|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The worst is that those men are FORCED into parenthood, women have abortion and adoption, slaves have no choice, no choice to to decide is they want to have a child or not, no choice to decide if they want to educate their children.
Men lives are property of women, (in anglosaxon countries), if they decide they do not want them in the lives of the children so be it, if they want them to have a meningful relationship with them so be it, trhe correct thing to do for men is accept whatever the women decides.
Just makes me sick, the rest of the story is unimportant, in sumary, a comedy about some slaves that are used by women to have children against their will, (involuntary sperm providers), who are also forced to care for them.
The funny point is to see how this disrupts their lives and how much problem they are having to do the simple task of child care, (a task that any iliterate mother of the third world can do much better thn any western female), and finally the moral of the story, is ok to force men into fatherhood, men are so stupid that they are unable to do day care tasks, (so they can not have any custody rights), and for finish, deniying men reproduction rights and forcing them into fatherhood is not only ok but good for men, that makes them happy.
This sort of films remember me the old black and white movies in wich they made fun of black people, white actors with their faces painted in black acting in a ridiculous and grotesque ways to make fun of the considered inferior second class citizens.
In one word PATHETIC.
PS: all rapist should go to jail, wether they are male or female, to have sex man and woman must agree if one of them have sex with the other without her/his consent goes to jail, to have a child exactly the same, but as long as people have less children than sexual encouters female rapist should serve twice jail time than male rapists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @12:31PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Can we have a Godwin's Law type rule that says that as soon as living up to your responsibilities gets equated with slavery, the thread is effectively null and void and whoever made that asinine, appeal to emotion remark has LOST the argument?
RE: The worst is that those men are FORCED into parenthood, women have abortion and adoption, slaves have no choice,
That's offensive. The "slaves" didn't have a choice in being dragged out of their homes, shackled, taken in a perilous journey across the seas, branded, made to work, flogged, etc.
A man DOES have a choice in terms of NOT sticking his genitalia into someone else.
Unless the man was raped, I fail to see how being asked to live up to the responsibility of raising a child you fathered can be equated to slavery.
Here's how it works. If you want to just knock boots with some woman and have no consequences of said action, get vasectomised. Or at the very least, work out AHEAD OF TIME what will happen in case of accidental pregnancy. It's called responsibility. Act like a man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Anon,
My femborg sensor is going off. Involuntary serviture is a form of slavery. If men don't pay child support they will in fact find themselves in shackles.
It's very easy for women to use men as involuntary sperm donors. They go off the pill without mentioning it. Yes, I know a girl who did exactly that and had a kid against the guy's will. Thirteen years later he's still paying for a crime committed against him.
Act like a man? You mean get dicked over and not do anything about it? Why is taking responsibility gender specific? Like the poster stated, women can absolve themselves of all responsibility associated with pregnancy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What would happen if all the things remain the same but just turning the table?, i mean that whenever a child is born custody is automatically given to the father and the mother forced to child support slavery or prision, women would have the unilateral choice to decide to have or not to have the child but then no custody rights and financial responsabilities, and only if the man decides to place the child into adoption the woman would be absolve to this.
If that would be the case, how many men would end up having unplanned children?, 0? 0.5? none? nill? nada?.
And in this case women would be responsible to the children they decided to have, not men decided, but themselves, but whos is going to have a child if that means zero rights, zero welfare, zero tax cuts, zero stamp foods, and just financial responsabilities, that is slave labor, (work a number of days each week without pay for the benefit of another person), chronical poverty, (salary less taxes and child support), and jail time,(if/when one fails to comply with the responsabilities).
Not woman, woman will never have children under this circumstances, and having the chance of avoiding it, abortion, that will never happen, they will just have children in using sperm banks.
So there would be no need to change the law to include men in the right to chose,just using the existing laws but doing to women what is being sistematically done to men would suffice.
And how much fairer that would be, child support slaves could never complain that they were forced to have a child, isnīt it?.
But the goverment will never do this, becouse they now women are not stupids like men, and the birth rate would plummet to zero, however men is a different story, we have been educated to be salves from the very beguining, not difficult to find men blindly supporting that men are held responsible of the choices of women, not only that but knowing that responsability is just sheer slavery.
Every time i am more convinced that the worst enemy of men are men themselves and if men are going to be liberated someday it will be by some women.
Nothing more pathetic than an black slave proclaiming that black are inferior and that servitud to the whites is their purpose in life, one would be liberator under this situation would just walk away and leave them with perhaps their deserved destiny.
Really sad!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @03:49PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: My femborg sensor is going off.
That's odd, because I'm a full-bore, honest to God man.
RE: Involuntary serviture is a form of slavery. If men don't pay child support they will in fact find themselves in shackles.
Well if they don't want to pay child support, they shouldn't have had the kids. You know what? When you sign a car loan and then stop paying and they sue you for the balance, that isn't slavery, because you committed to paying for that car.
RE: It's very easy for women to use men as involuntary sperm donors.
And even easier for the men to avoid this trap.
RE: They go off the pill without mentioning it. Yes, I know a girl who did exactly that and had a kid against the guy's will.
More fool him. Seriously. Don't get into relationships with people you don't completely trust. Either that, or use a simple, inexpensive barrier latex device.
RE: Thirteen years later he's still paying for a crime committed against him.
A crime. Sigh. I'm sure he was complaining about it at the time.
RE: Act like a man? You mean get dicked over and not do anything about it?
It seems to me he was doing the er, dicking at the time. There are certain risks you take. He drew the winning lottery ticket in the baby lottery, I'm afraid.
RE: Why is taking responsibility gender specific? Like the poster stated, women can absolve themselves of all responsibility associated with pregnancy.
That's part and parcel of the responsibility part. If you know you can't absolve yourself, you have to assess the risks and benefits of anything that'll put you in that situation. It's understood that if you sire a colt you pay the bills for it. You don't like it, don't have sex.
I have a son and another child on the way, and I don't consider either a burden in any way shape or form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK. I understand now.
You fully support the right of a woman to commit paternity fraud with no recourse for men.
You fully support the right of a woman to revoke all responsibility for a child before or after giving birth to it, while holding the man unconditionally responsible.
Excuse me for thinking you were a femborg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @05:42PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: You fully support the right of a woman to commit paternity fraud with no recourse for men.
Paternity fraud, as I understand it, is when a woman claims a child to have been fathered by someone KNOWING that the child was fathered by someone else. That is not acceptable.
But if you choose to knock boots with a lady, you accept that there is a chance you'll be paying part of your check to the upkeep. You can't be forced to stay awake nights with the baby, you can't be forced to have to feed it, sleep with it, comfort it, and now you're upset you might have to pay for it. You don't like those odds, KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS.
RE: You fully support the right of a woman to revoke all responsibility for a child before or after giving birth to it,
Don't put words in my mouth.
RE: while holding the man unconditionally responsible.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. Sorry, but you don't get to order someone to have an abortion, any more than she should be able to order you to have a vasectomy.
My point is, when you have sex, you have to be ready to accept the potential results. If you come down with AIDS, if you have kids, whatever, don't come crying to me. You participated in something VOLUNTARILY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paternity fraud is also claiming to be on on the pill to deceive a man into having unprotected sex for the purpose of becoming pregnant.
But what is the point in continuing this?
You are obviously misrepresenting your gender online. No man has ever said "don't come crying to me." Not to mention "keep it in your pants."
Femborg sensor was right all along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @07:24PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
"But if you choose to knock boots with a lady, you accept that there is a chance you'll be paying part of your check to the upkeep. You can't be forced to stay awake nights with the baby, you can't be forced to have to feed it, sleep with it, comfort it, and now you're upset you might have to pay for it. You don't like those odds, KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS."
In my opinion your logic sucks. You could say the exact same thing about a woman who didn't want the responsibility of having a baby and chose to have an abortion, or give it up for adoption, or even abandon it. "YOU SHOULD HAVE KEPT IT OUT OF YOUR PANTS", this is in fact want pro-lifers say to women. Yet you in all likelyhood would say "it's the woman's choice", "it's her body".
Yet it is also the MAN'S BODY who will have to take a much more dangerous job for 18 years to afford a woman's right to choose and make the man pay for her unilateral CHOICE. But no, men don't have a choice about themselves being FORCED into fatherhood by the STATE. Yet you, I'm sure, would be against the state FORCING women to not have an abortion so as to avoid "parental responsibility" that the woman wasn't ready for or simply didn't have time and energy for.
This is what mens rights activists mean when they say "women have rights, men have responsibilities". Feminists are using the state to FORCE men into their traditional gender roles of being the provider, ie. wallet. And from what I can see, you are too.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @07:31PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Paternity fraud is also claiming to be on on the pill to deceive a man into having unprotected sex for the purpose of becoming pregnant.
So protect yourself. Negotiate all the potential outcomes of your actions beforehand. If the person you're with is rabidly pro-life or Catholic or whatever, proceed with caution.
RE: But what is the point in continuing this?
Oh, no, you carry on whining about how much it sucks you have to pay money to support something you created.
RE: You are obviously misrepresenting your gender online.
The hell I am, Jack. Just because I disagree with you, I'm a woman? Jesus.
RE: No man has ever said "don't come crying to me." Not to mention "keep it in your pants."
Actually, this man has, and does. And if you have a problem with my saying it while being this gender, feel free to kiss my epididymal cyst.
RE: Femborg sensor was right all along.
Carry on with your pathetic delusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @08:37PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: In my opinion your logic sucks. You could say the exact same thing about a woman who didn't want the responsibility of having a baby and chose to have an abortion,
And I do.
RE: or give it up for adoption, or even abandon it. "YOU SHOULD HAVE KEPT IT OUT OF YOUR PANTS",
Sure!
RE: this is in fact want pro-lifers say to women.
Not pro-life. Pro-responsibility. You make it seem like a woman can just walk into a clinic, they shine some light on her, and she magically un-becomes pregnant. It's surgery.
RE: Yet you in all likelyhood would say "it's the woman's choice", "it's her body".
It is her body, and she has the right to take whatever risks she wants with it. But you have to understand, there are TWO people involved with creating that child, and BOTH are taking the same risk. The only reason why I'm not anti-abortion is simply because that would force the woman to take risks with her LIFE, and then chain her to raising, etc. the child. All the state ever asks a MAN for is money. And it seems that you all seem to begrudge your potential children this!
I'm a father of one with another on the way. I do NOT think of my kids as bills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @08:50PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
"It is her body, and she has the right to take whatever risks she wants with it. But you have to understand, there are TWO people involved with creating that child, and BOTH are taking the same risk."
Here you are wrong, the woman does NOT take the risk of the man FORCING her into her traditional gender role. She has a CHOICE.
"The only reason why I'm not anti-abortion is simply because that would force the woman to take risks with her LIFE, and then chain her to raising, etc. the child."
And a working class man such as myself won't be taking any risks with his life in taking a DANGEROUS job so as to afford the woman's choice of parenthood while at the same time supporting myself??? Do you think this gender role has AMYTHING to do with working class men making up 94% of ALL work related injuries, sickness, and DEATH???????
This will not "CHAIN" the man to his gender role of being the provider and being objectified as a wallet??? Interesting how you think it ridiculous to compare mens forced gender role to slavery, yet you use the words "chain" in description of a woman being forced into her gender role.
"All the state ever asks a MAN for is money. And it seems that you all seem to begrudge your potential children this!"
States don't ask. And they are potential children that I won't be choosing to have, the point is that someone else's choice is being forced upon men to support.
"I'm a father of one with another on the way. I do NOT think of my kids as bills."
Could this be because you WANT children? I don't have children, and bye the way it is the WOMAN"S CHOICE to bring a child into this world with a man who doesn't want it. This my friend, is the consequence of women only having the choice of parenthood.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 08, @12:11AM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
for a woman pretending to be a man, you're no Victor Victoria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What can be said of a person who thinks can force another person to hava a child, then steal the right to rise that child, force other people to support the children she has decided to have she wants the right to rise, and finally force others to work without a salary for their own benefit, that is force others into slave labor?.
That they are the scum of the earth, and should be treated exatlcy that way.
The people that think that men are slaves, second class citizens, male and female are lowest of the low, and should be sent to concentration camps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anon,
I don't think you see the whole picture clearly. From what I can gather, you feel it takes two to tango, and if you don't want to become a father then you have to change your actions and become responsible right?
In a small way you are right. The only safe course of action is abstinance.
Condoms break, and vascectomies are great until you figure in that most men who father accidental pregnancies are YOUNG men who someday WANT to have children. Young men who want to have sex occasionally.
Let us look at this the other way around. Women get to have sex whenever they want. They have many forms of birth control available which do not lessen the effects of the sexual encounter, unlike men who only have one form available to them.
Men cannot lie about using a comdon. It is there or not there. Women can and do lie about the pill. Or, and much more prevelent, they forget to take their pills. Trust me, I have gotten pregnat by forgetting to take my pill. It happens.
If a woman gets pregnant, she has many choices available to her. The first is to abort or not abort the child. This effects her health, so most people feel it is her choice. The surgury is quick, in and out in 3 hours, back on your feet in a day. No incisions, no lasting physical effects in the vast majority of cases. Don't go making it into some grand physical experience. It's not.
If she chooses to not abort, the second choice is to keep the child or to give the child up for adoption. This is NOT a health choice. This has nothing to do with the health of the mother, it has to do with the mother choosing to take or give up responsibility.
Now why is this choice, this fundemental freedom to chose to become a parent or not, one which effects both parents equally, only afforded to one sex? Why can only women chose to give up their child for adoption?
Why is the next 18 years of the father's life given over to the whim of the mother?
Keep it in their pants? Yeah, I think that is the only safe thing. She can whip it out whenever, but hey, it takes two to tango (sarcasm) ...If men say no, women won't get pregnant. Hmmmm, I wonder how women will take all that rejection?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @04:31PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"Well if they don't want to pay child support, they shouldn't have had the kids. You know what? When you sign a car loan and then stop paying and they sue you for the balance, that isn't slavery, because you committed to paying for that car."
you can't be sent to jail for nonpayment of a loan. you CAN go to jail for nonpayment of child support. understand the difference? it's known as involuntary servitude.
also, you can give the car back if it doesn't suit you. yet, if your ex 'tricked' you (she could easily remove the semen from a condom, etc) into fathering a child, then lies to the authorities about your attitude or propensity to do evil things so that you can never see this beautiful thing you've produced, you don't get be relieved of your 'duty', so to speak. do you understand that? probably not.
"That's part and parcel of the responsibility part. If you know you can't absolve yourself, you have to assess the risks and benefits of anything that'll put you in that situation. It's understood that if you sire a colt you pay the bills for it. You don't like it, don't have sex.
I have a son and another child on the way, and I don't consider either a burden in any way shape or form."
you mean to say that it's ok women can weasel out of responsibility, but men can't. i wonder if you would consider it a burden when you're giving up a third of your take home pay every month to support your children, yet not given the opportunity to see them because your ex is vindictive and hateful and has falsely accused you of awful things. so, you pay for them to have their minds poisoned against you. you pay for them to hate you without ever knowing you. and you pay for it all to perpetuate.
and all the while, as you silently paid, the next guy who is trapped may have to pay just like you did because his voice has been diluted by convention to the point of no voice at all. he'll pay because you were too fucking weak to use your voice. too fucking weak to investigate and stand your ground. too fucking weak to announce to the world the unjustice. too fucking weak to attempt to fix what's wrong.
and that's exactly what you've proven by your statements here, that you are too fucking weak to be a man, which makes you a woman, or an even lesser creature.
the shark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....the day both males and females decide to refrain from sex unless both of them are ready and willing to have a child. No arguments about whether a woman forgot or simply "forgot" to take her pill. No arguments about whose responsibility birth control is. We live in one of many oversexualized cultures in this world and these arguments are but one of the problems.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @05:35PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I completely reject your notion that refraining from sex is an answer. No law should be in place that punishes one gender over another because each engaged in consentual sexual activity. The problem isn't the 'act', it's the perception of responsibility of the act.
Sex is natural, and if two people decide to engage in it, willingly, and each is of proper age (nothing we can do about that one, as a child cannot give properly informed consent) then that should not be legislated or suggested against. Cripes, just what we need, another voice telling us what to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @05:44PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: ....the day both males and females decide to refrain from sex unless both of them are ready and willing to have a child.
Yes.
That's called behaving like a responsible adult.
Boo hoo to all you men who don't like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @05:48PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I completely reject your notion that refraining from sex is an answer. No law should be in place that punishes one gender over another because each engaged in consentual sexual activity.
The law doesn't "punish" anyone. When unplanned pregnancy happens, it's a bummer for just about everyone. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT POSSIBILITY, DON'T HAVE SEX.
RE: Sex is natural, and if two people decide to engage in it, willingly, and each is of proper age (nothing we can do about that one, as a child cannot give properly informed consent) then that should not be legislated or suggested against.
You make it sound like you're being "punished" for having sex, when the issue is about it being a pretty loserish and boorish thing to want to walk away from a life you had a hand in creating.
RE: Cripes, just what we need, another voice telling us what to do.
The voice is simply telling you to live up to your responsibilities. Responsibilities resulting from VOLUNTARY acts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @07:10PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"You make it sound like you're being "punished" for having sex, when the issue is about it being a pretty loserish and boorish thing to want to walk away from a life you had a hand in creating."
So "Anon", then I take it you're against women having abortions and women giving up their children for adoption? And those women who do these things are "losers" for walking away from the result of sex that they---just like the man-- chose to have...This would be the logical thought process, if there wasn't a sexist double standard.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @07:43PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: So "Anon", then I take it you're against women having abortions
Nope. But I would be opposed to anyone attempting to force someone to have that surgery, which is what some people want... "hey, I just wanted a piece of ass, see to it with a coat hanger or something. ciao." which would seem to me to be a bizarre way to try and equalize the fact that a woman CAN decide not to be a mother but the father cannot make that decision. That being the case, if you don't want to become a father, don't do anything that would CAUSE you to become a father.
RE: and women giving up their children for adoption?
If she doesn't want either the kid or the abortion, and the man wants it, he should have it if he has the resources to care for it.
RE: And those women who do these things are "losers" for walking away from the result of sex that they---just like the man-- chose to have...
Yeah, I would say that someone who just discards another human being because she didn't want to consider the consequences or potential consequences of her actions is an irresponsible asshole.
RE: This would be the logical thought process, if there wasn't a sexist double standard.
And I don't have one. Any woman who thinks abortion is retroactive contraception wants her head examining. It's surgery, for Christ's sake.
And as for people littering the place with children they don't want, part of me wants to forcibly sterilize the bastards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So "Anon", then I take it you're against women having abortions and women giving up their children for adoption?
Thats the point, before contraception sex and children were almost the same, no more, now with abortion conception does not means children as any woman knows, no even that, having a children does not equates to having to rise it, (adoption), much less slave labor.
Feminist knows this perfectly well, so to avoid unwanted children women must not avoid sex, neither men, and responsabilities and rights over allready born children come together and are chosen for women so must be for men, and finally by no means children can imply slave labor for any women.
All this is about rights without responasabilities for women, the right to have children and custody of them without the obligation to support them, and the right to benefit from men income without doing nothing for him, (serve and obey men).
So women have children and men are forced to support them through taxes, and then children are used to steal more money from men wages and give it to women, the result is a more or less traditional marriage, were women did not work to support their children, men did, and women shared their income of their husbands.
But know for nothing, men must support children they do not have the right to rise, no even decide to have them in first place, and then forced to share their income to women that do nothing for them, (household tasks, sex, etc).
The point is to hold men tied to their old role while women are no longer expected and required to perform their own one.
It is just massive gun wedding for males, but to a marrige were women must do nothing for their husbunds.
But this is over, if women want to children they must work to support them, if they want a house or to eat, they must earn their way like men, and finally men have the same right to have children, custody of their children and decide if they want to have children when and with whom.
It is amazing to live in a society in wich men are denied the right to have children, the right to rise them and then the very same children used as an excuse to force them in to salve labor.
But the days of parasites are numbered.
Some men support this status quo becouse they think that does not affect them, that that can not happen to them, well the day they get divorced will change their mind, besides that is just what they deserve, if one think that is correct to take some one children awy, his house, his salary, etc, that is exactly what he/she deserve that happens to him/her, i really do not understand what this people should be allowed to rise their children or keep their wages, they are criminals, criminal should not be allowed to rise children, no even to have them, people that justify slavery, that think they can tell other people how many hours must work to support their children, should be the first to suffer this fate.
I have no doubt that one day feminist will taste their own medicine, and their male minions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @08:25PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Anon writes....."which would seem to me to be a bizarre way to try and equalize the fact that a woman CAN decide not to be a mother but the father cannot make that decision."
The Father can't make the decision of NOT being a father is because the STATE will FORCE MEN to be a FATHER if the woman CHOOSES to have the child!
"That being the case, if you don't want to become a father, don't do anything that would CAUSE you to become a father."
Hey, why the hell don't you go preach this to feminists or women than hhhmmm??? I mean if a woman doesn't want to become a mother "then don't have sex", right??? But you don't preach that to them, now do you? You see, it would be politically incorrect because "women have the right to choose" MEN DON'T!
Having a baby is a UNILATERAL CHOICE of the woman. If the man isn't included in this choice then he cannot be held repsonsible for it.
But then you resport to "Then keep it in your pants if you don't want to be a father".... Yet you wouldn't say this to a woman, because of course it is only men in our society that don't have a choice of fatherhood, just responsibilities, while women enjoy choices even AFTER the fact of creating a life.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @08:32PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The Father can't make the decision of NOT being a father
Yeah he can. He can avoid sex, or get a vasectomy.
RE: Hey, why the hell don't you go preach this to feminists or women than hhhmmm???
What makes you think I don't?
RE: I mean if a woman doesn't want to become a mother "then don't have sex", right???
That about sums it up.
RE: But you don't preach that to them, now do you?
And you would know what I preach because....
RE: You see, it would be politically incorrect because "women have the right to choose" MEN DON'T!
Men DO have the right to choose! And if you want more choices, fight for em. This coming from someone who gives cash to the MRC (Manchester Research Council) working hard at coming up with a male pill.
RE: Having a baby is a UNILATERAL CHOICE of the woman.
Yup. So if you have a problem with that, don't put your nuts in that vice and just trust that someone else won't get the idea to turn the handles.
RE: If the man isn't included in this choice then he cannot be held repsonsible for it.
He accepted the risk when he got busy with the woman. Sorry mate, that's life.
RE: Yet you wouldn't say this to a woman, because of course it is only men in our society that don't have a choice of fatherhood, just responsibilities, while women enjoy choices even AFTER the fact of creating a life.
1) You have no idea what I say to women and
2) You have no idea what my opinions about these things are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If she doesn't want either the kid or the abortion, and the man wants it, he should have it if he has the resources to care for it.
Why the qualification about sufficient resources? Why shouldn't he just have the kid? He's willing to step up to the plate and raise it. There are a plethora of programs to help parents with insufficient resources to raise children: ADC, food stamps, EIC, etc. Not to mention the child support from Ms. I-don't-want-to-be-a-Mommy who is free to pursue her career.
Larry
The source of all power is the ability to say "No."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @09:04PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
"RE: Having a baby is a UNILATERAL CHOICE of the woman.
Yup. So if you have a problem with that, don't put your nuts in that vice and just trust that someone else won't get the idea to turn the handles."
This is what women were told when abortion and contraception were made illegal by the state. This is exactly what is told to men nowadays where the state is forcing men to be responsible for a woman's choice. You can't have it both ways. You can't say it's all your choice and then hold someone else responsible for it. Are you telling women to "grow up"?
"RE: If the man isn't included in this choice then he cannot be held repsonsible for it.
He accepted the risk when he got busy with the woman. Sorry mate, that's life."
Yet the woman didn't have the SAME risk. It is only "life" because this is what our society currently expects of men and in fact forces men through the state to adhere to.
"Men DO have the right to choose! And if you want more choices, fight for em."
Hey, what the hell do you think I'm arguing and fighting for here???? The woman can FORCE HER CHOICE on the man.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @11:59PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I completely reject your notion that refraining from sex is an answer. No law should be in place that punishes one gender over another because each engaged in consentual sexual activity.
The law doesn't "punish" anyone. When unplanned pregnancy happens, it's a bummer for just about everyone. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT POSSIBILITY, DON'T HAVE SEX.
when one gender has an option that is available through freedom, and the other is forced through law without legal recourse, whether right or wrong, then that is the very definition of 'punishment' under the law. it's ok, though, I don't expect you to understand it. I'm now reasonably sure that you're not very bright, so I won't trouble you any further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I completely reject your notion that refraining from sex is an answer. No law should be in place that punishes one gender over another because each engaged in consentual sexual activity. The problem isn't the 'act', it's the perception of responsibility of the act.
Sex is natural, and if two people decide to engage in it, willingly, and each is of proper age (nothing we can do about that one, as a child cannot give properly informed consent) then that should not be legislated or suggested against. Cripes, just what we need, another voice telling us what to do."
I'm not sure what legislation you think I'm suggesting. You say sex is natural. It is. So is reproduction, and when a woman becomes pregnant, a new person's life has begun. That's a pretty impressive, awe-inspiring idea, and it's not a good way to start out life with a man and woman arguing about whose "fault" it was. Unborn children are not venereal diseases, God damn it, and we should stop treating them as such.
That's the only point. If you wish to talk about how women have a "choice" to kill that child whereas men do not, fine. Make that point. I'm not arguing against men here; I'm arguing for humanity. It's not a competition for which sex can destroy more children.
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday January 09, @07:43AM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
The point is to hold men tied to their old role while women are no longer expected and required to perform their own one.
Exactly. I call this phenomenon "chivalavery" which is an amalgamation of the words chivalry and slavery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"A man DOES have a choice in terms of NOT sticking his genitalia into someone else."
what about women?, did women that undergo abortion had that choice?, if you are just against abortion for men and women thats ok, i do not agree with that, but at least is coherent, so i will not discuss this, but then what about adoption?, only women can walk away from parenthood?.(by the way is good to force someone to rise a child he/she doesnt want to? or is better that they place them into adoption so they are rised by people that loves them?,
YES? NO?,anyhow that is another debate).
1)
As long as women have those choices, (and several millions of abortions in USA every year confirm that point) and men do not, those children were born becouse the women, not the men, not both, the women decided to have them, period.
Yeah without sex in first place, without them being alive, without the earth revolving arround the sun, ................
2)
As long as having a child does not equates to the responsability of rising him and only women , not men , not both, just WOMEN, have the right to place them for adoption, men are forced not only to biologically, (a sperm-egg provider is quite different than being a parent), become a "parent" but socially too, (that in most cases equates not to the rights and duties of rising a child, but just slave labor).
SO OBVIOUSLY THOSE MEN HAVE BEEN FIRST USED FOR ANOTHER PERSON TO HAVE CHILDREN WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, AND SECOND FORCED INTO SOCIAL RESPONSABILITIES REGARDING THOSE CHILDREN.
The fact that this two things happened is not sex is the will of women, just that, women that could have aborted or placed them into adoption, and decided not to.
Ofcourse one can say that without sex that would have not happened, the same is true for women but it happens that for them sex does not means children, they only have them if they want, and even if they decide to have them,sex does not mean they are forced to rise them even if they first decide to have them.
I dont even say forced to fatherhood becouse the social responsabilities they are forced into it is not raising a child but sheer slavery.
So women, not them decided that they were going to become sperm provider, (no even donnors), and women decided that they were going to become socially responsable for those children as the masters decides what to do with the lives of their slaves.
For first class citizens sex does not equates to children, they have only children when and if they want, and sex and voluntarely having children does not means they are going to become parents against their will, ofcourse for second class citizens this is a very different story.
PS: Slavery has existed and exist in several ways, not just african slaves that were taken in a perilous journey across the seas ..., the slave labor of the jews in the warsaw getho was one of its wonderfull manifestation, wich consisted in the nazis keeping 65% of their income.
Well if you add federal plus state taxes and child support ..... not far away, you can add to this kind os slavery being forced to wars, and have no right to rise ones children, and no even the right to decide to have or nor to have children IF ONE PUT ALL THIS TOGETHER and is not very far from the status of the african slaves, but any way if you want i will call them second class citizens, just an euphemism of slaves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @07:35PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's called responsibility. Act like a man."
What the fuck???? "Act like a man", so why the hell should I conform to your, or anyone else's definition of what a "real man" is????>? Imagine saying this to a woman who won't conform to the "responsibilities" of being a traditional woman...
And you probably consider yourself a "progressive" too, how ironic.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @08:15PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
"Acting like a man" has nothing do with the government punishing men through "child support" fines just because a man had sex. This criminalizing of male sexuality is totally oppressive and reactionary.
Sexual freedom isn't just for women anymore.
Choice for Men!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @08:29PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Christ Almighty.
Rather than thinking of cash going to raise a child, you think of it as a state-imposed punitive fine? GROW UP!
The fact that women can go and spend it at a nail salon instead of food for a child is another issue, and one I would ALSO like addressed....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday January 07, @08:38PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
The fucking point that you consistantly seem to be missing is that men are forced into their traditional role of being the provider by women through the state! Do you see how men can used as OBJECTS here??????????
I wonder why you don't tell the women who unilaterally CHOOSE to have a child and then want the man who does NOT want the responsibilty of a child, to "grow up" and "take responsibility for yourself" (ie choices)? I wonder why you only tell men this.....
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 08, @09:42PM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
While you're addressing the issue of accountability, how about also address the issue of amount. Why does the need for "child support" depend on how much money the man earns who had sex with the woman?
Face it, "child support" is a sex tax, vastly disproportinately imposed on men, and it has little relation to the needs of children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Can we have a Godwin's Law type rule that says that as soon as living up to your responsibilities gets equated with slavery, the thread is effectively null and void and whoever made that asinine, appeal to emotion remark has LOST the argument? "
Sure. But since you're the one who just equated slavery with "living up to your responsibilities", (IE - paying for half of the cheapest route a woman could choose to take as a result of an unplanned pregnancy. If she wants to choose something else, then it becomes her responsibility), I call godwin on you.
You really don't seem to be getting it so let me try and show you the flaws in this system by applying it to a different situation.
Imagine you're driving through an intersection and you accidentally bump into another car. In this case, the reason you bumped into that car was because the driver turned on his blinker and then decided to go straight. Your car is fine, but the other driver's has a small dent in the back panel. The other driver has several options of how to fix the dent. There's one shop he can go to that charges about $80 to fix it. There's another that charges $600 but is a few miles more convenient to the other driver's normal route.
In the end, the other driver decides to go buy a new car and bill you for it. The judge is completely uninterested in what you were led to believe by the blinker before the accident, (just as they'd be uninterested in whether or not a woman lied about being on the pill to entrap a man), doesn't care that there were all these other, cheaper post-accident options available to the other driver, (his car's body, his choice), and doesn't even care about the actual price of the new car. He simply looks at your income, makes a determination as to how much you're capable of paying, and assigns you to pay 30% of your income over the next 18 years to the other driver. The law he's following is said to be based on the "best interests of the dealership", although quite frankly you don't understand how that's possible since you're not actually giving money to the dealership, (just like child support checks don't actually go to the children), and the actual cost of the car wasn't even considered. Perhaps pondering that will at least keep your mind off of the injustice in basing jurisprudence on not actual accountability or doing what's most fair for all parties but instead on the best interests of a dealership that wouldn't have been involved if not for the decisions of the other driver in the first place!
Now, would it be unfair to compare being forced to give someone 25-40% of your income for 18 years because you accidentally put a small dent in their car and they choose to buy a new one to slavery? After all, he could have chosen not to drive right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is all very simple.
Either the embryo/fetus is a human being or it isn't. If it is a human being, women who have abortions should be punished for first-degree, pre-meditated murder, and men who are co-creators should be held responsible for the care of the human through adulthood. If it's a non-living, non-human growth, as feminists maintain, then it is the woman's decision to turn the non-living, non-human growth into a human being or to dispense with it. In that case, abortion is like filing a nail or clipping a strand of hair. But, in this case, whatever the woman does, the man has not created a human being; he has created the equivalent of a single cell of a finger nail. The man created a non-living, non-human growth that the woman can turn into a human being or dispense with without a care in the world.
The problem lies in the fact that the law in effect maintains that the embryo/fetus is a non-living, non-human growth for the woman, who can dispense with it on as little as a whim, but the embryo/fetus is a living human being as far as the man's responsibilities are concerned.
The law needs to be consistent. Either an embryo/fetus is a non-living, non-human growth or it is a human being. It isn't one for the woman and the other for the man at the same time, despite the fact that current law maintains that it is.
-- Creating a hostile environment for Nazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 08, @12:52AM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't have said that better.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 08, @07:22AM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. An excellent and original post. The unborn child is:
1. A blob of jelly if the woman decide to kill the child.
2. A living human being if the woman decides to fleece the father.
Feminism is liberation of women from traditional duty whilst simultaneously allowing them to enjoy traditional privilege.
In the first case above, the woman is liberated from the traditional value that the fetus is a human being. In the second case above, the woman enjoys the privileges associated with this traditional value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It will all be a moot point.
Except when the feminists claim that it isn't effective, so it needs to be studied.
The F.U.D. (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) campaign will begin, "Men won't use it, men don't want it, there's no market..."
And testing hasn't been "complete" so it will be shelved.
It's a foreign product, so it's un-American
And pressure will be put to bear on American companies NOT to produce their own version.
Then Feminist lawyers will sue on behalf of foreign companies for patent infringement.
Those hormones are dangerous - look what can happen to women on their pill. Better erect a few more sets of goalposts for approval.
Yadda
Yadda
Yadda
Who wants to bet me?
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 08, @07:34PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're right Thomas. I guess some could say that it will make men even less "responsible" about sex. As I think about it more, I think you are absolutely right that they will use this argument. Let's also not forget how the pill will make the animal man more prone to cheat on their innocent unsuspecting wives and girlfriends. Oh yeah, and less caring about "commitment".
You know they're going to fight the male pill with arguments that show women as victims of the already oversexed male.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday January 08, @02:36PM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't this post originally about a movie?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could you PLEASE get a handle. You have no credability without one.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
