It certainly is unequal. After all, it is not the man's body we are even bothering to talk about. The natural progression is that birth control is not perfect and therefore if you have sex you are taking a risk that there will be a pregnancy. It's true that the woman COULD choose to have an abortion. That choice IS legal at present. But, abortion has issues of morality, of mental health and it also has physical issues. Suggesting the man can skate if the woman isn't willing to have an abortion is just plain not acceptable. The fact that some have abortions isn't an excuse for demanding that all should do so. I find this very safe ground. ALL Americans want fewer abortions. The abortion issues is over whether there should be laws against women making that choice. The fact that the choice exists does NOT mean that it is logical to have law imposing financial consequences for those who see it as counter to their own moral principles. The woman may well not see abortion as a legitimate moral decision to make. Again, the fact that it is legal doesn't mean it conforms to the morality of every woman. In fact, we know it does not. Your "poor choices" comment clearly applies to a man who plans to dodge the costs of unexpected pregnancy simply by telling the woman to get an abortion.
So this is the rhetoric of victimization. Why not give the guy a break by just telling him up front you intend to trap him financially because your birth control, or lack of any controls will give you that power of them? How do you suppose those conversations would go? What you're really saying is that irresponsibility by both creates the power to financially enjoin only one of the participants based on a moral decision you support. The second part is the use of the legal system to then support the poor choice of said victim. It's insane. It's like saying, yes we both drove down the highway and even though I know I slammed on my brakes and caused the accident because you ran into me, you're financially responsible for my future livelihood because you were there. So, the law may be on my side in this, as you hit me. But I certainly caused it. And because the law creates an inequity, I will financially benefit because of your inability to not have the accident in the first place. And this is the superficiality of your assertion.
WTF??? Who said anything about entrapment? My assumption is we're talking about two people who have no intent to have a pregnancy and have taken measures to avoid that. First of all, there is no less financial responsibility for the woman than there is for the man. The person that is feeling victimized in this scenario is the man, obviously. You can't call the woman a victim simply because she refuses to have a morally fraught medical procedure ending a pregnancy when coerced to do so by her sex partner. I agree that it would be good for two people to have a serious discussion - before alcohol and before sex is imminent. You need to drive such that if the person ahead of you slams on their brakes you can avoid a collision. That's the law. "Tailgating" does seem like a hilariously appropriate metaphor for this discussion! Kudos for that!
Which just isn't true. The woman by a choice absolves her responsibility. And by the same choice assigns financial obligations to both herself and her partner without their consent. That's tyranny.
Accountability does NOT require explicit consent. You can consider that consent was implicit in the sex act. Sex acts can result in pregnancy, even when the partners work to prevent that outcome. The tyranny of sex - you must be quite the charmer!
This means we need a Men's Rights section on the site, for men to discuss men's issues which are clearly not respected by some here.
It can be titled "victim envy" poor white men, look around and you see they have no power ...actually if you think you're oppressed, rise like African Americans and women did!
Fun stuff here. Just another example of the demand for double standards for liberals/feminists. You refuse to acknowledge the wishes of your sexual partners, and you demand that you can fleece them financially for your own selfish choices. That truly is tyranny.
Since when can a man draw up a document releasing him from responsibility in relation to sex ? Not in the USA you can't. I say that the woman should have the final decision. It's her body. With rights come responsibility. It is you that wants to make the man responsible for the decision to carry a pregnancy to term. It is you that want's to make one person responsible for the actions of another - in violation of the rule of law. It is you that hates equality in law.
You are wandering into disingenuous ignorance denial, and avoidance. I do not suggest that women be forced by a man to carry a pregnancy to term. I am against this. It is you that agrees with forcing another human to be responsible for the decisions of another. You are not stupid. The inherent hypocrisy of your position is obvious.
?? Are you seriously so in the dark that you haven't noticed that I'm a male?? And, where did you get the idea that paying for part of the support for a baby you bring into the world could be considered "fleecing"?
Why on Earth would you think I would want the man to decide??you're making up these silly facts that are ridiculous. What is the law that I want to violate? Who is the one person who I want to make responsible for the actions of another that is in violation of the law? You're throwing around false scenarios. You seem not to care at all about a baby that resulted as a result of sex. A man or a woman could draw up a document releasing him from responsibility in relation to sex but they both have to agree to that... you made up three untrue facts and some are downright ridiculous
Do not blame me for your lack of logic and understanding of rational thought. Do you, or do you not agree, that a man should be made responsible for the financial consequences of a woman's unilateral decision to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term. Yes or no.
We are not talking about Rape. Once again. It is you that agrees that one human should be made responsible for the consequences of the unilateral decision of another. This is bad precedent. Period. That no person should be made responsible for the consequences of the actions/decisions of another is part of the Rule of Law and it is there for good reason. You are guilty of agreeing with Law that violates the rule of law. You agree with violating the rights of another human on the basis of a consequences of a unilateral decision of another. You are in favor of forcing one person to be responsible for consequences of the unilateral decision of another to carry a pregnancy to term. In order to get your way want to use this principle (in violation of the Rule of Law) only for things you agree with. (which is raging hypocrisy). In doing so you violate the principle of equality under law .. that justice should be blind. (which is also raging hypocrisy and discrimination).
Yes...I think a father should always be responsible for a child he produced. So should the mother Try and act like an adult and stop with the personal attack.
It is not a personal attack to state what you have agreed to and show state that you are in hypocrisy. Justice is supposed to be "blind" ... which includes blind to gender. You agree that one person should be made responsible for the consequences of the unilateral decision of another that a pregnancy will be carried to term. This is a violation of the Rule of Law "one person is not to be made responsible for the actions/decisions of another" What is hypocrisy is that you only agree with violating this rule for things that you agree with. This is a violation of equality under the law and discrimination. The only way for you to avoid hypocrisy and violation of equality is if you agreed that the the woman should be made responsible for consequences the unilateral decision of the man that the pregnancy should be carried to term.
You were the one that leveled a personal attack without backing up your claim. What did you expect as a response ? That you take me pointing out the above logical fallacy as a personal attack is proof of claim ... the claim that you have a weak understanding of logic.
You are suggesting that abortion isn't just a legal choice, but that NOT choosing abortion should carry serious financial consequences. Let's remember that many states are absolutely opposed to abortion and work to make it hard to impossible to even accomplish. And, let's remember that reflects the fact that a significant percent of both men and women do not see abortion as a legitimate option. Now, YOU want the law to read that if she doesn't get an abortion she must bear full financial consequences!! Sorry. That's just not acceptable. The law must be written as if abortion isn't even an option for the individuals involved, as abortion is an exceptional direction - not an expected standard. Your suggestion that a woman should bear the full consequences of a MUTUAL act just does not make any sense. She's already carrying a disproportionate burden simply by the fact that she is the one who is pregnant. Also, remember that the baby may or may not be put up for adoption. That, too, is a choice. So, I don't believe you've even considered the full picture.
you keep repeating the same line over and over. Who do you think should make the decision whether to carry a pregnancy or to terminate it? When you keep repeating this "unilateral decision. you act as though both can have equal say. I will ask again who should have the final say? What is the violation of equality under the law that you keep repeating over and over? They equally created a third person .just try to answer the question without repeating the same line "consequences of unilateral decision"
