- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 123,817
- Reaction score
- 28,043
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
People have sex... be realistic.
You know what guys, if you don't want to have a baby with a woman, don't have sex with her. A lot of men like to argue that women should live by that standard, so maybe they should take it upon themselves. Unless you want to get her pregnant, keep your pants on. And by having sex with her, you implicitly agree to raise the child that comes of it, because that's the natural consequence.
Right?
Having men opt out is not going to stop people from having pre martial sex.
After World War II the so called sexual revolution was already underway.
And guys could opt out claiming the kid was not his.( before DNA ) so your sweet no unwanted pregnancies and only married couples is not at all realistic.
Also unwanted pregnancies do take place in marriage and committed relationships.
In fact there was a study about unwanted pregnancies and abortions that take place in marriage and committed relationships.
44 percent of the time it was the man who first brought up abortion when an unwanted pregnancy occurred.
Ummm, men have means of birth control as well.I don't buy that myth... I know women like it... calm down.
...and if the man could opt out the woman would be more careful, selective and safe.
That men should be smarter...
Why do we need to take a time machine? Is being responsible a thing of the past?....
Where do you get that I think that we make sex bad and dirty? What the ****?
Bottom line. Women can have an abortion as a means of birth control. If they don't want a kid they can have an abortion. Deflect it all you like, as most do. I'll just stick to that point and wait for somebody to refute it with logic.
I hope you're being sarcastic. Or are you saying a man who gets a woman pregnant did not personally cause her to have a baby?
You know what guys, if you don't want to have a baby with a woman, don't have sex with her. A lot of men like to argue that women should live by that standard, so maybe they should take it upon themselves.
Unless you want to get her pregnant, keep your pants on. And by having sex with her, you implicitly agree to raise the child that comes of it, because that's the natural consequence.
Right?
Ummm, men have means of birth control as well.
A lot of men like to argue against that standard, too. It is no more fair and just to make such arguments against men's rights than it is to make them against women's rights. If a consequence can be prevented, keeping someone from preventing it is not "letting nature take its course". Likewise, holding one person responsible for another person's decisions is not "responsibility".
Bottom line. Women can have an abortion as a means of birth control. If they don't want a kid they can have an abortion. Deflect it all you like, as most do. I'll just stick to that point and wait for somebody to refute it with logic.
This debate is proving to highlight just how hypocritical these pro-lifers are. What their position amounts to is ...
... if a woman has an abortion, which they're against, they may not agree with that choice, but at least it gets them out of being a parent and doesn't cost them any money ...
... if a woman doesn't have an abortion, which is what they want, then they want to make her pay for choosing to do what they want her to do by not having to support their own child.
The more I think about it ... their position is not only hypocritical, it's downright misogynistic.
Okay, since when are people held responsible for the consequences of "events" that they did not personally cause?
You know what guys, if you don't want to have a baby with a woman, don't have sex with her. A lot of men like to argue that women should live by that standard, so maybe they should take it upon themselves. Unless you want to get her pregnant, keep your pants on. And by having sex with her, you implicitly agree to raise the child that comes of it, because that's the natural consequence.
Right?
Given that, from the moment of conception until the point of viability (and sometimes beyond), she has the legal option of terminating the pregnancy and, if she declines to name the father, once she has given birth she has the option of unilaterally surrendering the child for adoption... yes, that is exactly what I am saying. He helped her conceive. She didn't "have a baby" until she made a series of decisions to have a baby. She has choices.
A lot of men like to argue against that standard, too. It is no more fair and just to make such arguments against men's rights than it is to make them against women's rights.
If a consequence can be prevented, keeping someone from preventing it is not "letting nature take its course". Likewise, holding one person responsible for another person's decisions is not "responsibility".
I was being sarcastic. To illustrate that the OP's question is rather silly, and the double standards involved in the whole issue.
You still have to prove that this is a bad thing.
So your beef is that women have more options then men? How about premenstrual medications? Do you have a beef because women have more options with those too?Seriously?
But seriously folks... of course. The argument is about using BC and having it fail. What do you do then...? She can abort.
You know what ladies, if you don't want to have a baby with a man, don't have sex with him. A lot of women like to argue that men should live by that standard, so maybe they should take it upon themselves. Unless you want to get pregnant, keep your pants on. And by having sex with him, you implicitly agree to give birth to the offspring, because that's the natural consequence.
Right?
--
Thanks for my argument. I love when people make it easy.
I'm pro life. Where did you get any of that from anything I posted?
Then you're being ridiculous. A woman can't have a baby without a man causing it to happen. Whether directly by having sex or indirectly by sperm donation, a man caused her to have the baby. That's not to say she too didn't cause it, it obviously takes two. And to absolve the man of all causation simply because the woman chose to have the baby is mind boggling. Most woman choose to have their baby. According to your post, not a single man in this country caused that to happen. Millions of babies born, not one man responsible.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
So your beef is that women have more options then men? How about premenstrual medications? Do you have a beef because women have more options with those too?
But it's ok to "stick the woman with 18 years?"That what is a bad thing? Honestly... not following you. I think that women having an abortion, exercising their right, is fine. Sticking a guy with 18 years is not fine.
Being pro-life wasn't the only criteria. It is the dastardly combination of being both pro-life AND believing that men should have the right to evade supporting their own child.
But it's ok to "stick the woman with 18 years?"
You just complained that women have more options than men. That was your complaint. You said, birth control fails, the woman has another option but then man does not. So at this point, your complaint comes down to the woman having more options. So what about in other things? Things like premenstrual medication, which is for women, not for men. Do you have a problem with medications where women have more choices than men?We are talking about abortion vs. having a child. Does your point relate to that? Because I don't see it.
But it's ok to "stick the woman with 18 years?"
That what is a bad thing? Honestly... not following you. I think that women having an abortion, exercising their right, is fine. Sticking a guy with 18 years is not fine.
Right... but women want ALL the choices, ALL of the power and in order for that to happen men have to get NO choices and have NO power...
Do you not understand that abortion isn't an option for many women? So it's ok to "stick them for 18 years" while the guy bears absolutely no responsibility at all?Nobody can stick it to the woman since she can abort... THAT IS THE WHOLE ****ING POINT!
You just complained that women have more options than men. That was your complaint. You said, birth control fails, the woman has another option but then man does not. So at this point, your complaint comes down to the woman having more options. So what about in other things? Things like premenstrual medication, which is for women, not for men. Do you have a problem with medications where women have more choices than men?
Do you not understand that abortion isn't an option for many women? So it's ok to "stick them for 18 years" while the guy bears absolutely no responsibility at all?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?