male's choice in abortion

[Nazi Flower Power]

Nazi sympathizer is generally used to include people that think Hitler was a good leader regardless of whether they get all personal and touchy-feely about it. If you don't like being called a Nazi sympathizer, you should reexamine your attitude toward Hitler and consider why some might find it offensive. Now I'm going to take a break from this thread before I get dragged into the flame-fest that is going on.

Is it really a flamefest if I'm just lamenting about how I no longer trust in the power of my deodorant thanks to those pointed barbs?

Don't worry; your deodorant works fine.

[Zepuan]

take it up with biology, because that is what has created the imbalance you're complaining about. The law, on the other hand, treats men and women relatively equally in this regard. It isn't completely equal, since the law will eventually come in and tell a woman that she can no longer stop her participation in reproduction and must see it out until the end, while it never forces a man to transfer his sperm to a woman's vagina.

however one may not want the concept spread to far of take it up with biology considering that it the catch phrase of opponents to equal pay, and allowing women to serve in all types of jobs this is ignored in many case such as trades e.c.t their has to be positivity geared discrimination to allow women to compete and this is consider just and right at the moment their is a debate in Australia about women serving in such roles as navy divers elite commando units for example despite being currently excluded on the grounds of women not being able to meet the physical requirements, maybe I'm wrong and your argument extends to such things in which case I apologize.

[The Chaos Heart]

The law DOES treat men and women differently in this instance.

Not really. You want the ability to obtain an abortion to be seen as a difference in legal treatment, but it is not. Men also get to control their own bodies. They also get to determine the extent of their participation in reproduction. The fact that their participation ends at sex is not a construct of the law - it is a fact of biology.

THIS ISN''T ABOUT ABORTION!I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHETHER OR NOT A MAN CAN HAVE AN ABORTION OR NOT! THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT! God damn, how many times do I have to repeat myself?! It's like talking to a fucking wall!

The ability to remove responsibility is offered to women. It's called abortion. Or adoption.

Abortion does not remove responsibility to a child, as there is never any child to have responsibility towards. It is legally equivalent to never getting pregnant in the first place. This is not the same as what you are proposing - which is that one biological parent of a child could unilaterally decide that, if a child DOES get born, he won't take care of it.

And men and women have the same rights and responsibilities regarding adoption, so trying to bring that up as a difference is ridiculous. This has been pointed out numerous times.

If abortion is the legal equivalent to never getting pregnant in the first place, then rejecting a fetus is like never having impregnated the woman in the first place.

Yes. He can either accept the child, be it's legal father, and have rights and responsibilities in regards to it, or he can reject it, and lose all of those things. Is it really that hard to follow?

It isn't hard to follow. I just think it's ridiculous. If we are not always going to expect men to care for their children, it is ridiculous to give them any parental rights at all. You say that just "creaming" somewhere shouldn't obligate him, but it should give him rights. I say they go together. If "creaming" doesn't give him any obligation, it shouldn't grant him any rights either.

Not, "Oh, he should have full rights, but should be able to give them up if he's a deadbeat." That goes back to the conversation we were having about having your cake and eating it too.

That's the way it works for women. Both parties start out with full rights and responsibilities. They then may choose to give up those responsibilities, but in turn, must give up their rights as well. How is barring men from having any rights fair at all?

Is that all you can say? Can you give an example of how it's not the same? Because abortion = abortion in my mind.

Indeed, it does. Of course, the "paper abortion" is, by definition, not an abortion. The idea is that it would be a legal construct whereby the father of a child could unilaterally decide not to support said child. An abortion, on the other hand, is a medical procedure carried out to end a pregnancy.

However, abortion leads to the loss of responsibility. Regardless of the intent, it is a reality that both exists, and is used. Therefore, for a man to not have something to balance that out is unfair.

If the man could have an abortion in this case, he would. That is the same as someone actually having an abortion from a legal sense.

Do I really have to spell out such a simple concept for you? Ok, fine.

Abortion - A woman makes the choice not to continue participating in the reproductive process. Thus, no child ever exists. No child needs or is entitled to support from anyone.

"Paper abortion" - A man makes the choice to abandon his child, should it be born. A child is born, needs support and would be legally entitled to it, but one of the two people who brought said child into existence refuses to provide that support.

"No child is ever born" is not equivalent to "There is a child but I said I didn't want it so I'm going to pretend it doesn't exist."

And I'm saying it SHOULD work that way, because the man shouldn't suffer because the woman wants the child. the only reason it exists is because she wants it, thusly, she should be the sole caretaker for it.

The imbalance of power and discussion isn't about the abortion itself. It's about the man having to support the child when he obviously wants nothing to do with this fetus, and wants it dead before it becomes a child with rights. The point I'm arguing is that it's sexist that the man is forced into something because of the decisions of the woman. It was the woman who decided she wanted to keep the child, not the man. Why does the man have to pay because of the decisions of the woman?

If a woman's greater role in reproduction means that it's all her fault and it's all her decision and all that, why do men have parental rights at all? Can you answer that?

A woman is the one who gets pregnant and decides whether or not to have a child, right? So why should anyone but her ever have parental rights (or responsibilities) regarding said child?

But a woman's role does NOT mean that. Indeed, the man does play a part. However, in this specific instance, if the man had the power, he would destroy the fetus. The equivalent of a woman getting an abortion. He should have every right to reject his part, while also giving up any rights. the woman then has this opportunity too. She knows that if she chooses to keep it, it'll be without a male around. Why then, when she makes that choice, her own personal choice, should the man be hampered by this?

And you're missing the point. Regardless of biological intended functions, abortion is also a means for a woman to get out of any contributions she may have to make to a future child.

No, it isn't, because the very act ensures that there is no future child. Abortion is a way to not have a child at all - like not having sex or being sterilized.

Exactly. And if there is no future child, there's no contributions to be made! See? Logic!

And the fact that men do not also have that ability is an imbalance of power between the sexes. Thus, sexism.

Your supposed "imbalance" is a biological one, not a legal one. And women still get the short end of that stick, since they are the ones who endure all the risks and bodily changes associated with pregnancy or abortion.

No, the imbalance is a legal one. This whole debate is about payment! As for the biological, you're right, but unlike the legal, there is nothing that can be done about that! But as long s we are dealing with the realm of legality and papers, the imbalance is on the part of the man.

I'm not "inventing" anything. It's blatant fact. An imbalance of power between sexes is, by definition, sexism.

Take it up with biology, because that is what has created the imbalance you're complaining about. The law, on the other hand, treats men and women relatively equally in this regard. It isn't completely equal, since the law will eventually come in and tell a woman that she can no longer stop her participation in reproduction and must see it out until the end, while it never forces a man to transfer his sperm to a woman's vagina.

Biology doesn't play a major part in this. again, this debate is about the money. If women have a way out o paying the money, so too should the men. It's a simple concept.

Regardless of "what it's used for", abortion is also a means for a woman to get out of responsibility to a child.

No, it doesn't. It means that there is no child, and thus no responsibility to get out of.

If I don't buy a house, I don't have to pay a mortgage. That doesn't mean I got out of the responsibility of paying a mortgage. It means I never had said responsibility in the first place.

And likewise, if someone else buys you a house that you didn't want, you don't have to pay a mortgage on it. You can reject it. Why cannot the same be made in regards to an unborn child?

[Geniasis]

Don't worry; your deodorant works fine.

Why thank you, that's very nice of you to say.

[The Chaos Heart]

That doesn't make it sexist against women you dumbass. Does that make women's rights movement's sexist against men? You're so incredibly stupid.

Sorry, I didn't think I needed to explain further. Because the fact of the matter is that women don't enjoy a state of total equality with men. Which is why, when an argument begins by supposing that not only are women not given less rights but more rights than men, there's a fairly good chance that an irrational fear of the uterus is at it again.

I didn't say women have more rights than men. Stop assuming things. I said in this specific instance.

[Katganistan]

Given that I'm "debating" a thinly-veiled misogynist... Yeah, I kinda am.

So, wait, even though I haven't said a word against women's rights, suddenly I'm now sexist against women? I hope you know, you filthy pig, that I take high offense to that. Exam your facts next time you fucking cunt. The last thing on earth I would do is oppress someone, and if you're so incompetent that that isn't obvious from this ENTIRE god damn argument, you need to crawl into a hole and die. You'll be doing the genetic pool a favor, you son of a bitch. You're scum.

*** Warned for flaming ***

[The Chaos Heart]

Exactly. She'd have the exact same responsibilities if the child is born. However, abortion lets her get out of this. This option. This option that let's you both remove right and responsibilities...this is not something that a man has. His fate is determined by the will of the woman in this situation. That is a legal inequality.

Are you under the impression that, if a man somehow got pregnant, he would be unable to obtain an abortion? If the law says that a pregnant man cannot get an abortion, that is a legal inequality. If a man cannot get an abortion simply because he cannot get pregnant, that is a biological inequality.

So, were men able to get abortions before some law keeping them from doing it was passed, or are you talking out of your ass?[/quote[]

This is not about abortions. It's about payment. Read the damn first post.

You have not shown how the law favors women over men. You keep pointing out plenty of things that occur solely due to biological differences, but you have yet to point to a law that treats them differently.

You are proposing a law that would treat them differently, but you have yet to bring up a current law that does so.

Again, while it doesn't directly treat them differently, abortion is a means by which women may get out of responsibility, and one of the reasons women get abortions. Not all, but some. All I'm saying is, if such a loophole exists, albeit an unpreventable loophole, and a loophole that is greenly accepted by society, why to does a man not deserve some kind of means? Can you tell me why the man should be forced to pay because of the will of the woman? Can you give one good solid reason why the woman's desire should override the man's? One reason why they should not both have an equal say and equal chance to remove themselves from the equation?

[The Chaos Heart]

Since there is no official definition for a "Nazi Sympathizer", we'll examine the definition of a "sympathizer"

Sympathize: To share or understand the feelings or ideas of another

Ergo respect =/= sympathize.

Nazi sympathizer is generally used to include people that think Hitler was a good leader regardless of whether they get all personal and touchy-feely about it. If you don't like being called a Nazi sympathizer, you should reexamine your attitude toward Hitler and consider why some might find it offensive. Now I'm going to take a break from this thread before I get dragged into the flame-fest that is going on.

Pleas re-examine the definition of "sympathize" and come to terms that your current definition of a "Nazi Sympathizer" is incorrect.

[The Chaos Heart]

So, wait, even though I haven't said a word against women's rights, suddenly I'm now sexist against women? I hope you know, you filthy pig, that I take high offense to that. Exam your facts next time you fucking cunt. The last thing on earth I would do is oppress someone, and if you're so incompetent that that isn't obvious from this ENTIRE god damn argument, you need to crawl into a hole and die. You'll be doing the genetic pool a favor, you son of a bitch. You're scum.

*** Warned for flaming ***

Aaaand...not really worried. I still stand that they deserved it. Up until that point I had been generally calm and respectful, while insults were thrown out at me repeatedly. A warn was completely worth me expressing how I felt about being insulted in such an offensive way.

[The Congregationists]

why to does a man not deserve some kind of means? Can you tell me why the man should be forced to pay because of the will of the woman? Can you give one good solid reason why the woman's desire should override the man's? One reason why they should not both have an equal say and equal chance to remove themselves from the equation?

Because women are better. They're just better and their interests take precedence. Always. Whatever argument needs to be employed to those ends will be and if you disagree you'll be called a "misogynist." Spend any appreciable time here and you'll figure that out very, very quickly.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

why to does a man not deserve some kind of means? Can you tell me why the man should be forced to pay because of the will of the woman? Can you give one good solid reason why the woman's desire should override the man's? One reason why they should not both have an equal say and equal chance to remove themselves from the equation?

Because women are better. They're just better and their interests take precedence. Always. Whatever argument needs to be employed to those ends will be and if you disagree you'll be called a "misogynist." Spend any appreciable time here and you'll figure that out very, very quickly.

Trololol.
I'll pretend you're only kidding, because the other possibility is mean for me to assume.

[The Black Forrest]

*** Warned for flaming ***

Aaaand...not really worried. I still stand that they deserved it. Up until that point I had been generally calm and respectful, while insults were thrown out at me repeatedly. A warn was completely worth me expressing how I felt about being insulted in such an offensive way.

You might want to take a break. Mouthing off to a mod could make you have to create a new account......

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

How about we just shut this down since it's becoming clear we aren't mature enough to pursue it further rather than giving folks more rope to hang themselves with this time.