DSMatticus wrote:tussock wrote:"banging some babe" to quote the Misogynist
I feel compelled to point out that this is a quote that never happened, and looks suspiciously like an attempt to take an actual quote and make it look more misogynist than it actually was.
That would be a difficult task.
deanrule87 wrote:I fight for women's reproductive rights because they are crazy important but anyone who thinks that me banging a girl who says she's on birth control should entitle me to a lifetime of payment for a child I cannot decide to not have is a flagrant sexist.
Or, to paraphrase, "I like women but they're crazy liars and always trying to make me a baby daddy and I should get to abandon my children any fucking time I like anyway because women can get abortions. That's why I support women getting abortions in the first place, so I can abandon my children without cost."
DSMatticus wrote:I don't know if it's just you misremembering, paraphrasing with a dash of hyperbole for emphasis, or being deceitful, but: if it's the first, you should fix it and apologize; if it's the second, that is a significant change in tone but looks very much like an attempt to legitimately quote someone, and you should fix it/clarify and apologize; and if it's the third, you should apologize and fuck off.
It's me not giving a shit, bro. The ignore button is right up there.
As for the meat of the post... No one's misunderstood you, tussock. We don't think your position is morally reprehensible "because we don't get it."
And yet here we are, with you about to not get it all over again. I am often not clear in the written word, so I'm seriously giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to be more clear.
We think your position is morally reprehensible because it is exactly that. You believe ...
No. I do not. I'm one of these people who believes that what you want and what you can have are different things because physics. It may not be
fair that you need an aeroplane and birds do not, but physics.
Your justification is really childish and offensive, and it seriously goes something like this:
So, I'm going to take this apart for you. You're welcome.
1) Both parties are able to make choices about whether or not they want to have sex (equal).
I'd go with "have more consensual sex, it's (potentially) awesome, and also use condoms, and dental dams, and gloves, and lube, and vibrators, and ...", but fine.
2) Both parties are able to make choices about whether or not they want to abort the baby inside them (oh, the baby is only in the woman? Tough, still equal!)
No, not equal, and cannot be equal because the foetus
is not in the man's body. Me noting that men are not forbidden to have abortions is an ironic description of that because people keep not getting it, hardcore. It's not full of hidden meaning, it's just a fact.
3) Both parties are obligated to support the resulting child (equal).
4) It's not sexist. It's just biology.
It's
reality. Concrete. Fish can breathe water, humans cannot. Aphids can reproduce without male zygotes, humans cannot. Only people with a womb can abort the foetus they carry in it and men don't usually have a womb. Really. It's not any deeper than that at all. It's not an argument about other things that we're not arguing about. You trying to make it so is just poor form, sir.
But that argument justifies getting rid of maternity leave, too.
Like that. No. It doesn't. Also, paternity leave, civilised countries have it. Well, one or two of them do. Helps with the wage disparity when men have to take time off for their kids too.
It really should not surprise anyone that appeals to biology for justifying observable rights disparities are disgusting and that the people who make them are disgusting. I have no idea why you'd openly adopt that appeal. It's genuinely creepy and unsettling.
You are being completely insane and I don't even understand where it's coming from. You may have heard shitty arguments made by an appeal to biology. But I am not making one. I'm really just saying that
men can't actually have abortions.
That the last
real choice a
man has, on the way up to having
an actual living child, out here amongst all the
reality-based community, is to wear a condom. Yes, vasectomies work better, but they're quite unpopular and not readily available when an opportunity for sex arises anyway. Unlike condoms, which are.
I strongly suggest you read the article Starmaker linked, because it covers all of this plus a discussion of what a potential solution looks like.
The solution is here, now. Condoms. They also prevent STIs really well. Sure, 18% per annum is kinda high, and women can do better, but men can't on short notice.
Not using one is common enough, but so are STIs and unplanned pregnancies, eh.
But once people have an actual child, abandoning it financially is just shit. Unacceptable. Fuck those people. Take their money and give it to their kids if they can't figure out how to do that themselves.
I'm not for forcing anyone to be there, important distinction. But those little people, once they're born, they are your children. Not wanting them simply isn't a problem that needs a solution, because the law already makes the worthless fuckers pay, and doesn't make them stay. All is well, if a little imperfect at the edges.
Suggesting a women's right to abortion is somehow connected to fucking scumbag absentee fathers who would rather spend their money on fast cars and 4th houses while the government covers the bill for their cock is the abhorrent bit here.
Really. That's not a moralistic argument, that's me wanting you to not share the real costs so freely. Your dog shit in the park,
you pick it up. Your dick made a baby,
you pay for it. Saves on shotguns.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.