|
On September 20 2011 01:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 01:28 Klipsys wrote:
The point is sex shouldn't be a risk!
And here we come to it.... This one little sentence encompasses everything that is wrong with American society today: a lack of self-accountability and a steadfast refusal to accept the consequences of our actions. Seriously, just put on a fucking condom and be done with it. Using abortion as a means of birth control is reprehensible, and should only be done in exigent circumstances.
But that's where you have it wrong though. The choice isn't between abortion or having safer sex. Of course if that was the case everyone would choose safer sex. Do you think people get a kick out of abortions?!
The choice is between a pregnant women having a baby she either doesn't want or can't provide for or aborting it. Yeah, ideally they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place. Ideally people wouldn't rob eachother. Ideally there would be no poor/rich people only happy people everywhere, dancing as they hold eachother hands. This is the real world though. Girls/women are going to get pregnant at times when they don't want a baby, whether by accident or stupidity. In that situation aborting the pregnancy seems to be the best solution.
Anyway this thread isn't even about abortion. It's about whether or not women should be able to decided if a man should become a father or not
|
On September 20 2011 02:12 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 01:28 Klipsys wrote:
The point is sex shouldn't be a risk!
And here we come to it.... This one little sentence encompasses everything that is wrong with American society today: a lack of self-accountability and a steadfast refusal to accept the consequences of our actions. Seriously, just put on a fucking condom and be done with it. Using abortion as a means of birth control is reprehensible, and should only be done in exigent circumstances. But that's where you have it wrong though. The choice isn't between abortion or having safer sex. Of course if that was the case everyone would choose safer sex. Do you think people get a kick out of abortions?! The choice is between a pregnant women having a baby she either doesn't want or can't provide for or aborting it. Yeah, ideally they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place. Ideally people wouldn't rob eachother. Ideally there would be no poor/rich people only happy people everywhere, dancing as they hold eachother hands. This is the real world though. Girls/women are going to get pregnant at times when they don't want a baby, whether by accident or stupidity. In that situation aborting the pregnancy seems to be the best solution. Anyway this thread isn't even about abortion. It's about whether or not women should be able to decided if a man should become a father or not
...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own.
|
On September 20 2011 02:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Did your parents never teach you life isn't usually fair according to your personal definition of what fair is? Here is a question: Let's assume that you get laid and the girl gets pregnant and this arrangement absolving you of all responsibility exists, and you both sign up to this arrangement. A year after the baby is born you discover that the mother is neglecting it, or that despite doing all she can she and the baby are not doing so well. It grows up in a life of poverty. If you were that baby, what view would you take as an adult as to what your father did?
If a mother who didn't have the finances to provide for a baby somehow manage to get sperm from a donor would you blame the donor when the child was mistreated?
I don't get why, if the guy isn't interested in becommming a father, but the girl then choose to have it anyway even though she can't provide for it and look after it, and suddenly the father is the bad guy? He was the one realistic enough to know it was a rubbish idea to have a child. There is even a good chance he knew the girl well enough to know whe wouldn't be a good mother at that stage in her life.
In relation to that, what if the guy wants to have a baby but the girl don't? Well the answer to that seems obvious to anyone so I can't see why it's not obvious the other way around.
EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists.
|
I think people are getting too convoluted and mixed up in words like 'abortion' (since its such a hot button issue) and women's rights etc.
Nobody is advocating (with a real point in this thread) that men should be able to force any type of medical procedure or abortion on the woman.
All we are saying is there needs to be a time, for sake of consistency the time limit could be the same for a woman's decision to abort, that a man could opt-out, just as the woman can.
I fail to see anyone in this thread argue effectively that both parties shouldn't have a choice once conception has occured. It's bogus to think it's ok for only one sex to decide 'yes' or 'no' to being a parent.
Imagine if the gender roles were reversed and men carried the child, would there still be this huge commotion? Both sexes deserve a chance to terminate (through contract, abortion, whatever) a pregnancy, or parental rights.
If you disagree please show why both sexes shouldn't have this choice, show why only women get to make the decision for both individuals. DONT get caught up with extreme scenarios and scary words like abortion, you do nothing for the conversation.
|
On September 19 2011 11:02 mcmartini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 10:03 BlazeFury01 wrote:The moment a man decides to engage in sexual intercourse with a woman is the exact same moment he puts himself at risk to face the consequences. If he (the man) so chooses to engage in such an action without protection or insight of where his semen goes then it is no ones fault but his own. Personally, I use a condom. After sex, I fill the condom up with water to see if it leaks (which means I am at risk). Afterwards, I flush the condom down the toilet. This provides security and assures me that I am safe to continue my daily life without any sort of worries. Victory loves preparation; if you want to prevent this from ever happening, then you have to eliminate all of the possibilities for it to happen. On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
women have the right to have sex, then later decide they aren't ready or dont want to become a parent. even for those opposed to abortion, adoption exists. what we have here is an obvious case of gender discrimination. Also, women get to decide when they want to become a parent because they carry the baby in their stomach and face excruciating pain during labor. All the man has to do is ejaculate. The moment he doesn't monitor the situations (As I mentioned above) is the moment he gives up the right on if he wants to become a parent or not. I don't see it as gender discrimination. I see calling it "gender discrimination" as an excuse to defend irresponsible men from a mistake that could have been prevented. On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
what is TL's thoughts on the subject? do you think men deserve the right to have sex without consenting to paying for and raising a child for 20 years? if a man does not want the child, can he be freed from the financial obligations of child support? Is the woman freed from financial obligations of child support? Your answer is, no. It was a sexual agreement. Both chose to reap the consequences by engaging in intercourse to begin with. Child support is a consequence of a bad relationship (a relationship that didn't work out) or a lustful engagement (one night stand, friend with benefits, etc.) therefore once you decide to have sex with that person your freedom to dodge child support has just been denied. I only have view of this from a child's point of view, (my parents split when i was quite young due to my mother being with someone else) I spent equal time with both my mother and father for the next 10 years. Yet my father was the one paying child support for all that time. That still seems hardly fair to me, he looked after us 50% of the time. Both my parents had jobs, what reason was there for child support to be paid, my father hadn't done anything wrong yet was left paying money out for over 10 years (I have younger siblings) leaving him financially crippled. I have always thought that the system for such things in my country was flawed and still do. If one parent ups and leaves they are making the choice right there saying they don't need nor want their partners support (most times they take the children for 100% of the time). Yet they still wish to reap the benefits of their partners success. I hate reading all this you choose to have sex so you have to deal with the consequences. Well one apparently responsible adult chose to leave another for whatever reason, if they can't afford to look after their child alone because of financial woes maybe the child should go into foster care. Most times I have seen friends and family split up child support has been wanted just because they can, not because it is needed.
This is a problem with the legal system, it does not invalidate that both parents are equally responsible. For some reason, in your case, the father paid child support even though there was a shared custody arrangement. In canada: "If each parent has the child at least 40% of the time, the Guidelines say there is “shared custody”. When there is shared custody, the amount of support paid to the parent with custody might be less than the amount set out in the table." This is just one of the many guidelines (including joint custody options and varying childsupport payments depending on certain needs or time spent with the child) that are designed to prevent your parents particular situation from occuring.
|
On September 20 2011 01:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 01:28 Klipsys wrote:
The point is sex shouldn't be a risk!
And here we come to it.... This one little sentence encompasses everything that is wrong with American society today: a lack of self-accountability and a steadfast refusal to accept the consequences of our actions. Seriously, just put on a fucking condom and be done with it. Using abortion as a means of birth control is reprehensible, and should only be done in exigent circumstances.
The real problem with America is people like you unwilling to live in the real world, and unwilling to use the multitude of technology available to us. Abortion isn't birth control, it's birth prevention and it's the best one we have since its 100%. Only charlie can survive abortions.
How about this, I'll have a kid and then put it into cryogenic stasis until I'm stable and able to provide for it.
I hope everyone realizes, children are a prime reason for so many of the issues going on right now in this country, The reason we have rampant crime and a devaluation of morals in this society is because kids are being born that their patents don't want! This has an enormous cascading effect on these children's psyche and if no one gives a shit about them, they're not going to care about any of us. My father has worked with children who have terrible parents (who should NEVER have been allowed to breed) these kids are angry, aggressive, and suffer from extreme depression, and they don't even understand why. It's because the love from their parents is forced, and they know deep down they're unwanted! Imagine growing up and having your father look at you, and blame you for all of the things he couldn't do because of one night he had with the women he now can't stand.
There should be a license to have children, both parents need to have graduated college, both be employed, pass drug test, physc evaluation, no criminal history, and should have to be at least 35. I can't believe there are people here who think teen mom and 21 yearold grand parents is somehow a better solution that just more abortions. It should be illegal for high schoolers to have kids, same goes for anyone who isn't 100% ready to commit to it.
|
On September 19 2011 22:26 macil222 wrote:
I don't know why this is getting so off topic, but I have to ask, a decrease in the quality of life for which people?
The native populations of Europe are falling, and the non recent immigrant populations of the United States and Canada are stable. The population of Japan is falling, and I'm not sure about South Korea and Australia but I'll guess that they are either stable or falling.
You are saying that if China, India, Africa and Brazil continue to have a population explosion that the whole world will be on the hook? This is why I still stick to nationalism and reject globalism.
It's a decrease in the quality of life for everyone. While technology allows us to produce enough food for everyone, the costs of increased food production include massive environmental damage, including biodiversity loss (look up the ongoing Holocene extinction), global warming, deforestation, and loss of topsoil.
We also don't have enough water and energy resources for everyone already, which is why conflicts and genocides are carried out all over the world to battle for these precious commodities.
No matter how nationalistic you are, you will be affected.
On September 19 2011 22:26 macil222 wrote:
And how does abortion come into play in a global population debate anyways? Does anyone think that some rich white women having an abortion in order to avoid cramping her lifestyle will do anything to offset the increasing population in the third world and currently industrializing nations?
Because right-wingers inevitably come up with shoddy arguments to support their anti-abortion views, which includes the idea that we need more babies even though that completely goes against the scientific consensus on overpopulation.
|
On September 20 2011 02:20 xDaunt wrote:
...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own.
Accidents happen. Condoms don't have 100% success rates, nor do any other form of birth control. Women sometimes lie about being on birth control, and deliberately impregnate themselves without that man's consent. Women rape men.
In all of these scenarios, the law holds men financially 'responsible' for something beyond their control. It's very easy to google up the horror stories where women drug and rape men or rape minors and then force the men to pay child support. How 'bout let's stop pretending that this is a black and white issue where all men who don't want to pay child support are 'deadbeat dads'?
On September 20 2011 02:29 crms wrote:
I think people are getting too convoluted and mixed up in words like 'abortion' (since its such a hot button issue) and women's rights etc.
Nobody is advocating (with a real point in this thread) that men should be able to force any type of medical procedure or abortion on the woman.
All we are saying is there needs to be a time, for sake of consistency the time limit could be the same for a woman's decision to abort, that a man could opt-out, just as the woman can.
I fail to see anyone in this thread argue effectively that both parties shouldn't have a choice once conception has occured. It's bogus to think it's ok for only one sex to decide 'yes' or 'no' to being a parent.
Imagine if the gender roles were reversed and men carried the child, would there still be this huge commotion? Both sexes deserve a chance to terminate (through contract, abortion, whatever) a pregnancy, or parental rights.
If you disagree please show why both sexes shouldn't have this choice, show why only women get to make the decision for both individuals. DONT get caught up with extreme scenarios and scary words like abortion, you do nothing for the conversation.
It's also worth mentioning that women don't have to choose abortion to opt-out, as they also have the unilateral option to choose putting up the baby for adoption.
Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with this issue and is being deliberately used to cloud it up.
|
On September 20 2011 01:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 01:28 Klipsys wrote:
The point is sex shouldn't be a risk!
And here we come to it.... This one little sentence encompasses everything that is wrong with American society today: a lack of self-accountability and a steadfast refusal to accept the consequences of our actions. Seriously, just put on a fucking condom and be done with it. Using abortion as a means of birth control is reprehensible, and should only be done in exigent circumstances.
Can you cite eras where there was more self-accountability?
|
And for the love of starcraft, stop saying "JUST USE KONDOMS KAY?" They're only marginally more effective than withdrawing as far as preventing pregnancy. In other words, you could use a condom every time and STILL slip one past the goalie. Well what the fuck is that?
|
On September 20 2011 00:04 Iyerbeth wrote:
OK so this argument is fairly silly in my opinion. I try to pay attention to male rights issues as and when they come up (though often working through the crazies is hard) but this one is just plain absurd.
Well you see your honour, yes it was my gun, and yes I did load it and it's true I aimed it in to his face and I even pulled the trigger but I didn't mean for him to die! How can I be responsible for murder??? Surely he's partially to blame for not having a skull made out of solid steel installed! I can't be expected to have my next 20 years ruined because of something he *chose* not to do.
The above is pretty much how I see this...
... Finally you should have no right to mandate an abortion for a woman, nor should you have a right to leave her with a kid because you decide it's not for you. Neither should you be able to force another kid in to the state's care so you can continue having care free sex. You made the decision, it was your responsibility to know the risks and so supporting that child is your responsibility. Pay up, or grow up.
You point about the gun is such an incredible strawman logical fallacy that it's barely appropriate to even speak to the point. It literally has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Intentional premeditated murder and accidental impregnation from a consensual and mutually casual sexual encounter are not on an even keel.
Your point about mandating abortions for women is also basically a strawman, because not only is that not what anyone is espousing, it is reducing the complexities of this debate into one wherein only the issue of female reproductive freedom is valued, and everyone else needs to "grow up" for their own childish values. Apparently discussing male reproductive freedom is immature. It's interesting that you think that, because most of the posts here that are in favor of more male reproductive freedom have also denounced forced abortions as repugnant.
I will add one more thing to my response. "Pay up, or grow up," or put another way FIFO (fit in or fuck off), is never a satisfactory philosophy if you're interested in society continuing to evolve into a more inclusive setting for everyone. We can't marginalize some people in favor of others, then say just go along with it or gtfo. I won't repeat the other points I made, if you're interested in them they are on page 9.
|
On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: Show nested quote +...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists.
Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant.
And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you.
Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl.
|
Abolish child support outside of divorce situations. A woman has no right to expect anyone not wed to her to support her financially, why can she expect to have support for a child she births? If she chooses to have an abortion, and can prove who was responsible, she can get 50% of the cost out of him. There are methods that reliably prevent pregnancy from occurring before it happens, and only she can control whether those methods get used...
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
On September 20 2011 02:37 scorch- wrote:
Abolish child support outside of divorce situations. A woman has no right to expect anyone not wed to her to support her financially, why can she expect to have support for a child she births? If she chooses to have an abortion, and can prove who was responsible, she can get 50% of the cost out of him. There are methods that reliably prevent pregnancy from occurring before it happens, and only she can control whether those methods get used...
What you--and those making similar arguments in this thread--seem to fail to realise is that the expectation of support that the law provides for is not for the woman's sake, but for the child's.
|
On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl.
The health risks of being pregnant? What is this the middle ages? The maternal death rate PLUMMETED in the twentieth century to something insane like 11 out of every 100 thousand. Dude that's such a LAME excuses considering men get financial incarcerated for at least 18 years. If I'm 14 and I knock a girl up, that's it, my life is OVER if she keeps it.
And you're either trolling, or incredibly naive if you don't think an unscrupulous women would be above garbage picking for baby batter. Dude there are women who fake BEING pregnant, and who fake having cancer, aids or whatever. Point is there are COPIOUS amounts of scumbag women.
|
On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will?
Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple:
* Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy.
* Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years.
You don't see an inconsistency here?
|
On September 20 2011 02:36 Klipsys wrote:
And for the love of starcraft, stop saying "JUST USE KONDOMS KAY?" They're only marginally more effective than withdrawing as far as preventing pregnancy. In other words, you could use a condom every time and STILL slip one past the goalie. Well what the fuck is that?
Also, the pill is most effective form of birth control other than not doing it.
|
On September 20 2011 02:47 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. The health risks of being pregnant? What is this the middle ages? The maternal death rate PLUMMETED in the twentieth century to something insane like 11 out of every 100 thousand. Dude that's such a LAME excuses considering men get financial incarcerated for at least 18 years. If I'm 14 and I knock a girl up, that's it, my life is OVER if she keeps it.
Like it or not, that's a large part of legal basis for legalized abortion. I don't think even think that financial considerations even appear in any of the court opinions.
|
On September 20 2011 02:48 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will? Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple: * Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy. * Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years. You don't see an inconsistency here?
Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat, this time with the most important provisions highlighted:
Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant.
|
On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl.
Let me ask you the following question, and no it isn't a joke, I want a serious answer. If two pornstars are shooting a film and the woman gets pregnant and for whatever reason decides to keep the baby, should the male be financially indebted to her in the role of father for 18 years. Yes or no and why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
