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 »

Nope, but it is inconsistent to apply it to one side of the equation and not to the other.

quote:

Originally posted by Jansa 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.

im rusty and used to the pill or depo shot my bad.That move is only for period buttsechs

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Nope, but it is inconsistent to apply it to one side of the equation and not to the other.

The world is not a uniform place. Inconsistency is a necessary chaos.

I read the first 2 pages (40ppp) of this thread. I keep seeing the same logical argument repeated ad nauseam by MrJive that noone has been able to refute. "Man up" or "that's life" are not logical arguments. It's very simple: Are you pro equal choice, or are you not? If you're not, that is sexist.

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.

How? By the time it's time to decide whether an abortion should be carried out or not, the woman should be aware of the man's intentions of either staying or leaving, and she should act accordingly. That is, raise the kid herself with no help from the father whatsoever, or have the abortion.

If you're against abortion, tough luck, because that was also your choice.

And don't even bother shooting the old crap about not having sex if you can't take the consequences. I'm willing to bet everyone in this thread is very much for "sex for pleasure". And really, who needs the stress of worrying about a child when you're fucking?

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa So in other words, let thousands upon thousands of shitty parents run off without having to face their responsibilities?

As opposed to what? Making them pay cash instead? Well, certainly you must realize that there's more to their "responsibilities" than financial provision. Whether they pay, or don't - they aren't facing their responsibilities either way, and there's no way to force them to be good parents.

quote:

Let children be left on the street or in dumpsters, or wherever? Let kids go to alcoholic, abusive parents etc. etc.

Well, that's the equivalent of what every other species does when they have offspring that they are unwilling or unable to raise, and it seems to work satisfactorily for them. Of course, it would be nice if we could aspire to be better than that. But you can't force people to do the right thing - and forcing them to go half-way only exacerbates the problem in two ways:

1. Children are more likely to survive in spite of having parents who will never raise them properly, and their unfortunate circumstances will then affect them for a longer period of time, while also creating possible social problems for others.
2. It is probable that more women would choose to do the right thing (abort) if the alternative were less attractive. Lots of single mothers are getting paid child support, and spending most of that money on themselves and not the child. Take that possibility away, and maybe they would have never had the child.

If there were some magic wand that the government could wave and ensure that all children get the upbringing that they require, then that would be great. But the illusion that we can just extract cash from the "responsible" parties and throw that at the situation, and then it's being "dealt with" is not one which is productive to any of the parties involved.

quote:

Originally posted by distant "Man up" or "that's life" are not logical arguments.

"Why" "not" "?"

quote:

How? By the time it's time to decide whether an abortion should be carried out or not, the woman should be aware of the man's intentions of either staying or leaving, and she should act accordingly. That is, raise the kid herself with no help from the father whatsoever, or have the abortion. If you're against abortion, tough luck, because that was also your choice.

Because all it would take is for a father to say "I never approved of a child" and he would be resolved of all responsibility. Even if it were a complete lie, how would you ever verify it either way? The same also applies to women in the current situation. All it takes is a single lie. How can you choose one side over the other unless you are sexist?

quote:

And don't even bother shooting the old crap about not having sex if you can't take the consequences. I'm willing to bet everyone in this thread is very much for "sex for pleasure". And really, who needs the stress of worrying about a child when you're fucking?

Everything has its price though. The entire universe is action and reaction - attempting to remove any consequence is just trading one set of problems for another.

Well, do you need the stress of supporting another human being for the next 18 years, god knows most of the little mongrels don't move out until their early 20's so youre lucky if they make their own way by 18.
Kind of throws a damper on the party life...

Ok, Ok! What did I miss? If any one knows about having kids and the do's and don't of having kids before 30, its me.....



going back into this thread to catch up, then I will bless you all with my advice..

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T does artificial intelligence have a right to life, if your answer is not absolute, in what circumstances does it have the right and in what circumstances doesn't it have the right?

Well, we're still not sure whether artificial intelligence (as in Strong AI) is actually possible. This debate would end up extremely long to be in another thread (and I admit I'm a bit short of time here ).

The guy from Estonia really nailed it. No woman can be sure how she will respond to getting pregnant - and they often change their minds at the last moment. When a woman gets pregnant, she goes through certain biological changes (this is well-documented) that she is not responsible for. In response to Theresa's comment that "immature people shouldn't have sex"... it's actually immature to believe a woman's opinions prior to pregnancy! She is driven by certain chemicals that only reveal themselves at certain times, but not others.

BUT: let's assume the woman is mature, intelligent, and confident. Suppose she gets pregnant, and the guy doesn't want a child. The guy tells her in plain terms: "I do not want to be a father. I am not ready and will not make a good parent. I am absolutely against having a child."

What would an intelligent woman do in this case? If she's intelligent, she understands that she won't get the best of male investment in this case (even if he pays money - despite some bare-bones investment, it won't be great, and the child won't reach his/her full potential). So it shouldn't be in the woman's interest to raise a child where the father is not 100% on board, unless she can find another caretaker, which is near impossible (few males want to raise other men's children).

Society also bears the burden of children with single mothers. Besides various social expenses, such children are also likely to become criminals or dysfunctional.

Therefore: Women who carry to full term knowing full well that the male is adamantly against being a father are no less stupid (actually even MORE stupid) than the immature guys who forgot to use a condom and weren't ready for the consequences.

Normally, the man should want to raise his children with the same love as the woman, because he wants his genes to succeed just like the woman does. Nobody has to tell him, he does it because he wants to. Forced parenthood is like a military draft: it should never be necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Does the woman not know what she is getting into when she lets him put his dick in? Therefore she should not be allowed to abort. That is the logic, at least.

Poor argument and not logical. We're talking two very different things here. What you suggest is taking away a person's right to control their own body.

I think the current legal situation is unfair, but it's the best we got.

The right to opt-out could only be considered when:

A) It is made illegal to have sex without previously signing a contract to state both person's responsibilities should pregnancy occur.

B) We develop a way to be 100% sure that the person is not lying, just to get out of an uncomfortable situation.

Cannot see that happening.

I admire the women who take a man's point of view into consideration when deciding whether to have the child or not. Unfortunately it is IMO more common that the future of two people are decided by a woman and her girlfriends, rather than the two people who were actually having sex.




Please, ladies, consider the thoughts of your partners and the best interest of the child.

/Dr. Phil

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Everything has its price though. The entire universe is action and reaction - attempting to remove any consequence is just trading one set of problems for another.

removing the relevant responsibilities related to childbirth from the equation doesn't result in the automagical removal of consequence or so called price.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Poor argument and not logical. We're talking two very different things here. What you suggest is taking away a person's right to control their own body.

it boils down to different degrees of directness, because in the current situation a person's right to control their own body is absent (you have to work x time to raise the money to support the child).

in fact it is your argument which is illogical.

swallowing cum is cannibalism

Automagical is my new favorite word.

quote:

Originally posted by all-nite-freak swallowing cum is cannibalism

did you have fun flogging the horse?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T did you have fun flogging the horse?

is this some kind of tranny code or somethin?

quote:

Originally posted by all-nite-freak is this some kind of tranny code or somethin?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T removing the relevant responsibilities related to childbirth from the equation doesn't result in the automagical removal of consequence or so called price.

You're right. You take all the price and you put it on one person. And you ensure this legally.

For as many women out there who are insane enough to take their child to term, there are as many insane males out there who are willing to fabricate a lie that they had nothing to do with it.

Leaving the trust in either side of the argument is sexist and unfair because neither side can be trusted over another. So why change it?

yup those pussy breeders can be a pain in the ass sometimes

What a profound subject you've chosen to tackle. I personally know a girl who stopped taking the pill to keep her boyfriend they ended up having the child I think it was very shitty of her even though he supposidly cheated on her.

I think all parents should pay for their kids. I had a massive heart to heart with my father once to put many wrongs right and he thinks he got an old girlfriend pregnant in the early 70's, his not really bothered about checking out if she actually had a kid and thinks whats in the past should remain in the past.

It's easy to say what I would do because it's not me however I potentially have a half brother or sister out there and I think it's quite shit on his behalf.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On You're right. You take all the price and you put it on one person. And you ensure this legally.

childbirth isn't "all the price".

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T childbirth isn't "all the price".

Paying to support a child for the next 18 years is.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Paying to support a child for the next 18 years is.

if you truly believe so, you have a very shallow perception of reality.

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