Trumps centrist abortion stance, new & improved

[fskimospy]

NM, I misread Eski's post.

As for the rest, did the woman not engage in the very same action? Does a laborer not make money with their body? Yet a woman does have the ability to absolve herself of the responsibilities of her actions because it is her body that will be carrying the child for 9 months, and I agree that it should be that way. OTOH, a man does not have the ability to absolve himself of the responsibilities of his actions and will be forced to use his body for almost, if not more, then two decades.

I don't have a good answer but to claim that both parties are equally responsible for their actions is just wrong. The only way for there to be equality is to give men the same exact time period to sign away their rights and absolve themselves of any responsibility or rights to the child. As I said before, that has societal consequences as well but both parties would be given essentially the exact same choice for mostly the exact same reasons.

That wouldn't be equal at all. In your case if a woman didn't want a kid there would be no kid. If a man didn't want a kid there would be a child without a father.

The whole point that men's rights people miss is that the obligation is to the child, not the woman. They are so desperate to win against women that they miss the whole point.

 

[dank69]

... If she knew, from the beginning, that nobody was going to help her, perhaps she'd not spread her legs.

...

This is what it always comes down to with you shitheads. Punishing women for enjoying sex.

 

[LegendKiller]

This is what it always comes down to with you shitheads. Punishing women for enjoying sex.

Women want the control so they are the ultimate arbiters. It isn't punishment, it is responsibility. You white knights want to give them equal rights but absolve them from responsibility, which is hypocritical.

 

[fskimospy]

Women want the control so they are the ultimate arbiters. It isn't punishment, it is responsibility. You white knights want to give them equal rights but absolve them from responsibility, which is hypocritical.

No, we want all parties to have equal responsibility while you want special rights for men. It's ironic that you keep complaining about women getting preferential treatment while explicitly arguing that men should get preferential treatment.

By the way I'm still waiting on you to explain why you think a woman's choice absolves you of your responsibilities to a third party who was not involved in that choice?

 

[dank69]

He is talking about a mans "right" to choose to have a child or not. Nothing like forced abortion or anything but basically be given the same time frame as a woman to sign away his rights and be off the hook. The argument from the other side is that it benefits society for a man to support his child but there is definitely an inequality of "fairness" in the situation. All other arguments like "well if he didn't want a kid he shouldn't have fucked her" can be said about women too. Hell even the same argument that women use for abortion can be used for men. Almost everyone has to use their body in some form or another in order to make money yet they have no choice in whether they will be forced to use their bodies for two decades to support an unwanted child. So the "their bodies their choice" argument does indeed fit.

I fall somewhere in the middle but I'd much rather see the inequality in the family court system worked out first.

Your options for "equality" are:

1) Giving the father the right to force a woman to get an abortion and the right to prevent her from having one.

2) Giving the father the right to abandon all responsibility for any child.

The first is pure insanity and the second isn't really equality now is it?

 

[LegendKiller]

No, we want all parties to have equal responsibility while you want special rights for men. It's ironic that you keep complaining about women getting preferential treatment while explicitly arguing that men should get preferential treatment.

By the way I'm still waiting on you to explain why you think a woman's choice absolves you of your responsibilities to a third party who was not involved in that choice?

If a woman claims all ownership of the decision, she claims all responsibility for it.

 

[LegendKiller]

Your options for "equality" are:

1) Giving the father the right to force a woman to get an abortion and the right to prevent her from having one

2) Giving the father the right to abandon all responsibility for any child.

The first is pure insanity and the second isn't really equality now is it?

The second is equality. She wants the decision, she owns it.

 

[fskimospy]

If a woman claims all ownership of the decision, she claims all responsibility for it.

What does that have to do with your obligations to a third party? Those are your obligations, you don't get to just magically offload them to other people without their consent.

So again, how is someone else's choices absolving you of your legal obligations? Did you get them to sign a contract? I'm confused as this would be a dramatic departure from US law as it currently exists.

 

[LegendKiller]

What does that have to do with your obligations to a third party? Those are your obligations, you don't get to just magically offload them to other people without their consent.

So again, how is someone else's choices absolving you of your legal obligations? Did you get them to sign a contract? I'm confused as this would be a dramatic departure from US law as it currently exists.

The us law was changed over time to absolve women from responsibility in response to the feminist lib and abortion rights.

Then the women should be responsible to the 3rd party because she is the one who cut out the father from the decision process. Perhaps they'd think twice about having kids out of wedlock. Moral hazard.

 

[fskimospy]

The second is equality. She wants the decision, she owns it.

Legendkiller's idea of equality is that women have two choices:

1. Be prevented by law from controlling their own bodies.
2. Assume all responsibilities for raising children in perpetuity, allowing men to abandon their children at will without consequence.

Such equality! lol.

 

[fskimospy]

The us law was changed over time to absolve women from responsibility in response to the feminist lib and abortion rights.

Then the women should be responsible to the 3rd party because she is the one who cut out the father from the decision process. Perhaps they'd think twice about having kids out of wedlock. Moral hazard.

You aren't answering my question. You have a legal obligation to a third party. How does a woman deciding not to terminate that third party transfer your obligation to that third party from you to her? Did you sign a contract with her? This is all very strange legal reasoning.

I also think it's hilarious that you think there's a moral hazard through forcing both parents to care for their child but don't see the incredibly obvious moral hazard of allowing one parent to abandon their children at will. Then again this has always been about special extra privileges for men, so maybe that's the whole point.

 

[LegendKiller]

You aren't answering my question. You have a legal obligation to a third party. How does a woman deciding not to terminate that third party transfer your obligation to that third party from you to her? Did you sign a contract with her? This is all very strange legal reasoning.

I also think it's hilarious that you think there's a moral hazard through forcing both parents to care for their child but don't see the incredibly obvious moral hazard of allowing one parent to abandon their children at will. Then again this has always been about special extra privileges for men, so maybe that's the whole point.

Again, if the woman assumes all decision making she is assuming responsibility.

 

[LegendKiller]

Legendkiller's idea of equality is that women have two choices:

1. Be prevented by law from controlling their own bodies.
2. Assume all responsibilities for raising children in perpetuity, allowing men to abandon their children at will without consequence.

Such equality! lol.

If she wants to power, she accepts responsibility. She accepts responsibility she can either put it up for adoption or raise it on her own. She doesn't like those options? Don't have kids out of wedlock.

 

[dank69]

The second is equality. She wants the decision, she owns it.

So I assume you think the woman should have the right to abandon her children at any time with no responsibility to them?

 

[fskimospy]

Again, if the woman assumes all decision making she is assuming responsibility.

What is this based on? I'm looking for any legal principle that allows you to unilaterally assign your obligations to a third party to someone else without their consent because they made a decision about their own body that you didn't have veto power over. Maybe women should be able to assign all responsibility for caring for your mutual children to you because you wouldn't get a vasectomy.

You're just dogmatically repeating yourself because you have no answer. Just admit you want special privileges for men and be done with it. You have a stupid and shitty position but the least you could do is not try and lie about it.

 

[fskimospy]

If she wants to power, she accepts responsibility. She accepts responsibility she can either put it up for adoption or raise it on her own. She doesn't like those options? Don't have kids out of wedlock.

The absence of having someone else prohibit you from control of your own body is not wanting power, it's wanting other people to stop wielding power over you. You're just mad that you don't get to control women as much as you want to.

You get someone pregnant? You're responsible for the results. Don't like those options? Get a vasectomy, use protection, or don't have sex out of wedlock. Everyone is equally responsible for the children they create. That's real equality, not special privileges.

 

[LegendKiller]

The absence of having someone else prohibit you from control of your own body is not wanting power, it's wanting other people to stop wielding power over you. You're just mad that you don't get to control women as much as you want to.

You get someone pregnant? You're responsible for the results. Don't like those options? Get a vasectomy, use protection, or don't have sex out of wedlock. Everyone is equally responsible for the children they create. That's real equality, not special privileges.

I don't want to control women. I want them to control themselves.

They want the control, then they should control, not offload responsibility.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't want to control women. I want them to control themselves.

Of course you do. You said that because the state isn't stopping them from having abortions if they so choose that this has given you the right to refuse to care for your children at any time. Forcing someone to solely care for your mutual offspring any time you feel like it is to wield tremendous power over them.

 

[fskimospy]

They want the control, then they should control, not offload responsibility.

Do you genuinely not understand that abandoning your own offspring is the very definition of offloading responsibility?

 

[LegendKiller]

Do you genuinely not understand that abandoning your own offspring is the very definition of offloading responsibility?

Then the woman should have chosen an abortion. She wants the choice, she owns the repercussions.

 

[fskimospy]

Then the woman should have chosen an abortion. She wants the choice, she owns the repercussions.

Sorry, you don't get to offload your responsibility. Are you saying because women do not elect to have a medical procedure that you suddenly no longer have financial obligations to a third party that is not involved in this decision? Does this hold true for other medical procedures? If you decline to have a vasectomy can a woman assign all responsibility to you? I'm still waiting for you to articulate the principle by which you think your obligation to a third party is magically transferred to someone else without their consent because they don't consult you in a decision. Can you explain? The only thing I can think of is that you signed a contract with them. Is this the case?

Don't just blindly repeat your declaration that men aren't responsible for anything because abortion is legal, describe the mechanism for this in a clear, logical manner.

 

[MajinCry]

Legendkiller's idea of equality is that women have two choices:

1. Be prevented by law from controlling their own bodies.
2. Assume all responsibilities for raising children in perpetuity, allowing men to abandon their children at will without consequence.

Such equality! lol.

He's not even fucking reading. At best he's just looking at the names on the left side of the screen, and just copy-pasting the word "responsibility" and "decision".

Is there some term to designate these facile, woman-hating, man-children? Misogynist doesn't have that ring to it; it sounds like a medical condition.

 

[MajinCry]

Then the woman should have chosen an abortion. She wants the choice, she owns the repercussions.

You didn't even bloody deny it. Lord almighty man, can you be more of a greasy scumbag?

 

[fskimospy]

He's not even fucking reading. At best he's just looking at the names on the left side of the screen, and just copy-pasting the word "responsibility" and "decision".

Is there some term to designate these facile, woman-hating, man-children? Misogynist doesn't have that ring to it; it sounds like a medical condition.

It seems that he's dug in his heels because he doesn't have an answer to a pretty simple question. He's way too proud to rethink his position or admit that he's wrong, but in this thread and other ones it's pretty amusing to watch him twist himself into knots trying to defend ever crazier ideas.

Just go look at the Trump reporter thread. After long enough when confronted with an audio log of the event he was reduced to declaring that the log was a forgery created by conspirators attempting to slander Trump. It was hilarious.

 

[brycejones]

Again, if the woman assumes all decision making she is assuming responsibility.

If she wants to power, she accepts responsibility. She accepts responsibility she can either put it up for adoption or raise it on her own. She doesn't like those options? Don't have kids out of wedlock.

Nutter