The Reproductive Rights of Man

[Dean]

That thing where they don't want to have to support the children they abandon? And their argument is basically that women have the uterus? Misogynistic Ranting Assholes.

Hey you. Fuck you you sexist. It's absurd that men have no reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are something everyone should have. 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. Unless every sexual encounter I have includes me signing a contract pre-coitus to take shared responsibility for any pregnancies which I alone of the two parties have no option to terminate then I shouldn't pay for shit.

If you decide to have a kid, if you get married to a girl yeah. That was your kid and if you abandon it you should pay for the life you decided to bring into the world but no one should be able to get a phone call a year after the last time an ex came over late-night for a fuck and tell you that you're a Dad now and you own her a tens of thousands of dollars.

[DSMatticus]

God damnit TGD, why are you so laggy.

[DSMatticus]

Men's reproductive rights are not nearly as simple as you'd like them to be. Single mothers are a larger demographic than single fathers, and that's not an accident (though, single fathers are playing catch up). Obligation defaults to the woman in a really big way by virtue of having said obligation pop out of their vagina. Also, it's a lot easier for men to stop being involved in a pregnancy - you just say that, and then stop doing things. If a woman doesn't want to be involved, it requires a medical procedure that a huge percentage of the population will want to shame her for (sometimes with explicit vaginal rape, welcome to Texas). It's an accident that takes two to tango, but the biological, legal, and social realities of it dump almost all of the responsibility at the woman's feet.

Letting men "opt out" with a few words will hurt a lot of women who cannot opt out so easily (either because they've been brainwashed into thinking sky fairies will hate them or because their state has made getting an abortion effectively impossible or whatever). And while you (and I) almost certainly believe in a world where abortion is accessible, consequence-free, and not a big deal, that world isn't here and it doesn't look like it's coming anytime soon, so we have to deal with the crappy one we've got. Pick your poison, because no matter what you choose on this one your decision on this topic translates into very real, very unfair, and very shitty suffering for a non-zero number of people.

[tussock]

That thing where they don't want to have to support the children they abandon? And their argument is basically that women have the uterus? Misogynistic Ranting Assholes.

Hey you. Fuck you you sexist. It's absurd that men have no reproductive rights.

Oh, good grief, here's one of them now. Dipshit, it's not sexist to notice women have the uterus. So tell me, you piece of shit, what rights will you take? Be super-specific about exactly how you're going to force women to have an abortion, or force them not to. Please. Should be fun.

me banging a girl who says she's on birth control

Motherfucker: you leave your semen in someone by your own will, you just consented to making babies. That's how that works. That's your reproductive rights, to not put semen in other people. So WEAR A CONDOM you repulsive excuse for a human being. Vasectomies are also cheap if you like collecting STIs so much.


And you're a marriage troll, figures. When women needed to be married to have rights, men did not get any fucking choice at all about turning up at the altar. Family story there, true, shotgun and all.

[Dean]

So lets take apart your flailings here bit by bit.

Oh, good grief, here's one of them now. Dipshit, it's not sexist to notice women have the uterus. So tell me, you piece of shit, what rights will you take? Be super-specific about exactly how you're going to force women to have an abortion, or force them not to. Please. Should be fun.

Women should have every right to have or not have an abortion, give the child to adoption, or have and raise their own child if they want. Whatever she wants. Women should have reproductive rights. I should also have the option to say "I don't want to be a father" and if that right can't be granted physiologically it should be able to be granted legally. If a woman gives a child up for adoption she doesn't pay 500 a month for it forever after. I should not be forced into legal contract for a child I did not want and did not consent to. As a person who didn't agree to have a child I should not be able to be forced by an outside person to decide for me when I have agreed to become a legal guardian.

Motherfucker: you leave your semen in someone by your own will, you just consented to making babies. That's how that works. That's your reproductive rights, to not put semen in other people

No I absolutely didn't and that statement is both oblivious and self contradictory. Remember when you were talking about the right to abort? Read your words again with that in mind. Sex itself is not a child rearing contract and your idea that it is is archaic, biblical, and also obviously wrong to anyone who's been alive and had sex with anyone recently.
Ignoring your antediluvian concept of what sex is lets cover where you tell me to be abstinence only as the only way to maintain my reproductive rights. It is entirely possible to have sex with someone, take obvious steps to not impregnate them, and have things go wrong and become a legal father anyway. Beyond even quoting condom failure percentages or anything I'll just mention you highlighted my hyperbolic example of a woman lying about being on birth control and you believe even in THAT example I should have to take care of that child for life. That is absurd. Men should have the right to make reasonable argument against undesired paternity. That is rather obviously a right that should exist. Finally....

And you're a marriage troll, figures. When women needed to be married to have rights, men did not get any fucking choice at all about turning up at the altar. Family story there, true, shotgun and all.

I can't even parse what you're saying here because your retard chocolate seems to be in your anger peanut butter and you've ended up typing words like your writing sexist mad libs. Still I'll do my best to respond! No I actively dislike traditional marriage and think it's stifling and generally a bad social contract but that is not a fight worth fighting because marriage is very much here to stay. What is worth fighting for is civil rights battles I think can be won by the time I die. Amongst the most important of these in my country of America today is women's reproductive rights and while my genders reproductive rights fall further down the list they are still obviously rights which should exist.

[DSMatticus]

Motherfucker: you leave your semen in someone by your own will, you just consented to making babies. That's how that works

You are literally using the argument pro-lifers trot out to tell women they can't have abortions because they chose to have sex. Birth control exists, people use it, and it fails (or people just plain fuck up using it). And your response to that is apparently to slutshame men. That's fresh, at least, but it's certainly not enlightened.

It is immediately obvious that people, regardless of their plumbing, should be able to have sex without having to worry about whether or not they will end up parents against their will. Women have to worry because the fundies have waged a successful war on abortion and there are emotional, social, and legal difficulties involved in exercising their reproductive rights, and that's bullshit. Men have to worry because they don't actually get input into whether the child is born, but end up with legal responsibilities if it is, and that's bullshit. In an ideal world, abortion is not a big deal in anyway and you just get it and no one cares, and men are only responsible in the context of a family environment/deliberately conceived children. But this isn't an ideal world (fuck the fundies), and so we have to deal with the fact that women don't have complete reproductive rights and giving men complete reproductive rights would put a very unfair burden on women. And this has nothing at all to do with "should have kept your penis in your pants, you filthy slut - you knew the risks."

Ninja'd, but had to.

[Darth Rabbitt]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_with_erection

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Penis

[Prak]

A penis (with intact testicles) is an essential body part in order to become a Catholic priest, an Imam, and some species of rabbis and Protestant ministers.[1] From this, we can conclude that the penis acts as a spiritual antenna, picking up messages from God. The foreskin of the penis can interfere with these signals, so God instructed Abraham to perform circumcision on all males. Presumably, the often-embarrassing sexual antics of preachers such as Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart was due to them getting messages from Satan, instead. It is unclear whether the events are purely accidental or Satan is actively performing man-in-the-middle attack on the messages on these atennas.

If I ever run Demon the Descent, this will be a plot point.

[TheJerkStore]

There's a way for men to abandon parental rights: It's called a prophylactic. They sell them at convenience and drug stores.

[Dean]

There's a way for men to abandon parental rights: It's called a prophylactic. They sell them at convenience and drug stores.

The problems with this are
A) We already pre-emptively covered the dumb thing you just said and we did it twice.
B) The words you use don't make sense together. I don't know if you're using wrong words as a simple mistake or if you don't know what abandon means or if you have no idea what we're talking about. Plausibly all three as, as I said, we have preparatorily responded to your wrong statement.

[tussock]

Motherfucker: you leave your semen in someone by your own will, you just consented to making babies. That's how that works

You are literally using the argument pro-lifers trot out to tell women they can't have abortions because they chose to have sex. Birth control exists, people use it, and it fails (or people just plain fuck up using it). And your response to that is apparently to slutshame men. That's fresh, at least, but it's certainly not enlightened.

I'm quoting from biology textbooks. It's a simple statement of fact. It applies to men because they don't handle the baby again until it's born, and then you're not allowed to kill it at all.

It doesn't apply to women because they are the incubator. It turns out that forcing people to incubate or not incubate their future children is abhorrent. It also turns out that abandoning your children because you're a libertarian asshole is a bad, but unrelated thing.

Is this really a challenging concept in the US? I mean, how fucking backward is your education system under the weight of religion? You still have google. Sperm goes in, babies come out, that's the whole story for men, by simple biological fact.

It is immediately obvious that

WEAR A CONDOM

I should not be forced into legal contract for a child I did not want and did not consent to.

It's not a contract you fucking idiot, it's a biological fact that your DNA is running free inside another living human being and until they get to be 18 other people do not have to support your progeny for you just because you're a misogynistic ranting asshole. That means you support it. End of story. Fuck you, etc.

As a person who didn't agree to have a child I really shouldn't have been putting my semen in any reproductive systems like I'm some sort of retarded person who can't grasp three-word sentences.

That. I mean, that. It's not a new idea.

Sex itself is not a child rearing contract

What contract, you fucking libertarian bubble-head moron? It's called a CHILD. Having a child gives you the responsibility to take care of your child. Your choices, by simple fact of nature, end the moment your baby-making instructions are deposited by you into a baby-making factory. Semen, look it up. It's got zygotes it in.

That is rather obviously a right that should exist.

Once you deposit your half of code for a new human in the place that makes new human beings, it might just give you a child. That's a fact, not an opinion or legal trick you can opt out of after the fact. You might not want a child, but biology happens and then you have one anyway. Like, I appreciate that you're a scared little man-child, and you want abortions too, but the foetus is not going to be inside you, so your only possible choices are done already. You got a baby now? Congratulations! Because you got some responsibilities with it. 'Tard.

obviously

You keep saying this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


EDIT: It's like I'm talking to some guy in the park and his dog's shit on the path. And he won't clean it up because he never agreed to cleaning up dog shit when he bought a dog and gave it food. And I'm having to explain biology to him as he argues the libertarian perspective of contracts and equal rights.

[TheJerkStore]

There's a way for men to abandon parental rights: It's called a prophylactic. They sell them at convenience and drug stores.

The problems with this are
A) We already pre-emptively covered the dumb thing you just said and we did it twice.
B) The words you use don't make sense together. I don't know if you're using wrong words as a simple mistake or if you don't know what abandon means or if you have no idea what we're talking about. Plausibly all three as, as I said, we have preparatorily responded to your wrong statement.

And this is why libertardians are the most hated group in America right now. Quick question, did you have to buy your fedora, was it assigned to you via mail, or did it just grow there after your 20th consecutive "bitch, get me a sandwich" joke in the MLP pornfic you wrote?

[DSMatticus]

The fact that we're having this argument tells me some people don't really know how to use google or wikipedia, which is depressing considering the thread it's in, but also fortuitous because this is the thread to fix that. So I want you to go to your preferred search engine and type in "effectiveness of birth control methods". Wikipedia will probably show up somehere on the front page, and if it doesn't your search engine sucks get a new one. The article we're looking for is "comparison of birth control methods". Go there.

Wikipedia has a useful table of contents on almost every article long enough to need one, and since we're trying to figure out how effective condoms (and perhaps other contraceptives) are, "4.1 Comparison table" is clearly where we want to go. Click it. You should see a table. STOP PANICKING. I know that looks like a lot of information to take in at once, but it's all organized by birth control method and you don't have to read every single entry. Phew, am I right?

This table is sortable, so click the little up and down arrows next to birth control method to get an alphabetical sort. There are the C's. Where's condom? Wait, I know. Male condom. There it is. Now, read across the row to the orange and green boxes. Those are the typical-use and perfect-use failure rates. Oh my. Those numbers aren't zero. They aren't even low. Does... does this mean you can get people pregnant while using a condom? What's that noise? Why does it sound like two shit-filled sacks popping under the weight of cognitive dissonance?

I look forward to your revised arguments now that you know perfectly responsible actors can indeed end up with unwanted pregnancies through no fault of their own. I hope this brief tutorial in "learning things with the internet" will help you to better equip yourself with the knowledge you will need to stop being two-thirds of the three stooges.

Also, I find your assertion that the burden for preventing unwanted pregnancies is solely on the man and women can do whatever the fuck they want up to and including "lie about using birth control" (Dean's hyperbolic example) morally repugnant and completely sexist. I also find it a failure on the basis of effectiveness, because (consulting the same table) you will find the pill is more effective at preventing pregnancy than condom usage. On the issue of pregnancies, it is far more important that the woman be on the pill than the man use a condom.

[erik]

I'm so tempted to modify this with an extra line including anal sex, oral sex, male-male sex and female-female sex.

But for now I must sleep.


p.s. The 0.05% implant may give me nightmares. I imagine shoving that up my shaft would work, but... the horror.

p.p.s. yes, I know

[Starmaker]

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/make_fa ... e_partner/

[tussock]

1: I love this thread, and am sorry for shitting in it.

2: Not sorry enough.

Also, I find your assertion that the burden for preventing unwanted pregnancies is solely on the man

I can see you people need your arguments presented to you in linear-time point form.

[*]A: Yay sex! Boo STIs. Yay condoms. Yay other complimentary methods of birth control.

[*]B: Men who don't want babies and don't use condoms when they're "banging some babe" to quote the Misogynist, are fucking retards. I genuinely expected universal agreement there, and am seriously confused not to have it. That's a point all of it's own, it's not tied to the others. Like or hate sex, use condoms. Also, get the immunisation against HPV. Also, hope that your partner is on the pill, or better yet the arm-stick. Or is secretly a man.

Also, learn to use a condom properly. There's videos on youtube if you're not certain. Get it right.

[*]C: Women who fall pregnant get to have abortions. Not because "they didn't sign up for this", because they factually did in most cases and that's retarded anyway (I should probably apologise to retarded people at this point, they normally use birth control just fine, I lack a better word). They get abortions anyway because forcing someone to incubate another human being is highly harmful and only weakly efficacious. Banning it absolutely kills people, by which I mean actual people and not blastocysts, not to mention the pain, suffering, and incredible inconvenience.

Are we all keeping up? It seems like some of you are having trouble, so I'm going slowly.

[*]D: Should the baby arrive, both the woman and the man who made it are legally bound to financially support the thing until it's a legal adult (with various exceptions that are not "I'm a soulless shit"). There is no sexism here. The same cost is placed on the man and the woman, it's just that the woman starts off in possession of the new baby by the accident of being the one with the womb it was recently occupying.

Now, the argument from the Misogynists is that because the man doesn't get to choose to have an abortion in step C, he should get to opt out in step D instead, where he helps pay for his child to live.

And I'm just saying that's pants-on-head retarded. The woman doesn't have to support a child after an abortion because there is no child. The man also does not have to support the aborted foetus. That is equal opportunity to not support a baby that doesn't exist. There is also equally a requirement to support the baby when it's born, and neither party can opt out at that point.


The last step in the immutable line of time above though, wherein a hetro cis-man sleeping with a cis-woman gets a real choice about something, is step B. That's a fact of nature. Disagreeing with it doesn't help your case, it just makes you look stupid. So if you want to not pay for babies, and yet you want sex, your only sane option is to use condoms.

It's not perfect, but USE A CONDOM anyway and you'll be very likely to find yourself in a stable relationship before anyone gets pregnant.

[DSMatticus]

"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. 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.

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." We think your position is morally reprehensible because it is exactly that. You believe that when men and women have sex and it results in an unintentional pregnancy despite whatever precautions may have been taken, the woman has the right to avoid parental obligations through abortion, and men have the "right" to accept the parental obligations (or lack thereof) imposed on them by the woman's decision. That's blatantly sexist. The inputs are the same for each sex, but the outputs are different depending on what sex you are.

Your justification is really childish and offensive, and it seriously goes something like this:
1) Both parties are able to make choices about whether or not they want to have sex (equal).
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!)
3) Both parties are obligated to support the resulting child (equal).
4) It's not sexist. It's just biology.

But that argument justifies getting rid of maternity leave, too.
1) Both parties are able to make choices about whether or not they want to have sex (equal).
2) Both parties are required to work while they have a giant tumor growing in their crotch (oh, the baby is only in the woman? Tough, still equal).
3) It's not sexist. It's just biology.

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.

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. I don't agree with all of it (men absolutely should not have such powerful parental rights before we have better systems in place to support women when they do and/or abortion is more accessible socially and legally, because I think the social harm caused will be greater than if men's rights on this topic lag a bit).

[tussock]

"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.

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."

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.

[Starmaker]

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."

This, if you cut out the bullshit. Men shouldn't be pressured into fatherhood, and more importantly from a feminist standpoint, the social security for women and their children shouldn't come under condition of a forced relationship with some guy. That's fucking creepy and degrading to women.

[DSMatticus]

That post was fucking awful. Please try not to do sentence by sentence responses. But it really doesn't matter, because most of your post is just you repeating exactly the same things I accused you of but with "except they're good because reasons!" I was right about you sprucing up a quote to make dean look as misogynistic as possible. Your response was flippant dismissal. I was right about you using appeals to biology to justify very real different social rights outcomes. Your response was "but this is one of the good ones, because men shouldn't have equal rights here." You added a new argument (well, no, it's not new, but you said it plainly and openly enough here that I can respond to it), but that argument is also completely evil.

s 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

That is pretty much a blatant emotional appeal to "stupid rich people being greedy." Believe it or not, the vast majority of people who are fathers do not own four houses or expensive cars. It's a smokescreen, and it's a smokescreen you've erected because you hope it will distract from discussion with outrage at the rich. What the fuck? But it's so fucking obvious all you actually manage to do is look like a shitweasel who never argues in good faith (which is appropriate, because that's what you are).

Moving on, the argument that society shouldn't have to lend the financial support necessary to make men's parental rights a necessity because "lolbiology fuck you men" or "babies are punishment for mansluttery" also justifies getting rid of maternity leave. Clearly, society shouldn't have to provide the financial support necessary to create maternity leave because "lolbiology fuck you women" or "babies are punishment for sluttery."

No. Your arguments are fucking awful. They mirror the arguments used by conservatives to abuse women's rights on, because they are the same arguments, except you want to abuse men. Men are certainly luckier than women overall, but you're still a sexist shit whe you openly suggest men should have less rights because loldealwithit. Exactly like conservatives are when they say the same things about women because loldealwithit.

[tussock]

It's a smokescreen, and it's a smokescreen you've erected because you hope it will distract from discussion with outrage at the rich. What the fuck?

Bla. Anecdotally, the guys who actually get out of paying child support are the ones who can afford the better lawyers to hang shit on their former wives for them. RealMen(tm) have to suck it up.

also justifies

No. You're just wrong there.

[*]Assume A. If A then B. Therefore B.
[*]Assume Z. If A then B. Therefore Q.

One of those arguments is sound, the other is not. People sometimes using the first argument's pieces in an incorrect way does not make the argument incorrect in the first case. To say otherwise is simply incorrect. You are incorrect.

you openly suggest men should have less rights

Again, I openly suggest that men do not have a uterus. Meanwhile, I am in favour of both maternity and paternity leave, and in favour of both women and men paying for their kids. And abortions being available. That is sane.

[Omegonthesane]

you openly suggest men should have less rights

Again, I openly suggest that men do not have a uterus. Meanwhile, I am in favour of both maternity and paternity leave, and in favour of both women and men paying for their kids. And abortions being available. That is sane.

So, in your ideal world:
[*] Women get to take actions at step C which have a 100% probability of preventing them from having a baby.
[*] Men get to take actions at step B which have a <95% probability of preventing them from having a baby.
[*] If the man takes these actions at step B, and they fail, and the woman does not take these actions at step C, then tough fucking shit, he gets to suffer for her choice that he disagreed with and took measures to prevent. Because humans can't legislate to reduce inequalities caused by biologies, EVEN THOUGH MATERNITY/PATERNITY LEAVE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THEM DOING EXACTLY FUCKING THAT.[/u]

[Pseudo Stupidity]

Men who don't want babies can get a vasectomy, it can even be reversed. Fuck you if you don't want to pay for a kid but won't get the best form of birth control. You know the risks of vaginal sex, and you can't force a fucking abortion.

Anyone who thinks men should be able to force a woman into abortion is ass backwards. Just because you don't want a kid doesn't mean you can force her into a painful and potentially dangerous procedure that may or may not be against her beliefs.


It must be so difficult to be a heterosexual man. How fucking hard your life must be.

[Kaelik]

Men who don't want babies can get a vasectomy, it can even be reversed. Fuck you if you don't want to pay for a kid but won't get the best form of birth control. You know the risks of vaginal sex, and you can't force a fucking abortion.

Anyone who thinks men should be able to force a woman into abortion is ass backwards. Just because you don't want a kid doesn't mean you can force her into a painful and potentially dangerous procedure that may or may not be against her beliefs.

1) Vasectomies are not really reversible. There is a procedure, however, fully half of all people undergoing a reversal are still not capable of having children after 4 years. Almost no one after ten. So if you are 18 and want to have sex, you absolutely should might not be sure that you won't want to have kids ever again, like at 30, when reversing the procedure won't work.

2) Vasectomies also have between a 5-33% chance, depending who you are asking, of giving a man constant testicular pain for the rest of his life.

3) No one is arguing that you can force abortions, only that some people should not have to be legally obligated to support the child. (DSM is clarifying that should only come with ready access to abortion and cultural acceptance).

I personally think that right now in the very limited circumstance that we can prove fraud on the part of the woman, the man should not be responsible for financial support. And while I might like the future DSM proposes, I am not sure it will be reached any time soon.

[sabs]

How come noone talks about the flip side of the issue. What if you DO want the child, and the mother doesn't. Or what if you want to be involved in the child's life. And the mother refuses to let that happen. Or gives the child away for adoption without letting you know she was even pregnant.

And I'm sorry Dean. You agreed to the possibility of having to raise a child you conceive when you had sex with the woman. She didn't want to have an abortion? You probably should have figured that out before you slept with her. You do not get to abandon your child because you decide it's inconvenient for you. Your asshole selfish behavior is why men get fucked in the ass most of the time during divorce and custody cases.