Should men also have the "right to choose"

[Jhhnn]

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.

Only legitimate questions deserve legitimate response. "You realize that what you said means X" is not a legitimate statement when it never meant X at all, and is clearly so. There's nothing to address, other than the use of such dishonest techniques.

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.

There's no slippery slope, other than in the deliberate obfuscations of Nehalem & Cybr.

Pregnancy & childbearing are exclusively in the realm of women. Men simply cannot experience them, so no "equality" is possible in that. In our society, and the rest of the developed world, a woman's sovereignty over her body is absolute. Therefore, men have no say about it, other than deciding to support a woman's choices or not. They're her choices, rightfully so, because she'll bear the consequences of them in ways that no man possibly can. That difference, that dichotomy, is part of the human condition, a function of gender & the extended childhood of our evolutionary heritage. Human childhood lasts a very long time in comparison to other creatures.

There is, however, usually equality in the creation of a fetus. In the most desirable situations for progeny, should progeny occur, equal responsibility exists in the need to support & nurture that child. It has always been so.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.




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

It is only wrong if a man does it.

More of the deliberately obtuse. I only approve of it when women abandon their babies in dire circumstances, and to situations where that infant will likely receive much better care than the mother can provide. This is the third time I've said so.

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

In that, you're mistaken. Only recently have some states allowed women to abandon their children at safe places w/o being prosecuted if found out. Only recently have some states instituted procedures to determine a newborn's exposure to drugs & statutes allowing them to be taken from the mother. None of that is universal.

Women instinctively bond with their babies, and will usually attempt to care for them, even when they're really incapable or debilitated by alcoholism or addiction. Sometimes they believe that having a baby will help them straighten out, and sometimes that's true. Those who've had multiple failures at that likely don't really want more children, and no attempts have ever been made to help them achieve that through free & voluntary sterilization. Jumping past that to forced sterilization is not warranted when that's taken into account.

 

[nehalem256]

Only legitimate questions deserve legitimate response. "You realize that what you said means X" is not a legitimate statement when it never meant X at all, and is clearly so. There's nothing to address, other than the use of such dishonest techniques.



There's no slippery slope, other than in the deliberate obfuscations of Nehalem & Cybr.

Pregnancy & childbearing are exclusively in the realm of women. Men simply cannot experience them, so no "equality" is possible in that. In our society, and the rest of the developed world, a woman's sovereignty over her body is absolute. Therefore, men have no say about it, other than deciding to support a woman's choices or not. They're her choices, rightfully so, because she'll bear the consequences of them in ways that no man possibly can. That difference, that dichotomy, is part of the human condition, a function of gender & the extended childhood of our evolutionary heritage. Human childhood lasts a very long time in comparison to other creatures.

Wrong men are forced to support women's choices.

There is, however, usually equality in the creation of a fetus. In the most desirable situations for progeny, should progeny occur, equal responsibility exists in the need to support & nurture that child. It has always been so.

A fetus is not a child. While there is equal responsibility in the creation of the fetus. There is not equal responsibility in the creation of the child. As you pointed out above: "Pregnancy and childbearing are exclusively in the realm of women". Women are exclusively responsible for the the creation of a child from a fetus.

 

[nehalem256]

In that, you're mistaken. Only recently have some states allowed women to abandon their children at safe places w/o being prosecuted if found out. Only recently have some states instituted procedures to determine a newborn's exposure to drugs & statutes allowing them to be taken from the mother. None of that is universal.

Women instinctively bond with their babies, and will usually attempt to care for them, even when they're really incapable or debilitated by alcoholism or addiction. Sometimes they believe that having a baby will help them straighten out, and sometimes that's true. Those who've had multiple failures at that likely don't really want more children, and no attempts have ever been made to help them achieve that through free & voluntary sterilization. Jumping past that to forced sterilization is not warranted when that's taken into account.

Either the woman would agree to a voluntary sterilization in which case the forced one is no different, or the woman will not, in which case if anything it is even more necessary to sterilize her.

In any case. If you repeatedly abuse your children you lose the right to have them. Her choice is irrelevant.

 

[nehalem256]

More of the deliberately obtuse. I only approve of it when women abandon their babies in dire circumstances, and to situations where that infant will likely receive much better care than the mother can provide. This is the third time I've said so.

Rarely is there any real "dire circumstances". Other than the girl will feel ashamed. You know the same reason people use to abandon babies to convents.

 

[Jhhnn]

Either the woman would agree to a voluntary sterilization in which case the forced one is no different, or the woman will not, in which case if anything it is even more necessary to sterilize her.

In any case. If you repeatedly abuse your children you lose the right to have them. Her choice is irrelevant.

Well, then, a man being forced to pay child support is no different than him voluntarily doing so, right?

In the case of the Oklahoma woman who is a drug addict, it was only necessary to take the baby from her at birth, not to sterilize her.

 

[Jhhnn]

Rarely is there any real "dire circumstances". Other than the girl will feel ashamed. You know the same reason people use to abandon babies to convents.

Mere assertion unsubstantiated by evidence of any kind.

You already knew that.

 

[ericlp]

yeah man has a choice to either wear a condom or don't! Dumb fucks...

 

[lotus503]

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.

Forum dos and don't by geo.

I don't owe you or the other freaks anything. Cyber and his Mary band of circular discussion trolls can stick it up their ass. They are not owed anything.

They are forum ticks that suck the life out of any legitimate discussion.

 

[nehalem256]

Well, then, a man being forced to pay child support is no different than him voluntarily doing so, right?

Assuming he was going to pay anyway there is not.

The only difference is if the person will not go along with performing the action voluntarily. The difference is the man has not abused 7 children previously.

In the case of the Oklahoma woman who is a drug addict, it was only necessary to take the baby from her at birth, not to sterilize her.

So the woman should be able to dump responsibility for her child onto the state? In fact you seem to be arguing she has a RIGHT to dump responsibility for her child onto the state.

Reasonable people agree that rights can have reasonable limits. For instance freedom of speech does not protect falsely crying fire in a crowded theater.

Just as no reasonable person would argue for the right of a woman to have children when she has repeatedly abused her children in the past. Don't want to be sterilized, don't repeatedly abuse your children. Its not exactly asking a lot.

 

[nehalem256]

Mere assertion unsubstantiated by evidence of any kind.

You already knew that.

Feel free to give an example of a "dire" circumstance under which you think women should be able to abandon their child.

 

[dali71]

Wait... UberNeuman is a woman? I want lesbian sex with her and i want it NOW!

Wait...JohnOfSheffield is a woman? Did "he" finally give up on claiming to be in the SAS?

 

[cybrsage]

Just to clear the air:

slut

   /slʌt/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[sluht] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
noun 1. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slut?s=t

 

[Retro Rob]

A fetus is not a child. While there is equal responsibility in the creation of the fetus. There is not equal responsibility in the creation of the child.

This is why I think that children should be discussed and agreed upon whether the choice is for or against -- communication is key.

If the couple isn't married, I would say that the choice probably stays with the woman. But if the couple is married, then this should be a mutually agreed upon decision. There is no longer "this is my body" or " I can do what I want" from either parties. A man can't tell his wife "this is my penis and I can stick it in whoever I want".

Though we can't tell people to not have sex, all I think people need to do is to think! You have sex, you can get preggo. You don't, you can't. You use preventive measures, the likelihood of that happening decrease.

My wife and I talked at length about kids before we got married, and the decision was that we don't want any. BUT, if we did, we are willing to take care of it. However, we use birth control because we know that it is more than likely to happen if we didn't use it.

Is that so hard? Why some people are making life harder on themselves is beyond me.

EDIT: If the couple isn't married, then if the woman loves him, she will take his feelings into consideration if he wants to keep the unborn. If she doesn't, she won't.

If she love/respects life, she wont abort period. the lack of love and respect for life is astounding!

 

[nehalem256]

This is why I think that children should be discussed and agreed upon whether the choice is for or against -- communication is key.

If the couple isn't married, I would say that the choice probably stays with the woman. But if the couple is married, then this should be a mutually agreed upon decision. There is no longer "this is my body" or " I can do what I want" from either parties. A man can't tell his wife "this is my penis and I can stick it in whoever I want".

Though we can't tell people to not have sex, all I think people need to do is to think! You have sex, you can get preggo. You don't, you can't. You use preventive measures, the likelihood of that happening decrease.

My wife and I talked at length about kids before we got married, and the decision was that we don't want any. BUT, if we did, we are willing to take care of it. However, we use birth control because we know that it is more than likely to happen if we didn't use it.

Is that so hard? Why some people are making life harder on themselves is beyond me.

EDIT: If the couple isn't married, then if the woman loves him, she will take his feelings into consideration if he wants to keep the unborn. If she doesn't, she won't.

If she love/respects life, she wont abort period. the lack of love and respect for life is astounding!

This is all well in good for people who are married or in a serious relationship with each other.

The real problem is what happens if you hook up with some random sorority chick you meet at a party?

 

[Jhhnn]

Wrong men are forced to support women's choices.

That's been true since ancient times, for the most part. So what?

A fetus is not a child. While there is equal responsibility in the creation of the fetus. There is not equal responsibility in the creation of the child. As you pointed out above: "Pregnancy and childbearing are exclusively in the realm of women". Women are exclusively responsible for the the creation of a child from a fetus.

Again, so what? Having been initiated, the process passes into the hands of the woman, as it always has. Once the process of pregnancy and birth is completed, it passes back to the realm of mutual responsibility. That hasn't changed, either.

Until just recently, men were responsible for the woman's welfare all along, as well as their children. In many respects, women's equality & entry into the workplace has eased that burden, even as DNA testing & the other law enforcement aspects of society have put many men into the position where they have to act responsibly, whether they want to or not.

Too bad- so sad. I hear the world's smallest violin playing just for them.

 

[waggy]

you wanna "opt" out of supporting your new found bundle of joy - here it is....

don't have sex.....

no sex. no child.

/this

you fuck her and she carries it. you pay for it.


I DO think a guy should have a say on the abortion though. i do think its BS that a women does not need permission to end its life.

I also understand why it is that way though.

 

[Retro Rob]

The real problem is what happens if you hook up with some random sorority chick you meet at a party?

Simple. Don't hook up with some random chick you meet at a party. More than likely, she's done it more than once in that manner, and may have children already.

Sex is natural, but humans have choices and can restrain themselves from bad situations and avoid them altogether.

It's really not that hard. It becomes hard when you put yourselves in compromising situations. Don't do that.

You don't want a DUI, don't drive drunk. You don't want kids by random women, don't sleep with random women.

Simple.

 

[Jhhnn]

Feel free to give an example of a "dire" circumstance under which you think women should be able to abandon their child.

They get to determine that. I don't. I won't speculate, other than to say that the instinctive bond of a mother to her newborn is usually very strong, & that she needs to see her situation as dire to break it.

 

[Retro Rob]

They get to determine that. I don't. I won't speculate, other than to say that the instinctive bond of a mother to her newborn is usually very strong, & that she needs to see her situation as dire to break it.

This may have been mentioned, but there are situations (very rare, according to doctors) in which the mother's life is in mortal danger due to a complication associated with birthing a child.

Then, I think it's a personal decision.

 

[nehalem256]

They get to determine that. I don't. I won't speculate, other than to say that the instinctive bond of a mother to her newborn is usually very strong, & that she needs to see her situation as dire to break it.

Which of course explains why so many women were killing their infants that special laws had to be created so women could abandon their responsibilites

 

[Jhhnn]

Assuming he was going to pay anyway there is not.

Deliberately lame. Assume he wasn't.

The only difference is if the person will not go along with performing the action voluntarily. The difference is the man has not abused 7 children previously.

No shit, Sherlock. As I pointed out, & you choose to ignore, there have never been provisions for anything free & voluntary wrt sterilization.

So the woman should be able to dump responsibility for her child onto the state? In fact you seem to be arguing she has a RIGHT to dump responsibility for her child onto the state.

The state has the responsibility to care for unwanted & neglected children.

Reasonable people agree that rights can have reasonable limits. For instance freedom of speech does not protect falsely crying fire in a crowded theater.

Of course. For many people, that doesn't extend to forced sterilization.

Just as no reasonable person would argue for the right of a woman to have children when she has repeatedly abused her children in the past. Don't want to be sterilized, don't repeatedly abuse your children. Its not exactly asking a lot.

No reasonable person argues for forced abortion or sterilization, at least not in this country. Don't want the state to take your money to care for abused & neglected children? Move to some third world shithole where they don't.

 

[nehalem256]

Deliberately lame. Assume he wasn't.

As I believe I pointed out the difference is the man was not engaged in child abuse.

No shit, Sherlock. As I pointed out, & you choose to ignore, there have never been provisions for anything free & voluntary wrt sterilization.

It is not the job of the state to provide free sterilization to people.

The state has the responsibility to care for unwanted & neglected children.

It would seem to be more sensible to prevent unwanted and neglected children from existing in the first place.

And I am confused about why there are unwanted children??? Why are women failing to get abortions to rid themselves of unwanted children in the first place?

Of course. That doesn't extend to forced sterilization for many people.

So you think many women repeatedly abuse their children. And while this is an excellent argument against giving women choices. I fail to see how it is an argument against men having choices.

No reasonable person argues for forced abortion or sterilization, at least not in this country. Don't want the state to take your money to care for abused & neglected children? Move to some third world shithole where they don't.

Once again you are proving that all your arguments based around caring about children are BS.

You would rather see a child abused than tell a woman what to do with her body

 

[Jhhnn]

So you think many women repeatedly abuse their children. And while this is an excellent argument against giving women choices. I fail to see how it is an argument against men having choices.

Oh, please. my phrasing was a bit awkward. I'll edit.

 

[lotus503]

Which of course explains why so many women were killing their infants that special laws had to be created so women could abandon their responsibilites

Laws were not created so women could abandon the child they allowed the woman to for the child's safety.