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 »

And please, please no more of the "he chose to have the child when he took his pants off." That same inane argument applies to abortion.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa It certainly is NOT ridiculous. You SHOULD know. If you are going to be sexually active, you should consider the possible consequences, and prepare yourself for the time you might need to make that decision.

But of course, under the current legal system there is still no recourse even if she later changes her mind and decides to carry to term. The man can still be forced to pay.

Nothing but a written contract would be binding. Is that what you are suggesting that people draw up before they have sex?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T fixed to beat the remains of a dead horse.

can i beat it with your penetrator 2000

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa It certainly is NOT ridiculous. You SHOULD know. If you are going to be sexually active, you should consider the possible consequences, and prepare yourself for the time you might need to make that decision. My boyfriend and I have discussed this, and I KNOW that if I were to get pregnant, I would have an abortion. Not a doubt in my mind. Mind you, we are taking a lot of precaution to NOT have that happen. Fucking people are so irresponsible. They go around fucking like little rabbits with no care about what might happen, but suddenly they have a shitty situation to deal with and all hell breaks loose. If you cannot be an adult about an adult act, then get the fuck out of the bedroom.

Ok, let me give you another example. A girl I am friends with was always absolutely sure that she'd have an abortion. I heard her say that on many occasions. She got pregnant and is now a happy single mother of a little boy.

I'm saying that you can decide and discuss all you want. When the time comes, you might think differently, and there is no way for me to be sure that you wouldn't. And it's common knowledge that pregnant women are not exactly the most rational people.

quote:

Originally posted by all-nite-freak can i beat it with your penetrator 2000

maybe tomorrow when i'll be playing the fatherhood roulette again.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles And please, please no more of the "he chose to have the child when he took his pants off." That same inane argument applies to abortion.

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that he is aware of the possibility of his actions leading to the pregnancy of the woman, and that she thereby holds rights to whether that pregnancy results in a child or not.

Hah, just doing the numbers in my head and I've come to a conclusion why people who earn what I do don't have kids. I'd get a $4000 one off payment to help with medical bills, then I'd get $18,000 a year tax break... out of my staggeringly painful and already stupid amounts of money I pay on my income and property.

I could have the child, but I probably wouldnt be working very much for the next five years which is a 5 figure loss of income annual and I dislike the idea of having someone else raise my child in care.
Erm... once they hit school, I don't really want to send him/her to a public school the income from my job would more or less disappear into paying for that.
hmm, I certainly will not be buying a new car for the next 10 years.
We will get by quite ok in terms of food and housing.
My current partner is still part time at university and working part time, throwing their wages into the mix more or less has neutralised the costs of their tuition for the next 3 years to go.
I pay to keep them in clothes, housed and fed so my spare cash after all that is roughly, that much...

Nope!
We cannot afford a kid on the basis that for the next 3 years I'd be running in the red and racking up debt, assuming that nothing goes amiss and costs me more money, which it would and does.
So, there isnt any threat of mini-Liliths running around anytime soon, because I am already paying for the other little mini-me's running around which have to be supported by the state which in turn is costing me the high taxes. You drop the income taxes down by about 3% in some areas and halve the property tax and I can afford a kid.

Just bloody great... so much for my 'freedom of choice'

quote:

The argument is that he is aware of the possibility of his actions leading to the pregnancy of the woman, and that she thereby holds rights to whether that pregnancy results in a child or not.

Of course she does. Where we differ is that you think that the rights of the two parties to decide whether to be parents should be symmetrical only until she gets pregnant (after which the woman should hold all of the rights), and I think that they should be symmetrical all the way through.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Of course she does. Where we differ is that you think that the rights of the two parties to decide whether to be parents should be symmetrical only until she gets pregnant, and I think that they should be symmetrical all the way through.

So what happens when he wants it and she doesn't? When she wants it and he doesn't? Does it get defaulted to a game of rock, paper, scissors?

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Of course she does. Where we differ is that you think that the rights of the two parties to decide whether to be parents should be symmetrical only until she gets pregnant, and I think that they should be symmetrical all the way through.

Unfortunately life is not so fair.

I think that the responsibilties of a child should be symmetrical between the two parties, but turns out that women HAVE to be the child bearers, so tough shit for me.

Until men have the ability to become pregnant and carry a potential human to term, there isn't much of an argument.

It's unfair, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On So what happens when he wants it and she doesn't?

She aborts, since terminating a pregnancy is a matter of bodily autonomy. Or she carries it to term and allows him to care for it, if they plan on splitting up and she is willing to carry it to term.

quote:

When she wants it and he doesn't?

He can choose not to support it financially.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I think that the responsibilties of a child should be symmetrical between the two parties, but turns out that women HAVE to be the child bearers, so tough shit for me.

Well, no, they do not have to be, since they may choose to abort.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Well, no, they do not have to be, since they may choose to abort.

You can't abort a child.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles He can choose not to support it financially.

Wow, consequence-free sex! We should remove all other consequences from the world as well, that will solve a lot of problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa You can't abort a child.

But you can give it up for adoption.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Wow, consequence-free sex!

Exactly what anti-choicers say.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles But you can give it up for adoption.

Which is total bullshit in my opinion.

I'd really prefer the government not get involved in these types of situations in any way. Let nature take its course.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Exactly what anti-choicers say.

Yeah, I'm definitely anti-choice. I don't agree with something that could be exploited by asshole fathers, so I guess I am a nazi communist too.

I also hate kittens and freedom.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T maybe tomorrow when i'll be playing the fatherhood roulette again.

pulling out only works if you aim for the eye...its true, they told me that at planned parentood

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Yeah, I'm definitely anti-choice. I don't agree with something that could be exploited by asshole fathers, so I guess I am a nazi communist too. I also hate kittens and freedom.

Nah, it is just that the "consequence-free sex" line is also a favorite of tyrannical righties.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I'd really prefer the government not get involved in these types of situations in any way. Let nature take its course.

This has to be one of the silliest things I have ever read from you.

Let nature take its course?

So in other words, let thousands upon thousands of shitty parents run off without having to face their responsibilities? Let children be left on the street or in dumpsters, or wherever? Let kids go to alcoholic, abusive parents etc. etc.

That is just stupid.

Sorry... I don't give human kind THAT much credit.

quote:

Originally posted by all-nite-freak pulling out only works if you aim for the eye...its true, they told me that at planned parentood

You forgot to add, that in order for that to work, it has to happen during doggy-style sex when you pull out, spit on her back to fool her, and then shoot it in her eye once she has turned around, thinking you have finished. Please don't leave out the important stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I'd really prefer the government not get involved in these types of situations in any way. Let nature take its course.

I trust the government to mostly waste my money on civil projects which are too few and usually too late, suck up massive amounts of superannuation and end up as 'wards of the state' after they retire anyway.

Trusting them to raise your kids?
Never!

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Nah, it is just that the "consequence-free sex" line is also a favorite of tyrannical righties.

Uh-ohhhh, that must make it completely and utterly incorrect, then.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.