Should men get a vote?

[Lursa]

That is politics and political correctness... not science.

Political issues are based on laws, legal status, and other legal considerations. This political issue is about the legality of abortion.

There are now "legal men" that are capable of giving birth. And having abortions.

If it would be upheld under the law, then it's more than political correctness.

 

[Argent]

It is obviously an injustice for a man to be explicitly tricked into 18 years of economic obligations, and no amount of spoken or written legerdemain is going to change this.

Tricked? How about stupid for trusting or stupid for following the dictates of one's dick rather than one's brain? Assuming that any birth control method might fail, have a lawyer draft a contract that both need to sign prior to sex stating the obligations of each party in the event of an unwanted pregnancy which may or may not have an effect on laws obligating BOTH parents to financially contribute to the raising of the child. Actions have consequences, take the risk and pay the price.

 

[Gordy327]

It's a problem for men in general frankly.

And you may as well tell women to stop whining about reclaiming their abortion rights I believe they should have. It is obviously an injustice for a man to be explicitly tricked into 18 years of economic obligations, and no amount of spoken or written legerdemain is going to change this.

It's not a problem for me. If a woman wants an abortion, that solves all problems.

 

[Surrealistik]

Tricked? How about stupid for trusting or stupid for following the dictates of one's dick rather than one's brain? Assuming that any birth control method might fail, have a lawyer draft a contract that both need to sign prior to sex stating the obligations of each party in the event of an unwanted pregnancy which may or may not have an effect on laws obligating BOTH parents to financially contribute to the raising of the child. Actions have consequences, take the risk and pay the price.

If the female partner specifically says she's on birth control, and that she will not be carrying any accidental pregnancy to term, and we understand that the vast majority of people will generally keep their word on such grave and serious matters and will not deceive their partner, then yes, that the male partner was 'tricked/deceived' is indeed factually the correct way to describe what happened in this case, regardless of your contempt for him expecting that his partner will not be a dumpster fire of a human being.

 

[Lursa]

If you want to believe "Just never have unprotected vaginal sex outside of a vasectomy because of the remote but existent and life changing risk of a deceitful woman" is within the bounds of reason, I find that to be completely inane; that's on you. I vehemently disagree, and I will not be changing my position on that.

My position is "dont decide to risk a pregnancy if you arent willing to be held accountable for the consequences." For both men and women.

What is inane or unreasonable about that? It sounds mature and rational to me. Please explain what's wrong with that?

As stated, under very specific circumstances elaborated later in the post, there should be no adverse consequences in the form of obligations associated with a pregnancy unwanted by the male partner: again, that:

A. The female partner has clearly and specifically represented that she is on effective birth control.

B. Both partners agree that a morning after pill or other abortion method would be used in the case of accidental pregnancy.

That of course is not to say that men are universally and without qualification entitled to sex without consequences and framing it as such is both wrong and disingenuous.

To be absolutely clear, if a man engages in unprotected sex without A and B being true, I don't feel he's entitled to any protection from the obligations associated with any resulting pregnancy.

You are fixated on this single case. It's about relationships, not sex. You dont have a right 'not to be lied to" or "not to be cheated," just like there's no "right not to be offended."

You said it rarely happens...but dwell on it over and over. Again...men do the same thing to women and you dismissed it out of hand. Why? What's her legal recourse if she doesnt believe in abortion? Can she prove he put a hole in the condom? Not only that, you admit it's almost impossible to prove YOUR case.

Remember: NO birth control is 100%. Not even the Pill, so again, BOTH have consented to risking a pregnancy. Why shouldnt he be held accountable? The govt doesnt protect you from bad judgement or liars. Men and women have to act in their own best interests and you refuse to admit that men can.

No govt laws can protect men or women against cheating, lying, partners. That's not even the govts job.

Men have 100% control over whether they are duped by a sex partner. So do women. If either still chooses to risk sex...then they have chosen to risk the consequences.

Nothing about that makes men 'sound stupid and like victims'. If the clear understanding between both partners is that birth control is involved, and abortion remedies will be pursued in the event of accidental pregnancy despite those precautions, why exactly is the man 'stupid' for expecting that he will not be made to suffer 18 years of costly financial obligations from a pregnancy that his female partner explicitly took precautions against and agreed she wouldn't carry to term?

Almost everything you write makes men sound like that. No relationship is guaranteed, and all people need to be careful, use good judgement, take their time, develop trust, etc. There can be 'clear understanding' that falls apart over time or overnight. You cannot legislate that and the govt shouldnt. It's about personal responsibility. If you keep insisting it's 'not fair' for men, then you're saying they arent willing to act in their own best interests. That sounds stupid to me.

It's not the govt's job to do that for you. Your implied position is that men are entitled to sex without consequences. It is, isnt it?

Women are not and never have been. How do you justify this "unfairness" then? It's hypocrisy. How do you justify it?

 

[Argent]

If the female partner specifically says she's on birth control, and that she will not be carrying any accidental pregnancy to term, and we understand that the vast majority of people will generally keep their word on such grave and serious matters and will not deceive their partner, then yes, that the male partner was 'tricked/deceived' is indeed factually the correct way to describe what happened in this case, regardless of your contempt for him expecting his partner not to be a dumpster fire of a human being.

People lie. Where is your data that "the vast majority of people will generally keep their word"? Anecdote doesn't count. I took exception to your use of the term "tricked". Trust no one is a better position to take when it comes to "grave and serious matters." In this circumstance, there is no trick. One chooses to believe/trust and at that point is responsible for the consequences.

 

[Surrealistik]

My position is "dont decide to risk a pregnancy if you arent willing to be held accountable for the consequences." For both men and women.

What is inane or unreasonable about that? It sounds mature and rational to me. Please explain what's wrong with that?


You are fixated on this single case. It's about relationships, not sex. You dont have a right 'not to be lied to" or "not to be cheated," just like there's no "right not to be offended."

You said it rarely happens...but dwell on it over and over. Again...men do the same thing to women and you dismissed it out of hand. Why? What's her legal recourse if she doesnt believe in abortion? Can she prove he put a hole in the condom? Not only that, you admit it's almost impossible to prove YOUR case.

Remember: NO birth control is 100%. Not even the Pill, so again, BOTH have consented to risking a pregnancy. Why shouldnt he be held accountable? The govt doesnt protect you from bad judgement or liars. Men and women have to act in their own best interests and you refuse to admit that men can.

No govt laws can protect men or women against cheating, lying, partners. That's not even the govts job.

Men have 100% control over whether they are duped by a sex partner. So do women. If either still chooses to risk sex...then they have chosen to risk the consequences.

Almost everything you write makes men sound like that. No relationship is guaranteed, and all people need to be careful, use good judgement, take their time, develop trust, etc. There can be 'clear understanding' that falls apart over time or overnight. You cannot legislate that and the govt shouldnt. It's about personal responsibility. If you keep insisting it's 'not fair' for men, then you're saying they arent willing to act in their own best interests. That sounds stupid to me.

It's not the govt's job to do that for you. Your implied position is that men are entitled to sex without consequences. It is, isnt it?

Women are not and never have been. How do you justify this "unfairness" then? It's hypocrisy. How do you justify it?

Absurd.

First of all, yes, the government and legal system does provide recourse from material lies and deception; not in this specific case unfortunately, hence it being a problem and us having this exchange.

It is indeed clearly, obviously and categorically unjust for men to be deceived into upkeeping an 18 year financial obligation, whether or not you personally think men 'sound stupid' for trusting their partner not to lie to them over something so significant, or you are somehow seriously of the ridiculous belief that a man's options here should be reducible to either never having unprotected vaginal sex or being left absolutely powerless to contest such an obligation in the case of such deliberate deception.

You're welcome to your abortions, but if you choose to carry despite my objections, and despite your own representations and promises, I'm welcome to walk away.

People lie. Where is your data that "the vast majority of people will generally keep their word"? Anecdote doesn't count. I took exception to your use of the term "tricked". Trust no one is a better position to take when it comes to "grave and serious matters." In this circumstance, there is no trick. One chooses to believe/trust and at that point is responsible for the consequences.

Yes, they do.

And fortunately our legal system does allow people to get obtain recourse over material lies, though pregnancy through deceit is an unfortunate blindspot as that goes.

Lies resulting in 18 years of financial obligations should be no exception.

 

[Grand Mal]

You win a gold medal for those mental gymnastics to justify your hypocrisy

So avoid all mental gymnastics by keeping your nose out of other people's business. Simple.

 

[Lursa]

Absurd.

First of all, yes, the government and legal system does provide recourse from material lies and deception; not in this specific case unfortunately, hence it being a problem and us having this exchange.

In relationships? In relationships where people consent? Give me some examples.

And you have yet to prove it's a problem that men (and women) cannot escape by using better judgement and restraint. It's called personal responsibility. The govt cant even protect women from domestic abuse without a high threshold of due process.

It is indeed clearly, obviously and categorically unjust for men to be deceived into upkeeping an 18 year financial obligation, whether or not you personally think men 'sound stupid' for trusting their partner not to lie to them over something so significant, or you are somehow seriously of the ridiculous belief that a man's options here should be reducible to either never having unprotected vaginal sex or being left absolutely powerless to contest such an obligation in the case of such deliberate deception.

Well then...why cant men consider that before having sex? Again, how is it unjust for men to feel entitled to sex but then not the consequences?

They are stupid. Just like women are when they believe men that say they'll marry them if they get pregnant. How about this...we'll enforce trying to get evidence for women lying to trap men into having babies when we also go after men for lying to women that they'll marry them if they get knocked up. Hows' that?

Neither can really be proved but both show that people are responsible for their own risks and decisions in relationships. Not the govt. What is stopping men from choosing not to have sex with someone if they are not sure if they're lying to them? They know the risk...so why shouldnt they be held accountable for it?

Or, if women claim the man said he'd marry her if she got pregnant...should the govt force him to marry her?

You're welcome to your abortions, but if you choose to carry despite my objections, and despite your own representations and promises, I'm welcome to walk away.

Not legally. You can try to escape it but DNA testing and the Internet make that a lot harder these days.

Yes, they do.

And fortunately our legal system does allow people to get obtain recourse over material lies, though pregnancy through deceit is an unfortunate blindspot as that goes.

Your post does sound like a victim...the govt is not here to protect you from your own personal responsibilities. You clearly know the risks and yet complain that you should still be able to take those risks and not be held responsible for the consequences. That's ridiculous.

Lies resulting in 18 years of financial obligations should be no exception.

Nobody forced men to have have sex with those women "when they knew that was a possibility." Again: are men capable of acting in their own best interests or not? WHy not just not sleep with her?

Because, even tho you dont admit it...you believe that men are entitled to sex without consequences. And you refuse to confront the hypocrisy of that, since women arent and never have been. Where is your justification for that double standard? For that hypocrisy?

 

[Gordy327]

The State's interest in protecting the rights of the Child.

There is no child until birth. There are no rights for the unborn. Neither are they recognized as legal persons. So what exactly is the state's interest? Where is this interest codified?

 

[Surrealistik]

In relationships? In relationships where people consent? Give me some examples.

Divorce court has plenty; material lies that translate into dollar figures or the withholding thereof.

And you have yet to prove it's a problem that men (and women) cannot escape by using better judgement and restraint. It's called personal responsibility. The govt cant even protect women from domestic abuse without a high threshold of due process.

It's obviously impossible to prove to an apparent misandrist like you, under any circumstances, something as self-apparent as the fact that it isn't right to force a man to choose between such extremes as universal distrust, paranoia and celibacy, a vasectomy or being potentially forced to financially support a child for 18 years because a woman is legally allowed to lie to him about her use of contraception and intention to abort and accidental pregnancy without penalty or the man having recourse.

Well then...why cant men consider that before having sex? Again, how is it unjust for men to feel entitled to sex but then not the consequences?

They are stupid. Just like women are when they believe men that say they'll marry them if they get pregnant. How about this...we'll enforce trying to get evidence for women lying to trap men into having babies when we also go after men for lying to women that they'll marry them if they get knocked up. Hows' that?

Neither can really be proved but both show that people are responsible for their own risks and decisions in relationships. Not the govt. What is stopping men from choosing not to have sex with someone if they are not sure if they're lying to them? They know the risk...so why shouldnt they be held accountable for it?

Or, if women claim the man said he'd marry her if she got pregnant...should the govt force him to marry her?

Where your obviously false parallel falls flat is that the woman in this case is legally entitled to pursue and collect child support in the case of the man's deception; the man is already made to pay reparations under present law.

By contrast in the case of a woman conceiving and carrying his child to term on the basis of deception, a man has no zero recourse, compensation or protections under the law.

Further, yes, such deception can be proven. The main stumbling block would be failing to collect the evidence in the first place. Unfortunately, under the law as it stands, even if a man had his partner dead to rights with recordings and written, witnessed admissions, there is no way out.

Not legally. You can try to escape it but DNA testing and the Internet make that a lot harder these days.

I was describing how it should be, not how it is unfortunately.

Your post does sound like a victim...the govt is not here to protect you from your own personal responsibilities. You clearly know the risks and yet complain that you should still be able to take those risks and not be held responsible for the consequences. That's ridiculous.

My personal responsibility ends where a woman's material lies begin; I don't care about your personal opinion on the matter. The govt indeed exists in part to protect me from financial fraudsters and predators.

 

[Bodi]

Tricked? How about stupid for trusting

Sounds like the philosophy of a person in some really emotionally solid relationships.

 

[Lursa]

Divorce court has plenty; material lies that translate into dollar figures or the withholding thereof.

Be specific...and then note that there is no punishment...just division of assests, custody of kids etc.

It's obviously impossible to prove to an apparent misandrist like you, under any circumstances, something as self-apparent as the fact that it isn't right to force a man to choose between such extremes as universal distrust, paranoia and celibacy, a vasectomy or being potentially forced to financially support a child for 18 years because a woman is legally allowed to lie to him about her use of contraception and intention to abort and accidental pregnancy without penalty or the man having recourse.

No one said it's right but you seem to ignore the fact that men can protect themselves from that...and instead, CHOOSE A KNOWN RISK to have sex. Again...since they know that...why shouldnt they be held accountable?

Again...where is there some legal force making men marry the women they promised they'd marry if they got pregnant? Are you saying that only a misogynist would agree with that?

What extremes is a man choosing between? Is celibacy so incomprehensible outside of a committed relationship? Again...you clearly believe that men are entitled to sex without consequences, which again, is hypocritical, since women are not, cannot be. Why should men be then?

Where your obviously false parallel falls flat is that the woman in this case is legally entitled to pursue and collect child support in the case of the man's deception; the man is already made to pay reparations under present law.

And he can also request joint custody. And then the woman has to pay, or pay half. The laws are equal for both sexes. If they arent applied equally, well, most judges are still men so if you want someone to blame...it's other men.

If a man doesnt want to pay, he can choose. You find that choice incomprehensible but that still doesnt mean men are entitled to sex without consequences.

By contrast in the case of a woman conceiving and carrying his child to term on the basis of deception, a man has no zero recourse, compensation or protections under the law.

Again you act like most women do this. If men believe this...then wouldnt they be smart NOT to have sex? Are they incapable of that? If they really believe women are out to 'get them'? If men really believe that's common...isnt it stupid to risk it? Yes or no? Can men act in their own best interests or not?

LOL and btw, do you really think most women have to trick men into marrying them?

Further, yes, such deception can be proven. The main stumbling block would be failing to collect the evidence in the first place. Unfortunately, under the law as it stands, even if a man had his partner dead to rights with recordings and written, witnessed admissions, there is no way out.

Same with that promise of marriage. Since this is all known, again, men and women should use their judgement and if they choose the risk, be prepared to face the consequences.

You want men to be able to weasel out of consequences they CHOSE to risk. Again, you make men look stupid and weak. I disagree.

I was describing how it should be, not how it is unfortunately.

That's right...humans are human and are dishonest and cruel and spiteful. And also good and fun.

A person's involvement in a relationship is their business, not the govt's. If you want sex, accept the risks, both sexes. Why dont you find that reasonable?

My personal responsibility ends where a woman's material lies begin; I don't care about your personal opinion on the matter. The govt indeed exists in part to protect me from financial fraudsters and predators.

If you believe you are at such risk from women's lies...what can you do about it? You have 100% control over not becoming a father. Why are you complaining? Oh...it's because you want sex anyway.

 

[Surrealistik]

Be specific...and then note that there is no punishment...just division of assests, custody of kids etc.



No one said it's right but you seem to ignore the fact that men can protect themselves from that...and instead, CHOOSE A KNOWN RISK to have sex. Again...since they know that...why shouldnt they be held accountable?

Again...where is there some legal force making men marry the women they promised they'd marry if they got pregnant? Are you saying that only a misogynist would agree with that?

What extremes is a man choosing between? Is celibacy so incomprehensible outside of a committed relationship? Again...you clearly believe that men are entitled to sex without consequences, which again, is hypocritical, since women are not, cannot be. Why should men be then?



And he can also request joint custody. And then the woman has to pay, or pay half. The laws are equal for both sexes. If they arent applied equally, well, most judges are still men so if you want someone to blame...it's other men.

If a man doesnt want to pay, he can choose. You find that choice incomprehensible but that still doesnt mean men are entitled to sex without consequences.



Again you act like most women do this. If men believe this...then wouldnt they be smart NOT to have sex? Are they incapable of that? If they really believe women are out to 'get them'? If men really believe that's common...isnt it stupid to risk it? Yes or no? Can men act in their own best interests or not?

LOL and btw, do you really think most women have to trick men into marrying them?



Same with that promise of marriage. Since this is all known, again, men and women should use their judgement and if they choose the risk, be prepared to face the consequences.

You want men to be able to weasel out of consequences they CHOSE to risk. Again, you make men look stupid and weak. I disagree.



That's right...humans are human and are dishonest and cruel and spiteful. And also good and fun.

A person's involvement in a relationship is their business, not the govt's. If you want sex, accept the risks, both sexes. Why dont you find that reasonable?



If you believe you are at such risk from women's lies...what can you do about it? You have 100% control over not becoming a father. Why are you complaining? Oh...it's because you want sex anyway.

By now, it is clear this conversation is moving in tedious circles and serves no purpose other than apparently upsetting you.

Suffice to say we don't and will not ever agree on the matter.

 

[Lursa]

By now, it is clear this conversation is moving in tedious circles and serves no purpose other than apparently upsetting you.

Suffice to say that we don't and will not ever agree on the matter.

I've had this exact conversation many times, lol. I'm not upset.

You wont answer the most basic aspect of this conversation: You wont admit that you believe men are entitled to to sex without consequences and when hypocrisy is pointed out because women never have been and still are not...you wont acknowlege that hypocrisy nor can you justify it.

And then you still believe that the govt should intrude into personal relationships to 'deliver justice' but apparently only for men since you wont even acknowledge where I've offered the example where men lie and promise they'll marry a woman if she gets pregnant, so they can have sex.

Personal relationships are based on humans and personal responsibility. It's clear you/men know the risks...what you wont explain is why you dont believe men should be held accountable for taking them.

 

[cpwill]

You didnt answer my questions and it's not about "lesser," it's about what is realized and contributing to society and what "may some day."

That is a measurement of "lesser" and "greater" with worrisome implications. The value of a human being's nature as a human is not based on what they currently or may in the future contribute to society.

It's about the examination of the moral questions of intentionally causing pain and suffering against women whlie at the same time, denying us consent to our own individuality and self-determination.

Seems a bit more involved, to some of us, than 'catagorization.' My pointing out that the unborn are not 'children' is just pointing out a common tactic many pro-life people use to divert from the tough questions...semantics and emotional manipulation. OK, 2 tactics.

Quite the contrary - our point precisely is that it is the pro choice side deliberately avoiding the tough questions, by avoiding the human child involved.

And yet, you framed your response as "allowing" it for women...subconscious minimization of women?

Ironically self deprecating humor, actually

 

[Lursa]

That is a measurement of "lesser" and "greater" with worrisome implications. The value of a human being's nature as a human is not based on what they currently or may in the future contribute to society.

Why not? Are you claiming that basic genetic composition should? Why? What is the basic nature of humans that society should consider?

We're discussing society's role under legal premises. Why shouldnt societ consider that, when the alternative would be damaging to society?

Left to themselves, with no legal oversite, most women choose to have babies rather than abort. No one is coercing women into having abortions...it's an individual choice and US society has laws and a Const that protect people...not 'humans.' But if we're going to insist on laws, then society makes choices. Moral choices IMO as I've described. And in society's best interests. And again, we have a legal system and Const to set the foundation for that.

Quite the contrary - our point precisely is that it is the pro choice side deliberately avoiding the tough questions, by avoiding the human child involved.

Everyone knows the unborn is human...why do you write, again, something so trite? Where does any "DNA" have rights recognized in biology? Rights are a man-made concept...assigned under a system of laws.

Who says the unborn humans have rights? Not biology, not DNA. If you choose to imagine 'children' inside strangers, I find that disturbing but of course, your prerogative. Such imaginings perhaps stoke your fervor but emotional manipulation of pretending there are children inside strangers is not the basis for any real argument.

 

[Surrealistik]

I've had this exact conversation many times, lol. I'm not upset.

You wont answer the most basic aspect of this conversation: You wont admit that you believe men are entitled to to sex without consequences and when hypocrisy is pointed out because women never have been and still are not...you wont acknowlege that hypocrisy nor can you justify it.

And then you still believe that the govt should intrude into personal relationships to 'deliver justice' but apparently only for men since you wont even acknowledge where I've offered the example where men lie and promise they'll marry a woman if she gets pregnant, so they can have sex.

Personal relationships are based on humans and personal responsibility. It's clear you/men know the risks...what you wont explain is why you dont believe men should be held accountable for taking them.

Dunno, I find the repeated use of bolding and excitable language implies that you're upset, but you do you.

Frankly there is no such hypocrisy, though yes, you have often baselessly opined as much, even though I have shown that women are in fact perfectly capable of enjoying protection free intercourse without consequences, or with minimal consequences at worst. There is just such a fundamental divide here and repeated and incessantly disingenuous framing and off-hand disregard that it is utterly impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you to the point where it's easily on the level of dealing with some of the most deeply indoctrinated Republicans on this forum. That you believe, and have stated ad nauseum, that it is perfectly reasonable for men to be forced into a no-win choice between celibacy, infertility and chancing 18 years of significant financial liability on the basis of some woman's deception says it all really.

You're of course certainly welcome to continue to showcase what I feel to be clear misandry by essentially blaming men for being victimized by partners actively lying their way to a kid and 18 year meal ticket who should have no legal recourse or escape no matter the circumstances or evidence.

 

[Lursa]

Dunno, I find the repeated use of bolding and excitable language implies that you're upset, but you do you.

Bold is for emphasis, since you keep ignoring those statements. And what language is 'excitable?' You are the one freaking out about women lying to entrap men and then cant even back it up.

Frankly there is no such hypocrisy, though yes, you have often baselessly opined as much, even though I have shown that women are in fact perfectly capable of enjoying protection free intercourse without consequences, or with minimal consequences at worst.

No we're not and you completely ignored the list I gave you. That you minimize infertility, infection, job loss, even death for any of those consequences displays grave misogyny. Pregnancy, miscarriage, abortion, death...none of these is 'minimal.' It's disturbing you claim so, when you're just complaining about $$.

There is just such a fundamental divide here and repeated and incessantly disingenuous framing and off-hand disregard that it is utterly impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you to the point where it's easily on the level of dealing with some of the most deeply indoctrinated Republicans on this forum. That you believe, and have stated ad nauseum, that it is perfectly reasonable for men to be forced into a no-win choice between celibacy, infertility and chancing 18 years of significant financial liability on the basis of some woman's deception says it all really.

That you believe men are forced into anything is ludicrous. Again...you just believe men are entitled to sex without consequences...well legally they no longer are. Men can choose. You just believe men should be able to choose and then get out of the consequences. That's irresponsible and I dont even think most men would agree with you. It's deplorable.

You're of course certainly welcome to continue to showcase what I feel to be clear misandry by essentially blaming men for being victimized by partners actively lying their way to a kid and 18 year meal ticket who should have no legal recourse or escape no matter the circumstances or evidence.

Men arent victimized by women...anymore than women are victimized by men...again, you wont even acknowlege that men lie to women to get sex, promising to marry. All you see is men having to pay for their decisions to take known risks. Why shouldnt men be held accountable for those decisions? I believe women should be. Dont stupidly believe men will marry you just because you got knocked up. Now you have to deal with those consequences. Oh well, you decided.

You really do make men look stupid and weak when you imply that a) they cant control themselves in their own best interests and b) are so lacking in integrity that they want to weasel out of consequences they knowingly risked.

 

[brianpatrick]

Fine with me. It could be a fun experiment. Let’s say we give them five years. Call it reparations if you want. If in five years we’re no better off, men can vote again.

 

[Surrealistik]

Bold is for emphasis, since you keep ignoring those statements. And what language is 'excitable?' You are the one freaking out about women lying to entrap men and then cant even back it up.



No we're not and you completely ignored the list I gave you. That you minimize infertility, infection, job loss, even death for any of those consequences displays grave misogyny. Pregnancy, miscarriage, abortion, death...none of these is 'minimal.' It's disturbing you claim so, when you're just complaining about $$.



That you believe men are forced into anything is ludicrous. Again...you just believe men are entitled to sex without consequences...well legally they no longer are. Men can choose. You just believe men should be able to choose and then get out of the consequences. That's irresponsible and I dont even think most men would agree with you. It's deplorable.



Men arent victimized by women...anymore than women are victimized by men...again, you wont even acknowlege that men lie to women to get sex, promising to marry. All you see is men having to pay for their decisions to take known risks. Why shouldnt men be held accountable for those decisions? I believe women should be. Dont stupidly believe men will marry you just because you got knocked up. Now you have to deal with those consequences. Oh well, you decided.

You really do make men look stupid and weak when you imply that a) they cant control themselves in their own best interests and b) are so lacking in integrity that they want to weasel out of consequences they knowingly risked.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

I'm not wasting any more time with you.

 

[BirdinHand]

If the (existing?) right was so basic then why was it only ‘discovered’ in 1973?

History of anti-choice advocates forcing laws in abortion is a lot longer than that.

I'll complain as I damn well please. As stated, just because it's presently the norm that the man has no recourse in cases of deception and entrapment with regards to pregnancy, and I have to currently deal with that fact, doesn't mean I have to like it, nor do I have to keep silent about it and not advocate for change.

Unfortunately it's not like the level of risk is always known; indeed, in cases of entrapment, it's actively misrepresented. Therefore, as a man, your options are never trust your partner and never have unprotected penetrative sex (while being careful to keep an eagle eye on your condoms in the meanwhile), which is obviously not really tenable assuming you don't have a vasectomy (getting one before you're absolutely ready is also an extreme), or throw yourself at the mercy of the woman without recourse; this is a lose lose scenario.

I’m sorry you can’t tell women what they have to do with their body.

I would beg to differ; frankly, at a minimum, if there's provable deception and intent to trick a man into having a child he's been clear about not being ready for and doesn't want, yes, the government should provide recourse for that. Proving it to a court's satisfaction can be quite difficult indeed unless the man is being proactive about collecting evidence or the woman in question is open about her motives, but in the event he can do so, that recourse should exist.

Once a child is born, the government will assure that both parents provide financial support.

I’m sorry that you don’t agree with women having the right to make medical decisions for their body.

m legitimately curious: what especial consequences for sex are woman specifically subject to assuming they use easily reversible contraception from IUDs to the morning after pill? And are those consequences anywhere remotely on par to being on the hook for ~18 years of alimony? By the way, to be clear, if I could take up effective unprotected contraception that didn't involve surgery, I gladly woul

So, you feel the right to dictate that women take hormones or have a device lodged in their cervix, but you won’t consider an outpatient medical procedure.

Interesting.

I should have vote on paying child support

You do. You elect the officials that write child support laws. Tell them you want them changed.

So men should be careful when they have sex but not women?

Why do you feel that you can tell women what to do with their body?

on't believe men should be made to suffer adverse consequences in the form of an unwanted pregnancy for unprotected consensual sex where their partner has clearly and specifically represented that she is on birth control, and agreed that a morning after pill or other abortion method would be used in the case of accidental pregnancy. Why should they?

Why should a man have a right to tell a woman that she has to take hormones? Or undergo a medical procedure? Why do you feel as though you have that right? What entitles you to that demand

 

[Bodi]

There is just such a fundamental divide here and repeated and incessantly disingenuous framing and off-hand disregard that it is utterly impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you ... That you believe, and have stated ad nauseum, that it is perfectly reasonable for men to be forced into a no-win choice between celibacy, infertility and chancing 18 years of significant financial liability on the basis of some woman's deception says it all really.

I could have warned you of this... having gone through a couple of years debating said poster on the issue.

You're of course certainly welcome to continue to showcase what I feel to be clear misandry by essentially blaming men for being victimized by partners actively lying their way to a kid and 18 year meal ticket who should have no legal recourse or escape no matter the circumstances or evidence.

You feel it because it is...

 

[BirdinHand]

I don't think it is. The issue is control. Women understandably do not want to be controlled by men. Men understandably do not want to be controlled by women.

Women feel entitled to control men but don't like it much when men get involved in women choices. Women don't like sharing control.

Incorrect.

The issue is a woman’s body and medical choice.

Men want to control the medical decisions women make about their body.

You think you should be able to demand that she either HAS a baby or DOES NOT have a baby. It is HER BODY and her decision. Whether or not you like the choice she makes.

 

[Lursa]

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

I'm not wasting any more time with you.

So you cannot refute my comments and arguments...just run away. Fine...I'm glad that the conversation remains for anyone to consider.