support... THINK MCFLY!!!!

Is that perhaps to support the child you helped concieve?

If YOU get pregnant, YOU can have the choice of your own body just like woman would.

Next up, everyone who doesn't think that men should get to decide over womens bodies and don't want to pay child support are true non-PC heros of the tea party.

Le rednecke sublime perjure amende.

 

[mchammer187]

Abortion has to do with the womans body, i get that you want to emulate SA and take it away like any good fundamentalist Islamist.

Adoption refers to the guardians as it should and should be agreed on by both parents. If the mother relinquishes custody the father should automatically get custody and if he then chooses to put the child up for adoption, he can.

This is how it works in every western nation except the US of A.

What are you talking about I am very much pro choice and would never want to curb any abortion rights.

I said a man should be able to inform a woman that any child that results in intercourse is not my problem as long the woman is informed is prior to intercourse. As long as the woman consents to sex anyway than it is her problem if it results in pregnancy. If there is no understanding than it would work how it works now where the woman has full control.

 

[LumbergTech]

I agree with Lithium381.

The fact is, even if you use protection, accidents can happen that result in pregnancy. But the woman still has a choice - she can still abort. If she chooses not to abort, why should I be forced to support something that neither of us wanted? Its not only me, its her too, which is why the hypothetical we were using protection in the first place. All of a sudden, stuff happens, and she refuses the perfectly good option available to her, of abortion. Why must I then support the child and her?

Man up and quit making excuses..there enough children without decent families in this world..why the fuck is it so hard to just accept it when you have a fucking child and take care of it like you should? You slime bags are disgusting. Perfectly good option? HAHAHAHAHAHA holy fuck.....mind blown

 

[Geosurface]

There are 7 billion people on this planet, most of them pieces of shit wallowing in ignorance, racism, sexism, violence and poverty.

The more there are, the more they will produce. The more people there are, the worse the standard of living for all people will be.

I am in favor of any and all programs which discourage births, or incentivize population control via abortion, etc.

What this planet needs is about 3 billion educated people with a high standard of living.

7 billion ensures continued rape of the natural world, and increasingly miserable existences for those 7 billion and the 15 billion it will become in short order... and on and on and on.

Unless hard decisions are made and soon, the entire species will either go extinct, or live in such conditions as to make extinction look like the better option.

I support licensing for birth, with requirements of having a steady job, two committed parents (I don't care as to their gender), and a hard limit of 2 children per woman, with no resets by switching to a new partner.

I support a government program to offer $10,000 to anyone who will willingly be sterilized, male or female. It could be limited to people below a certain I.Q. or income level however I think just making the offer $10,000 would hopefully bring in only the sort of people you might've tried to target it at anyway.

Would there be plenty of people who, while low on cash... young, not thinking of later desires to be a parent, would come in and take the offer and later regret it? People who might've been great parents? Sure, of course. Still, it's a net gain. Fewer people being produced, good stuff.

These sorts of programs could be retired when population growth had been brought under control.

It isn't pretty, it sounds dystopian and scary, but either we start making the hard choices as a species, soon, or we just die and starve. Or lose all of our cultural heritage and hard-won development.

And yes, I agree specifically with the idea laid out in this thread.

This sort of thread is a really effective way to expose hypocrites isn't it? I've noticed people who REFUSE, flat out refuse... to actually answer the question directly, and insist on reinterpreting it and setting up a straw man nowhere near what the original idea was before they'll "tackle" it. Cowardly idiots.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

What are you talking about I am very much pro choice and would never want to curb any abortion rights.

I said a man should be able to inform a woman that any child that results in intercourse is not my problem as long the woman is informed is prior to intercourse. As long as the woman consents to sex anyway than it is her problem if it results in pregnancy. If there is no understanding than it would work how it works now where the woman has full control.

Sure you are, you just don't know it, while being for mens rights over womens bodies you think that... what you stupid fuck?

You don't get that a child needs support from both parents? You think child support is support of the mother and not the child?

I'm a grandfather and i can tell you that the level of child supprt demanded by law is about 1/5th of what a child needs. (in this case personal experience IS a contributing factor of knoledge because all youngins are about the same when it comes to crappin, eatin and sleepin)

AGAIN, a resulting child needs support and even if it's from a loser like you, it's still three fiddy which is your monthly payment.

"a man should be able to decide that he shall have no part in what he helped concieve" is your argument and it's so fucking retarded that your parents must have been subjected to higher level of radiations to have a child as fucking retarded as yourself.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

There are 7 billion people on this planet, most of them pieces of shit wallowing in ignorance, racism, sexism, violence and poverty.

The more there are, the more they will produce. The more people there are, the worse the standard of living for all people will be.

I am in favor of any and all programs which discourage births, or incentivize population control via abortion, etc.

What this planet needs is about 3 billion educated people with a high standard of living.

7 billion ensures continued rape of the natural world, and increasingly miserable existences for those 7 billion and the 15 billion it will become in short order... and on and on and on.

Unless hard decisions are made and soon, the entire species will either go extinct, or live in such conditions as to make extinction look like the better option.

I support licensing for birth, with requirements of having a steady job, two committed parents (I don't care as to their gender), and a hard limit of 2 children per woman, with no resets by switching to a new partner.

I support a government program to offer $10,000 to anyone who will willingly be sterilized, male or female. It could be limited to people below a certain I.Q. or income level however I think just making the offer $10,000 would hopefully bring in only the sort of people you might've tried to target it at anyway.

Would there be plenty of people who, while low on cash... young, not thinking of later desires to be a parent, would come in and take the offer and later regret it? People who might've been great parents? Sure, of course. Still, it's a net gain. Fewer people being produced, good stuff.

These sorts of programs could be retired when population growth had been brought under control.

It isn't pretty, it sounds dystopian and scary, but either we start making the hard choices as a species, soon, or we just die and starve. Or lose all of our cultural heritage and hard-won development.

And yes, I agree specifically with the idea laid out in this thread.

This sort of thread is a really effective way to expose hypocrites isn't it? I've noticed people who REFUSE, flat out refuse... to actually answer the question directly, and insist on reinterpreting it and setting up a straw man nowhere near what the original idea was before they'll "tackle" it. Cowardly idiots.

Go CHINA!

FUCK democracy'!

 

[Geosurface]

Go CHINA!

FUCK democracy'!

Democracy ceases to function properly or in a desirable way once your voter pool turns into a bunch of ignorant morons.

For example, if you lived in a town with a total population of 5,000 and 4,500 of those people were clinically certified to be mentally retarded, or for a less extreme example... 4,500 of those people had never attended any sort of school, sneered at the idea of reading the news or learning about science or any sort of intellectual endeavor, and had never read a book in their lives... in fact were illiterate, would you want that town to be a democracy?

Would you want your life to be subject to the whims and emotions of those people, or the reactions within those people that corrupt, greedy politicians were able to evoke?