Male freedom of choice? - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Male freedom of choice?
Pages (20): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »

Posted by Psy-T on Feb-10-2007 07:51:

quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
The liklihood of that even happening is so minute that the argument is moot, but yes, it would be equally your responsibilty. You shouldn't be so carelessly jizzing wherever the hell you feel like.

how about guys who donate to spermbanks, should they be held responsible as fathers?

quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
LOL! This argument with you is beyond stupid.

Fact - sex = possibility of pregnancy.
Fact - having sex = accepting these terms.

If you are unable to accept reality, then you should keep your wang in your pants, especially for the sake of all humanity.

if only i could turn back time...

fact - women = practically slaves.
fact - being a woman = accepting those terms.

if you are unable to accept reality (back then), then you should commit suicide.

Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Feb-10-2007 07:52:

quote:
Originally posted by Omega_Blue
it's like you're implying that a guy should be abstinent if he doesn't want to risk unplanned pregnancy, but it's ok for a girl to fuck whenever she wants because she can always get an abortion. that's fucked up.

Exactly.

Posted by Frenchie on Feb-10-2007 07:53:

Since when does having a pussy cause so much commotion.

Posted by Psy-T on Feb-10-2007 07:54:

quote:
Originally posted by Frenchie
Since when does having a pussy cause so much commotion.

genesis?

Posted by Frenchie on Feb-10-2007 07:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
genesis?

lol. Guess so eh?

Posted by Lilith on Feb-10-2007 07:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
genesis?

Poor Lilith got dumped from genesis

Posted by Omega_Blue on Feb-10-2007 07:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
how about guys who donate to spermbanks, should they be held responsible as fathers?

excellent point.

Posted by Halcyon+On+On on Feb-10-2007 07:56:

This thread is surfacing deep feelings of...vagina envy?

Posted by Psy-T on Feb-10-2007 07:56:

quote:
Originally posted by Lilith
Poor Lilith got dumped from genesis

thus proving my point (she did have a vagina, did she not? )

Posted by Psy-T on Feb-10-2007 07:58:

quote:
Originally posted by Omega_Blue
excellent point.

and as almost all others points here, one that has been posted previously in this same thread.

Posted by MrJiveBoJingles on Feb-10-2007 07:58:

Here, in concise terms, is what I am proposing:

Once a man and a woman learn that she is pregnant, each one of them should be able to decide whether he or she wants to raise the child, the woman making this decision through deciding whether to abort and the man making this decision through deciding whether to give financial support.

The current legal situation is that the woman makes this decision for both people.

Very simple.

Posted by Lilith on Feb-10-2007 07:58:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
thus proving my point (she did have a vagina, did she not? )

Yeah, but she was far more interesting than the Mark 2 model

Posted by Frenchie on Feb-10-2007 07:58:

quote:
Originally posted by Omega_Blue
excellent point.

No. They know that they're giving up their sperm for women/couples who can't get pregnant. I do think, however, that they ( if asked for ) let you know who the donor is.

Posted by Omega_Blue on Feb-10-2007 07:59:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
and as almost all others points here, one that has been posted previously in this same thread.

yeah it has been going around in circles for a while

no one is willing to give a little

Posted by Frenchie on Feb-10-2007 08:00:

No. They know that they're giving up their sperm for women/couples who can't get pregnant. I do think, however, that they ( if asked for ) let you know who the donor is.

EDIT: I mean yes excellent point.

Posted by RandomGirl on Feb-10-2007 08:01:

In a perfect world (IMO), a woman who is pregnant and realizes that both of the parties involved are not entirely committed to taking care of the potential child, she would have an abortion.

Unfortunately, not all women agree with me.

The reality of the situation is that a woman can choose to have the child, even if she probably shouldn't.

By having sex with her, you inadvertantly agreed to the terms that she had the sole power of making this choice. You should not be able to opt out on something you agreed to and created.

It is a shame - I agree, but that is life.

Posted by Omega_Blue on Feb-10-2007 08:02:

quote:
Originally posted by Frenchie
No. They know that they're giving up their sperm for women/couples who can't get pregnant. I do think, however, that they ( if asked for ) let you know who the donor is.

well according to theresa she felt that in the acorn example AND the somewhat crappy jizz-on-the-toilet analogy that the man was responsible for the jizz. according to theresa the male should "know" that by jackin on a shitter there's a possibility of pregnancy and should therefore take responsibility for his sperm, no matter what. in the same respect the male should take responsibility for the sperm he donated, no matter what. so supposedly the male should "know" that by donating sperm he may get a woman pregnant and should therefore take responsibility for his actions. that's bullshit.

Posted by Lilith on Feb-10-2007 08:03:

quote:
Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The current legal situation is that the woman makes this decision for both people.

Thats what lawyers are for.
If she has the kid, doesnt tell you, doesnt have anything to do with you after the deed and suddenly turns up on your doorstep out of nowhere with a kid in arm looking for a handout. Thats when you get a lawyer, preferably a really good one and start weighing up how much its going to cost you for the next 18years and what its going to cost you in the immediate present.

Posted by distant on Feb-10-2007 08:03:

quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
In a perfect world (IMO), a woman who is pregnant and realizes that both of the parties involved are not entirely committed to taking care of the potential child, she would have an abortion.

Unfortunately, not all women agree with me.

The reality of the situation is that a woman can choose to have the child, even if she probably shouldn't.

By having sex with her, you inadvertantly agreed to the terms that she had the sole power of making this choice. You should not be able to opt out on something you agreed to and created.

It is a shame - I agree, but that is life.

[way back machine]

You're a slave. Live with it.

[/way back machine]

I consider this argument won.

Posted by Omega_Blue on Feb-10-2007 08:03:

Posted by Psy-T on Feb-10-2007 08:04:

quote:
Originally posted by Frenchie
No. They know that they're giving up their sperm for women/couples who can't get pregnant. I do think, however, that they ( if asked for ) let you know who the donor is.

it's a good point because it invalidates an idea theresa presented, but it has no significant effect in this particular discussion beyond that.

as for knowing who the donor is, there are confidentiality agreements that prevent that (aswell as contracts releasing the donor from any and all parental responsibilities).

Posted by Omega_Blue on Feb-10-2007 08:06:

quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
You should not be able to opt out on something you agreed to and created.

that's what an abortion is. the woman agreed JUST AS MUCH as the male did when they decided to have sex. a woman should not be able to opt out on something she agreed to and created.

Posted by Omega_Blue on Feb-10-2007 08:06:

quote:
Originally posted by Psy-T
it's a good point because it invalidates an idea theresa presented, but it has no significant effect in this particular discussion beyond that.

as for knowing who the donor is, there are confidentiality agreements that prevent that (aswell as contracts releasing the donor from any and all parental responsibilities).

frenchie was actually agreeing with you there lol

Posted by Frenchie on Feb-10-2007 08:08:

Posted by Arbiter on Feb-10-2007 08:08:

If we assume that the person most directly responsible for an outcome should bear the burden of that outcome, then without a doubt it is on the woman should she choose to go to term against the wishes of the man.

It is true that the man chooses to provide a necessary step in the chain of causality leading to the outcome of a child when he chooses to engage in intercourse - but this decision is not sufficient to produce a child, since pregnancy may not result and even if it did, the pregnancy could be terminated thereafter. The only decision that is sufficient is when the woman decides to willingly carry the child to term.

It's certainly true that the man has more direct responsibility for the outcome than, say, the individual who introduced our hypothetical parents, or the bartender who might have served someone one too many drinks. But, like those individuals, while his decision may have been a necessary step without which the outcome would never have occurred, it was certainly not a sufficient one.

Consequently, it strikes me as complex cause fallacy to point at the man's decision to engage in intercourse as the causal factor by which responsibility for the child ought to be distributed. Since the woman's decision not to abort is the most direct cause of the child, it stands to reason that the woman is responsible for the child, and therefore should be willing to bear responsibility for her decision (to not abort) if that is what she wishes to do.

Pages (20): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »