Should men also have the "right to choose"

[Jhhnn]

Are you refuting what I said, that this thread is full of libs saying men should have kept it in their pants but since they had sex they gave up their rights, but women do not give up their rights when they decide to remove their pants and have sex?

It simply appears you are justifying this statement, not refuting it. Are you justifying it or refuting it?

I didn't stutter, did I?

Quit pretending that I did, and quit pretending it's a matter of rights rather than biology.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you believe women who do not want children should should not have sex become sterilized? You know this means you are saying that most abortions should not be allowed, right?

You need to edit that for clarity.

 

[cybrsage]

It IS a matter of rights. And you are often quite unclear in what you say because you refuse to actaully clarify yourself. It is because you are ashamed of your views when they are placed in the light of day.

EDIT: Just like my next post when you are mad that I am clearly showing your stated position.

 

[cybrsage]

You need to edit that for clarity.

Don't want children? Then don't engage in the kind of sex that creates them, have a vasectomy, or embrace celibacy.

Do you apply this view to women also?

Yes.

Very straightforward, you clarified your own position for us. You say women who do not want children should not engagei n the kind of sex that creates them, have a vasectomy (tubes tied, etc for women obviously - this is my addition due to it being impossible for women to have a vasectomy), or embrace celibacy.

If you are not saying this, then you lied when you said yes.

 

[Jhhnn]

It IS a matter of rights. And you are often quite unclear in what you say because you refuse to actaully clarify yourself. It is because you are ashamed of your views when they are placed in the light of day.

EDIT: Just like my next post when you are mad that I am clearly showing your stated position.

I simply refuse to accept your use of rhetorical strawmen. What I offered is quite clear, making your efforts transparent. You're not asking for clarification, but rather for validation of a strawman argument. I refuse.

 

[cybrsage]

There you go, getting all mad when YOU expose your own position to the light of day. You did exactly what you always do, run away instead of explain how you can hold both your position and claim you do not hold it at the same time.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you believe women who do not want children should should not have sex become sterilized? You know this means you are saying that most abortions should not be allowed, right?

This statement is so grammatically incorrect that it makes no sense, which is why I offered that you should edit. It probably won't make sense even after that, but at least it might be clear enough to be addressed.

 

[cybrsage]

Point out the grammar errors and then actually explain why you lied in your statement that you also apply your view to women.

 

[Jhhnn]

There you go, getting all mad when YOU expose your own position to the light of day. You did exactly what you always do, run away instead of explain how you can hold both your position and claim you do not hold it at the same time.

My positions are clear enough w/o your strawman interpretations, so I let them stand on their own.

The only credible way to deal with a strawman is to call it for what it is.

 

[cybrsage]

You are correct, your position is VERY clear:

You need to edit that for clarity.

Don't want children? Then don't engage in the kind of sex that creates them, have a vasectomy, or embrace celibacy.

Do you apply this view to women also?

Yes.

You say women who do not want children should not engage in the kind of sex that creates them, have a vasectomy (tubes tied, etc for women obviously - this is my addition due to it being impossible for women to have a vasectomy), or embrace celibacy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Point out the grammar errors and then actually explain why you lied in your statement that you also apply your view to women.

"should should" Really? You think that makes sense?

"not have sex become sterilized" is any better?

This is grammatical comprehensible, although it is still a strawman-

"You know this means you are saying that most abortions should not be allowed, right?"

I didn't say that at all.

 

[lotus503]

Why should the unborn child be executed due to the woman not wanting to be bothered with a child? The unborn child's body is not her body, you know.

Unborn= fetus
Born = child

 

[nehalem256]

Then your use of the term "sluts" was pure sexism, correct? And your current efforts more of the same desire to obfuscate men's responsibility, excuse their behavior.

A woman who is pregnant and does not know who the father is, is a slut. How is that up for dispute?

In the case you reference, modern hospital techniques have the same effect on the child as the mother leaving it at the convent, at least in Oklahoma.

So you are saying that it has always been acceptable for women to abandon their children. Why shouldn't men have the same option?

There is a price for creating & living in a relatively free society, and such edge cases are the result. Drug addicts are sick people, afflicted, living hand to mouth. Pregnancy is generally not something they want. I suggested that efforts be made to reach out to them to provide effective contraception/ sterilization to them at no charge, which is what they can actually afford.

So allowing women to continue abusing children is the price for a free society

You say we should force it upon them. Perhaps we should force it upon their male partners as well, huh? The penalty for soliciting a prostitute should be... sterilization!

If a man has 7 children removed him for abusing them I would agree he should be sterilized. What does soliciting a prostitute have to do with showing someone is an unfit parent?

 

[Abraxas]

Are you saying we don't already have a system with massive government intervention?

No, but by doing away with child support, it would have to become massively larger. According to the US census, the total for child support in the US for 2007 was 34.1 billion dollars in raw amount owed. Is that an amount you'd have us toss on the deficit instead?

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/children/cb09-170.html

It seems that the simplest solution is to disallow having children out of wedlock. As well as no-fault divorce.

Disallow how? Forced sterilization? Mandatory abortion? Confiscation of the children? Also, that only helps with the kids born out of wedlock, what about kids who are born in wedlock but after which there is a divorce? Do we abort them too?

"Hey Timmy, congrats on your varsity track win the other day. I hate to have to tell you this but your dad decided he doesn't want to pay child support any more so we're going to have to put you down. Please report to the incinerator for immediate processing."

 

[blankslate]

What if the woman says "don't worry about a condom Im on the pill", but actually isnt?

If you absolutely positively don't get a woman pregnant you'll use a condom regardless of what she's saying won't you? Well?

This is irrelevant no one is talking about forcing women to carry babies for 9 months. We are saying that women cannot force other people to take responsibility to carry a baby for 9 months.

It's not irrelevant because we're talking about the consequences of having sex. And they are different for men and women.

In the current state society if a woman gets pregnant she sure as hell didn't do it by herself and if for some reason she doesn't want to have an abortion and is too attached to put her child up for adoption the man, if he can be identified, is on the hook for child support.

If he doesn't want to be a father then he should fucking wear a condom or get snipped or abstain until the male birth control pill is a reality.

Seriously if you're going to engage in sex be aware of the possible consequences and the new responsibilities you might be facing.

Man up as it were.

 

[Jhhnn]

A woman who is pregnant and does not know who the father is, is a slut. How is that up for dispute?

Is it the multiple partners that makes her a slut? If so, then the term should be applied to men who have multiple partners. Or is it being pregnant that makes her a slut in your estimation?

So you are saying that it has always been acceptable for women to abandon their children. Why shouldn't men have the same option?

It's only been acceptable when women abandon their babies into situations presumably better than what they can provide. Your scenario wrt men does not fulfill that test.

So allowing women to continue abusing children is the price for a free society

When you need to employ strawmen, you have no argument.

If a man has 7 children removed him for abusing them I would agree he should be sterilized. What does soliciting a prostitute have to do with showing someone is an unfit parent?

Heh. It has to do with making prostitutes into mothers. At least you're trying to be a consistent Nazi in this particular regard.

 

[Jhhnn]

Man up as it were.

Not a freaking prayer.

 

[Darwin333]

Men already made their choice when they decided to have sex with a woman. No form of contraception is perfect, and we all know that. We also understand that once impregnated, women have sole discretion wrt bringing the fetus to term.

You're suggesting that men get a do-over if anything goes against them, facilitated by limiting women's choices.

Don't want children? Then don't engage in the kind of sex that creates them, have a vasectomy, or embrace celibacy.

Isn't that the exact same argument the pro-lifers use?

Then the other side of the argument is that its their body and their choice. However, men (especially those without desk jobs) must use and often abuse their bodies in order to make money. So its ok to force a man to do something with his body that he does not want to do but its not ok when its a woman?

 

[Jhhnn]

Isn't that the exact same argument the pro-lifers use?

No.

Then the other side of the argument is that its their body and their choice. However, men (especially those without desk jobs) must use and often abuse their bodies in order to make money. So its ok to force a man to do something with his body that he does not want to do but its not ok when its a woman?

Apples and aardvarks. Different realms. Women often have physically demanding jobs, as well, particularly in commercial laundries, food processing, manufacturing, etc.

 

[Geosurface]

I see that literally every single person on the negative side of this argument (as in, not in support of this thread's proposed idea) continues to dwell in the realm of personal insult, hypocrisy, constant reference to strawmen and "concern trolling" (never heard that one before) and an unwavering refusal to ever directly address a question.

Even if you believed the question to be disingenuous or a strawman, you could... with very little effort, still address it legitimately. That's what you would do, if you had a legitimate answer. If not for the benefit of the person asking, for others reading the exchange.

I'm forced to conclude by the endless slippery bullshit and dodging of questions, coupled with the personal insults and blatant sexist double standards re: responsibility, that those posters are entirely dishonest, and fully aware of being so.

 

[nehalem256]

Is it the multiple partners that makes her a slut? If so, then the term should be applied to men who have multiple partners. Or is it being pregnant that makes her a slut in your estimation?

Its being pregnant and not knowing the father that makes her an obvious slut.

You are welcome to call men with multiple partners sluts. But I hope you enjoy being laughed at.

It's only been acceptable when women abandon their babies into situations presumably better than what they can provide. Your scenario wrt men does not fulfill that test.

So you have no problem with women abandoning their children after they are born. You only have a problem when men do it.

Kinda shots a big hole in your argument about opposing men's rights being about biology, or the woman's body huh.

Heh. It has to do with making prostitutes into mothers. At least you're trying to be a consistent Nazi in this particular regard.

I did not realize prostitutes could not use birth control or get abortions. Hiring a prostitute does not make her a mother.

Because preventing people who repeatedly abuse their children from having more children makes you a "Nazi"

 

[nehalem256]

Disallow how? Forced sterilization? Mandatory abortion? Confiscation of the children?

Mandatory abortion would seem the most sensible.

Also, that only helps with the kids born out of wedlock, what about kids who are born in wedlock but after which there is a divorce? Do we abort them too?

(1) This is why you eliminate no-fault divorce to vastly cut down on the number

(2) In the event of an at-fault divorce. The party who is not at fault would keep the children while the at-fault party was responsible for child support.

EDIT: Also note the OP specified that the man would have state he did not want to be the father BEFORE it was born, so the woman would have time to choose what to do.

 

[nehalem256]

If you absolutely positively don't get a woman pregnant you'll use a condom regardless of what she's saying won't you? Well?

So your argument is that women cannot be trusted with their word.

And I assume that since you have no problem with women lying about the use of birth control you would have no problem with a man deciding to take the condom off half way through sex?

It's not irrelevant because we're talking about the consequences of having sex. And they are different for men and women.

In the current state society if a woman gets pregnant she sure as hell didn't do it by herself and if for some reason she doesn't want to have an abortion and is too attached to put her child up for adoption the man, if he can be identified, is on the hook for child support.

Why do you keep repeating how things are. Everyone here knows how they are. The argument is that this is unequal and should be changed.

Seriously if you're going to engage in sex be aware of the possible consequences and the new responsibilities you might be facing.

Man up as it were.

Interesting how the term is "Man" up huh. ^_^

Because only the men have to deal with being forced to be a parent.

 

[Jhhnn]

Its being pregnant and not knowing the father that makes her an obvious slut.

You are welcome to call men with multiple partners sluts. But I hope you enjoy being laughed at.

If she's not pregnant, regardless of promiscuous sexuality, she's not a slut. She's only a slut if she is pregnant. A man who acts the same way is not to be denigrated, however, regardless of who he may have impregnated.

Is that a triple double standard, or what?

So you have no problem with women abandoning their children after they are born. You only have a problem when men do it.

Kinda shots a big hole in your argument about opposing men's rights being about biology, or the woman's body huh.

Deliberate obtusity. A man saying "not my problem" doesn't put his potential child in a better situation than him supporting it. A poor woman abandoning her baby at the firehouse or convent obviously puts the infant in the hands of those who can.

I did not realize prostitutes could not use birth control or get abortions. Hiring a prostitute does not make her a mother.

When it does, the man is equally culpable.

Because preventing people who repeatedly abuse their children from having more children makes you a "Nazi"

Yes, it does, at least with your methodology. I offered that free & voluntary means would likely serve the same ends.

 

[nehalem256]

If she's not pregnant, regardless of promiscuous sexuality, she's not a slut. She's only a slut if she is pregnant. A man who acts the same way is not to be denigrated, however, regardless of who he may have impregnated.

Is that a triple double standard, or what?

A slut is a person who is sexually promiscuous. Being pregnant and not knowing the father just makes it abundantly clear that you are a slut. And you are free to start calling men who sleep around sluts. Hopefully you don't mind being laughed at. The equivalent insult for a man would generally be manwhore.

Your right because clearly men are never denigrated for impregnating multiple women. Clearly you missed the thread about the guy with 30 kids.

Deliberate obtusity. A man saying "not my problem" doesn't put his potential child in a better situation than him supporting it. A poor woman abandoning her baby at the firehouse or convent obviously puts the infant in the hands of those who can.

So you are conceding that you having no problem with a woman abandoning her child.

It is only wrong if a man does it.

Yes, it does, at least with your methodology. I offered that free & voluntary means would likely serve the same ends.

Note the use of the word "voluntary". And I know if I want to prevent kids from being abused I am going to rely on the good sense of crack whores who abused their previous 7 children. I mean its not like they could have just dumped them at the hospital or anything if they didn't want to care for them