Even perceived abuse trumps any custody laws which is why all a woman has to do is CLAIM abuse on the part of the man. He will be mandated to leave the home and provide monetary support as well. Guilty or not.
From these evidences, it would seem that the swing has now gone full extreme. However, where are the man groups and PR that fight against the current discriminative legislation and mind control? Women stuck together in the 19th century and established the feminism to take over everything this successfully. We men USED TO stick together. Now we are being "shot" one by one, like sitting ducks, the "I-changed-my-mind" bullet flies 50 % of the time, successfully, as per national statistics. Everyone is entitled to all the money we ever make using well orchestrated (child)-PR, except us who actually work for everything. Generally speaking, it would be nice to build something together with women, but they are clearly not interested, their legislation and PR is proof.
All a man can really do is protect himself by not allowing procreational-type sex unless and until he gets a written commitment from the woman. The only control a man has is not getting her pregnant in the first place. Don't count on her to have used contraception, don't count on that condom either. Once she's pregnant with YOUR progeny, she has ALL the rights and you have exactly 0. Even if she is a really really nice girl she will have absolute power and we all know that THAT does.
Then, news flash, women don't get pregnant any more, only men do. A great achievement of feminist legislation, PR, and mind control. Can we make a deal? Let's negotiate the pregnancy deal to a 50-50. Will that work?
Written consent wouldn't work, either. Think about it. It isn't the woman who needs to consent, but your future children. Well, she has all the rights over her pregnancy, yes. Nothing else would be ethical.
Yes, men should refuse to have sex. Absolutely! Because it is essential that men remain in control. Yes, a woman has control over HER OWN BODY! Imagine that!
There's another body she's playing God over besides her own. This argument from the pro-choice side is getting tiresome. If all she was doing was controlling her "own body" then I don't think anyone at all would object. The thing is that there's another body she gets to play God over and while it does develop inside her body, she's not the only one responsible for creating it.
While its inside her body, she certainly is. There is no other person who can be made responsible for it.
It takes two people to conceive. It just so happens that the child grows inside the woman. I'm sure some men are not happy about that, because their rights to their child are not even recognized as a result of it when they clearly should have a say in what happens.
but that little being inside that woman's body is hers. her property so to speak.....why. That almost sounds like slavery doesn't it. Life or death over your illiterate, innocent, unarmed, deserving of no rights, slave. Not even a democrat lover of the underdog defender for these little things. no Jackson, or sharpton or even that congressman who said he was spat upon and called negra. All the support in the world for everyone but these. odd.
That's right. In fact, it all takes place within a woman's body right down to conception. Well, clearly they can't have a say over what is happening inside another person's body, so they'll just have to on being unhappy.
The answer is in the question. It's inside her body. The only thing that sounds close to slavery to me, is removing a woman's right to bodily sovereignty and giving it to an embryo against her will.
"Against her will?" I'm pretty sure when she had sex, she "willed" the pregnancy to happen. I forget, what happens when a man and woman engage in sexual intercourse (especially unprotected intercourse)? Oh wait, I just remembered, we learned about it back in grade school--the woman gets pregnant. Hardly "against her will," unless she's denying that she's aware of causality and doesn't want to be held responsible for her actions.
Why? If that was the case, then there would be no abortions. Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is taking responsibility for her actions.
I already explained why. Causality is why. Cause and effect. Sex (especially unprotected) = pregnancy. People who have sex need to accept the fact that pregnancy is generally the result and effect of the cause, which is sexual activity. If she truly didn't want to be pregnant, then there's only one way to avoid that beyond reasonable doubt. Regardless of how unreasonable any pro-choice advocate feels that is, that's the only way to ensure that. So by having sex, a woman is allowing for the practically inevitable consequence or effect of her actions--which is pregnancy. Killing an innocent human life because it's inconvenient for her is not "taking responsibility." It's the exact opposite of responsibility. Responsibility would be seeing the pregnancy through and making a decision as to whether she's ready or willing to raise the child or if she wants to give it up for adoption. That's responsibility. There is nothing responsible about abortion.
Exactly, how is it that women don't seem to know this? No it is the killing of a developing human life that is the result of an IRRESPONSIBLE action.
Which is why two people should be responsible for preventing the conception Men have the ability to NOT have their rights "infringed" in this way by ensuring it does not happen
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Men have to take responsibility for not just spreading sperm around
It pretty much is. Male + Female + Sex = Pregnancy is pretty much the same thing as 2+2=4. It's causality. It's bound to happen. Claiming that the woman is not "consenting" to something that is so clear of an effect of her actions is nothing short of complete and utter denial. What do you even mean by that?
If they don't want it, they should be. If you don't want a baby on the way, there's pretty much only one way to ensure that.
Men SHOULD take more responsibility for prevention of pregnancy - but where are all the protests about adequate contraception for men? Men have more societal influence but where is the parity in contraceptive choice? There are at least a dozen female contraceptives and only a couple of male contraceptives - and unless we are talking sterilisation the other options are not that reliable When there is parity in contraception we can start talking parity in decision making with abortion
