Feminism is Good.

[1ickable]

ew the feminists who dont shave are weird

[Knobist]

Jessi Danger

Anouska

You mean 'our' responsibility, and responsibility that will be unequally shared. There is no way of replicating abortion for men, there can never be a 'male abortion' because men will never carry a fetus to abort. The legislation that you are proposing empowers men to have sex without consequence and father offspring without responsibility.

So by this justification, isn't consent to sex inherently consent to parenthood? If men defacto consent to fatherhood by having sex, don't we implicitly consent to motherhood by having sex?

Why do we get the right to an abortion?

At first glance it's seems like the legislators approved because they felt sympathy for women and thought it was the right choice to be made.

[Marluxiana]

Jacque De Molay

Robot Macai

MisdreavusPrincess

Equal rights is a good thing, but women shouldn't abuse their rights by being a slut and throwing away moral.
Just saying.

I am one of the most staunchly anti-feminist users on this board and I troll them ******** here, and I, of all people, find this offensive. Shame on you.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

He's serious. Macai tends to say a lot just to see how convincing he can be, if I remember him correctly.

[Anouska]

Jessi Danger

Anouska

You mean 'our' responsibility, and responsibility that will be unequally shared. There is no way of replicating abortion for men, there can never be a 'male abortion' because men will never carry a fetus to abort. The legislation that you are proposing empowers men to have sex without consequence and father offspring without responsibility.

So by this justification, isn't consent to sex inherently consent to parenthood? If men defacto consent to fatherhood by having sex, don't we implicitly consent to motherhood by having sex?

Why do we get the right to an abortion?

Yeah sure like, just like consent to sex is consent to getting a sexually transmitted disease. This is what happens when you take a reductionist stand point. In reality there is a varying level of risk that accompanies an action, i.e if I do not use a condom then I could get a sexually transmitted disease or get my partner pregnant. It is up to the individual to assess risk before taking action. If they choose not to wear a condom, or not to discuss with their sexual partner if they are using any form of contraception ect, then whatever consequences that follow is a consequence of their own choices. Accidentally pregnancy is not a choice because its very nature is accidental.

[Anouska]

Vincent the Forlorn

Anouska

You mean 'our' responsibility, and responsibility that will be unequally shared. There is no way of replicating abortion for men, there can never be a 'male abortion' because men will never carry a fetus to abort. The legislation that you are proposing empowers men to have sex without consequence and father offspring without responsibility. All subsequent burden will fall upon the woman. Its hypocritical to demand equality for men while completely glossing over the inconvenient fact that the current system gives men the advantage.
Ownership of wealth between the sexes is already disproportionate with the men holding the majority of wealth. Single mothers are one of the most vulnerable groups being twice at risk of living at or below the poverty line. The financial burden of child support on men does not hold the same economic implications for single mothers who have to financially and physically care for their child. Men can still pursue careers and have a decent slice of the economic pie. Women in contrast are restricted from getting their fair share because of their commitments to their child which prevents them from pursing or career and full time work, and this is to accommodate the man's choice not to care for his child.
This mentality is reflected in married couples where women are automatically given the role of care giver with in the family and are subsequently expected to sacrifice their careers and economic independence to enable their husbands to pursue their own career and interests. Male choice is typically given precedence over female choice.

Women could choose to abort or put the child up for adoption, thereby relinquishing any responsibility they had for the child.

So, yes, women are empowered by current legislation to have sex without consequence.

By the way, women can and do have careers, even with children. People who make money are usually capable of hiring people to care for their kids. And even people who don't make enough to pay for nannies may have two working parents simply because they can't afford to do without the extra income. Being a stay at home mom may not be for most women nowadays, but just being financially secure enough that such a thing is even a realistic possibility is a luxury in this day and age.

Availability does not mean choice. I could take a vegetarian to a steakhouse and tell them that the availability of steak to them meant they had a choice in food. Secondly adoption only works if the father does not challenge the custody, thus making the child unwanted by both parents.

Childcare has a price tag, women who work have to pay for childcare facilities- men do not. They are free to pursue their own economic interests. If everything really was as rosy and equal as you make out, then it would be reflected in the statistics.

Vincent the Forlorn

Anouska

A woman's bodily integrity is her right, not a privilege. She does not owe anybody anything for the freedom to choose what happens to her body. Men do not have the right to choose what a woman does to her body. Nor do they have right to create a piece of legislation that enforces or coerces women to bend to their will.
And like I said a bazillion times responsibility is not split equally. If you want fairness then men should be forced to take on equal child care raising responsibilities.

How exactly does changing child support from a mandatory legal obligation into an option change whether or not women can choose to abort their child or put said child up for adoption?

Equal responsibilities? You were suggesting that women are forced to function as stay at home mothers? Doesn't that mean the men must work to support everyone financially? Does making sure the bills are paid not count as a responsibility of child raising?

You need to ask the other guy that, he believes that men should be entitled to a 'male abortion' because it makes up for their lack of womb. Basically its about putting male choice above the woman and child... which is nothing really new in this society.

Vincent the Forlorn

Anouska

Availability of abortion does not automatically make it a universal choice for all women. I have already explained that, and this is why I reject your assertion that the existence of abortion should allow men to not pay child support. I do not fail to see your point, I simply do not accept it as a legitimate point. A woman's autonomy over her body only becomes a problem when it conflicts with male interest, then suddenly they want payment for a right that is by nature mine.
If child support is abolished in the US then either the communists have taken over or the recession has forced the country into some kind of backward Victorian existence with poor houses. America is not known for its socialism.

I honestly don't know where you were going with the socialism or what brought it on.

It kinda of happens when you jump into someone else's debate without reading the previous posts. Basically I believe that the male abortion would never be, simply because of the burden and dependency it would create on welfare services, which goes against politicians neo-liberal ideology. The other guy believes that male abortion will exist because of equality, something and stuff.

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

Anouska

Robot Macai

Anouska

An abortion is medical procedure for women, so yeah it does serve their interest. But its availability to women does not mean that men deserve some kind of legislation to make up for their own lack of womb or sense of dis-empowerment because they do not have a womb. If they have fears about the financial repercussions of an unwanted pregnancy then they can proactively deal with it before having sex, i.e having a vasectomy, being celibate ect. That right there is how men decide when or if they have babies or not. A fiscal abortion would only add the extra security that a man can sleep with a woman without having any consequences because the burden of any unwanted consequences would automatically default to the woman- which is unfair on women.

"My body, my choice, your responsibility."

You mean 'our' responsibility, and responsibility that will be unequally shared. There is no way of replicating abortion for men, there can never be a 'male abortion' because men will never carry a fetus to abort. The legislation that you are proposing empowers men to have sex without consequence and father offspring without responsibility. All subsequent burden will fall upon the woman. Its hypocritical to demand equality for men while completely glossing over the inconvenient fact that the current system gives men the advantage.
Ownership of wealth between the sexes is already disproportionate with the men holding the majority of wealth. Single mothers are one of the most vulnerable groups being twice at risk of living at or below the poverty line. The financial burden of child support on men does not hold the same economic implications for single mothers who have to financially and physically care for their child. Men can still pursue careers and have a decent slice of the economic pie. Women in contrast are restricted from getting their fair share because of their commitments to their child which prevents them from pursing or career and full time work, and this is to accommodate the man's choice not to care for his child.
This mentality is reflected in married couples where women are automatically given the role of care giver with in the family and are subsequently expected to sacrifice their careers and economic independence to enable their husbands to pursue their own career and interests. Male choice is typically given precedence over female choice.

Your complaint is that men can have "sex without consequence"? God forbid! Sex without consequences. That would be... why that would be... that would awful! What a terrible world that would be, if we could have sex without it blowing up in our faces! We must do everything in our power to stop this. Sex must have consequences, and bad ones, or this world is not one worth living in.

And wait, you have more critiques. Like, "our" responsibility. "My body, my choice, our responsibility." Oh wow, that makes it totally different. You're only partially pawning off the responsibility for the decisions you make, so that means it must be okay, right?

Oh, and wait. Wait, there's more. This child support wealth redistribution s**t is okay because men have more wealth than women. I quite literally got you to admit that the "I want half" thinking is part of this. Thank you. Thank you for admitting that you believe having sex with someone entitles you to their wealth.

I'm not too sure what the BAW in the first part of your post meant. I don't know if you had sex ed at school but that's what it teaches you- how not to get a girl pregnant and how not to get a STI or an STD. The fact this is news to you is a little worrying... Sex has risks and you should probably learn about them to protect yourself from any unwanted consequences.

Your frustration stems from a woman's right to do what she wants to her body. If you believe that she should do something to her body, and which she disagrees with, you should some how be compensated. This has nothing to do with equality, but control. She possesses the womb which is her body, which she has autonomy over, and because you cannot control what she does to it, or more importantly what she does not do to it, you try and make out that you deserve some kind of payment for her own autonomy. Do you not see the glaring sexism there. You are repeating telling me that women have to 'pay' men for the right to do what they want to their bodies. And note how this payment is only demanded when it serves male self interest...and you wonder why feminism is still around? Radical feminists have a field day with this crap.

Robot Macai

Anouska

Robot Macai

Anouska

An accidental pregnancy is accidental by nature, and therefore not by choice. The choice of abortion is not based upon on the availability of abortion. The choice of abortion is based upon the moral and ethical reasoning of the individual. A devout Catholic would not recognize abortion as a choice, nor would I.

The choice of abortion is based on whatever the ******** the pregnant woman wants it to be based on. The price she must pay for this autonomy is being the sole bearer of the responsibility of her choice. You don't get to claim all the decision-making power and then simultaneously pawn off half the responsibility for the direct consequences of your decision on someone else. This ship will not sail.

A woman's bodily integrity is her right, not a privilege. She does not owe anybody anything for the freedom to choose what happens to her body. Men do not have the right to choose what a woman does to her body. Nor do they have right to create a piece of legislation that enforces or coerces women to bend to their will.
And like I said a bazillion times responsibility is not split equally. If you want fairness then men should be forced to take on equal child care raising responsibilities.

Actually, it is a privilege, and one we can take away if we like. You derive your rights from other people, nothing more, nothing less. If granting you ownership of your body undermines my interests, why should I support this? Because I'm a 'nice guy'? ******** that, I serve my own interests outright.

Furthermore, this "bodily integrity" s**t is just that. This idea of "bodily integrity" applies on a policy level selectively at best. Really, I can only think of two policies today that rely on "bodily integrity" as their justification and they are 1) abortion, and 2) sodomy. That's it. Here are some examples of us not owning our bodies:
* The Selective Service
* The War on Drugs
* Compulsory blood tests to determine blood alcohol content
* Incarceration in general, especially for victimless crimes
* Prostitution prohibition
* Children can be forced to undergo certain medical procedures without their consent (e.g., circumcision)

I think I'll stop there, but the fact remains that this list goes on and on. Our society does not, with any meaningful degree of consistency, honor the right to "bodily integrity." Not even close. Abortion's legality is only ostensibly about that.

Furthermore, if you were as concerned with "bodily integrity" as you are with legal abortion and compulsory child support, you would make just as many posts about these other topics. You haven't. What I think you support abortion for is your interest in "female reproductive autonomy," and the same thing goes for child support, since it cushions the blow of putting more than you can eat on your plate if one chooses not to seek out an abortion.

This motivation isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if you would please, I'd like you to cut this "bodily integrity" nonsense because that's precisely what it is.

Well done, you just proved what I have already said. This isn't about equality, its about male control. Are you seriously so self important and delusional to believe that men gave me my rights? Feminism gave me my rights and feminism continues to defend my rights.

Robot Macai

Anouska

Robot Macai

Anouska

hat I am saying is that a fiscal abortion is an exploitative and oppressive piece of legislation which could create more inequality, to an already unequal system. Men only have the burden of financing their child, while women have the burden of both raising and funding for said child. The abolishing of child support would mean that all child caring duties and provision are defaulted to women and the welfare state aka the taxpayer.
Realistically, and some what unfortunately for you, I doubt that the neo-liberal politics that govern our societies would ever agree to the notion of a fiscal abortion because of demands and dependency it would create for welfare services.

The difference you keep failing to make: the woman chooses to accept this responsibility; she has the real option to opt-out of it, as in, get an abortion. A man does not. This is the crux of the issue that you don't.seem to really grasp. To even suggest that the price of your bodily autonomy being personal responsibility is "oppressive" is laughable outright.

That said, things are slowly but surely moving in the direction I want them to go in. Paternity fraud legislation today, child support abolishment tomorrow. In liberal States at that. Your time is marked.

Availability of abortion does not automatically make it a universal choice for all women. I have already explained that, and this is why I reject your assertion that the existence of abortion should allow men to not pay child support. I do not fail to see your point, I simply do not accept it as a legitimate point. A woman's autonomy over her body only becomes a problem when it conflicts with male interest, then suddenly they want payment for a right that is by nature mine.
If child support is abolished in the US then either the communists have taken over or the recession has forced the country into some kind of backward Victorian existence with poor houses. America is not known for its socialism.

Except you haven't explained how availability of abortion does not make it a universal choice for women. Your personal moral hang-ups are a basis to not get an abortion for you and you alone. If you choose not to do something for moral reasons, you still chose not to do it, and in such cases, tough s**t. You can "reject" the notion that you are responsible for the direct consequences of the decisions you make until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean everyone else has to buy it.

You see it as a choice, I don't. And even though it does not concern you because you will never have an abortion, you choose to place your own moral and ethical values above mine because it serves your own interests. That is not equality, and you and every other closeted misogynist that I see repeatedly in these types of threads can spin it and package it in a million different ways, but you are still demanding the same thing- oppression to women. That sounds heavy, but that is what it is, and I want to make this clear, I do not believe you demand these things because you hate us... or at least I hope not... but because you fear us. You fear our ability to choose, or not choose what we do to our bodies, and how that may inconvenience you. Did you ever stop to think how your ability to walk away from child raising duties is one big inconvenience to us?

[Anouska]

Anouska

Vincent the Forlorn

Anouska

You mean 'our' responsibility, and responsibility that will be unequally shared. There is no way of replicating abortion for men, there can never be a 'male abortion' because men will never carry a fetus to abort. The legislation that you are proposing empowers men to have sex without consequence and father offspring without responsibility. All subsequent burden will fall upon the woman. Its hypocritical to demand equality for men while completely glossing over the inconvenient fact that the current system gives men the advantage.
Ownership of wealth between the sexes is already disproportionate with the men holding the majority of wealth. Single mothers are one of the most vulnerable groups being twice at risk of living at or below the poverty line. The financial burden of child support on men does not hold the same economic implications for single mothers who have to financially and physically care for their child. Men can still pursue careers and have a decent slice of the economic pie. Women in contrast are restricted from getting their fair share because of their commitments to their child which prevents them from pursing or career and full time work, and this is to accommodate the man's choice not to care for his child.
This mentality is reflected in married couples where women are automatically given the role of care giver with in the family and are subsequently expected to sacrifice their careers and economic independence to enable their husbands to pursue their own career and interests. Male choice is typically given precedence over female choice.

Women could choose to abort or put the child up for adoption, thereby relinquishing any responsibility they had for the child.

So, yes, women are empowered by current legislation to have sex without consequence.

By the way, women can and do have careers, even with children. People who make money are usually capable of hiring people to care for their kids. And even people who don't make enough to pay for nannies may have two working parents simply because they can't afford to do without the extra income. Being a stay at home mom may not be for most women nowadays, but just being financially secure enough that such a thing is even a realistic possibility is a luxury in this day and age.

Availability does not mean choice. I could take a vegetarian to a steakhouse and tell them that the availability of steak to them meant they had a choice in food. Secondly adoption only works if the father does not challenge the custody, thus making the child unwanted by both parents.

EDIT: Contrary to popular belief women are not emotionless robots and may have teeny weeny moral hang ups about murdering their baby in utero or giving their baby away to strangers.

Childcare has a price tag, women who work have to pay for childcare facilities- men do not. They are free to pursue their own economic interests. If everything really was as rosy and equal as you make out, then it would be reflected in the statistics.

Vincent the Forlorn

Anouska

A woman's bodily integrity is her right, not a privilege. She does not owe anybody anything for the freedom to choose what happens to her body. Men do not have the right to choose what a woman does to her body. Nor do they have right to create a piece of legislation that enforces or coerces women to bend to their will.
And like I said a bazillion times responsibility is not split equally. If you want fairness then men should be forced to take on equal child care raising responsibilities.

How exactly does changing child support from a mandatory legal obligation into an option change whether or not women can choose to abort their child or put said child up for adoption?

Equal responsibilities? You were suggesting that women are forced to function as stay at home mothers? Doesn't that mean the men must work to support everyone financially? Does making sure the bills are paid not count as a responsibility of child raising?

You need to ask the other guy that, he believes that men should be entitled to a 'male abortion' because it makes up for their lack of womb. Basically its about putting male choice above the woman and child... which is nothing really new in this society.

Vincent the Forlorn

Anouska

Availability of abortion does not automatically make it a universal choice for all women. I have already explained that, and this is why I reject your assertion that the existence of abortion should allow men to not pay child support. I do not fail to see your point, I simply do not accept it as a legitimate point. A woman's autonomy over her body only becomes a problem when it conflicts with male interest, then suddenly they want payment for a right that is by nature mine.
If child support is abolished in the US then either the communists have taken over or the recession has forced the country into some kind of backward Victorian existence with poor houses. America is not known for its socialism.

I honestly don't know where you were going with the socialism or what brought it on.

It kinda of happens when you jump into someone else's debate without reading the previous posts. Basically I believe that the male abortion would never be, simply because of the burden and dependency it would create on welfare services, which goes against politicians neo-liberal ideology. The other guy believes that male abortion will exist because of equality, something and stuff.

[Jessi Danger]

Jacque De Molay

Jessi Danger

Anouska

You mean 'our' responsibility, and responsibility that will be unequally shared. There is no way of replicating abortion for men, there can never be a 'male abortion' because men will never carry a fetus to abort. The legislation that you are proposing empowers men to have sex without consequence and father offspring without responsibility.

So by this justification, isn't consent to sex inherently consent to parenthood? If men defacto consent to fatherhood by having sex, don't we implicitly consent to motherhood by having sex?

Why do we get the right to an abortion?

At first glance it's seems like the legislators approved because they felt sympathy for women and thought it was the right choice to be made.

I live in the United States, Abortion was declared basically legal by the supreme court, not any legislative body.

[Jessi Danger]

Anouska

Jessi Danger

Anouska

You mean 'our' responsibility, and responsibility that will be unequally shared. There is no way of replicating abortion for men, there can never be a 'male abortion' because men will never carry a fetus to abort. The legislation that you are proposing empowers men to have sex without consequence and father offspring without responsibility.

So by this justification, isn't consent to sex inherently consent to parenthood? If men defacto consent to fatherhood by having sex, don't we implicitly consent to motherhood by having sex?

Why do we get the right to an abortion?

Yeah sure like, just like consent to sex is consent to getting a sexually transmitted disease. This is what happens when you take a reductionist stand point. In reality there is a varying level of risk that accompanies an action, i.e if I do not use a condom then I could get a sexually transmitted disease or get my partner pregnant. It is up to the individual to assess risk before taking action. If they choose not to wear a condom, or not to discuss with their sexual partner if they are using any form of contraception ect, then whatever consequences that follow is a consequence of their own choices. Accidentally pregnancy is not a choice because its very nature is accidental.

That really didn't address my point at all. If for men, consent to sex is consent to parenthood, why do women get the option to opt out? Why for us consent to sex isn't consent to parenthood?

[Knobist]

Jessi Danger

Jacque De Molay

Jessi Danger

Anouska

You mean 'our' responsibility, and responsibility that will be unequally shared. There is no way of replicating abortion for men, there can never be a 'male abortion' because men will never carry a fetus to abort. The legislation that you are proposing empowers men to have sex without consequence and father offspring without responsibility.

So by this justification, isn't consent to sex inherently consent to parenthood? If men defacto consent to fatherhood by having sex, don't we implicitly consent to motherhood by having sex?

Why do we get the right to an abortion?

At first glance it's seems like the Supreme Court approved because they felt sympathy for women and thought it was the right choice to be made.

I live in the United States, Abortion was declared basically legal by the supreme court, not any legislative body.

At first glance it's seems like the Supreme Court approved because they felt sympathy for women and thought it was the right choice to be made

[Jessi Danger]

Jacque De Molay

Jessi Danger

Jacque De Molay

Jessi Danger

Anouska

You mean 'our' responsibility, and responsibility that will be unequally shared. There is no way of replicating abortion for men, there can never be a 'male abortion' because men will never carry a fetus to abort. The legislation that you are proposing empowers men to have sex without consequence and father offspring without responsibility.

So by this justification, isn't consent to sex inherently consent to parenthood? If men defacto consent to fatherhood by having sex, don't we implicitly consent to motherhood by having sex?

Why do we get the right to an abortion?

At first glance it's seems like the Supreme Court approved because they felt sympathy for women and thought it was the right choice to be made.

I live in the United States, Abortion was declared basically legal by the supreme court, not any legislative body.

At first glance it's seems like the Supreme Court approved because they felt sympathy for women and thought it was the right choice to be made

The SCOTUS does not make choices based on sympathy or pity, they are typically made based on case precedent and the prevailing law of the land.

A right to privacy and the right to purchase a service was found to be perfectly legal.

[Anouska]

Jessi Danger

Anouska

Jessi Danger

Anouska

You mean 'our' responsibility, and responsibility that will be unequally shared. There is no way of replicating abortion for men, there can never be a 'male abortion' because men will never carry a fetus to abort. The legislation that you are proposing empowers men to have sex without consequence and father offspring without responsibility.

So by this justification, isn't consent to sex inherently consent to parenthood? If men defacto consent to fatherhood by having sex, don't we implicitly consent to motherhood by having sex?

Why do we get the right to an abortion?

Yeah sure like, just like consent to sex is consent to getting a sexually transmitted disease. This is what happens when you take a reductionist stand point. In reality there is a varying level of risk that accompanies an action, i.e if I do not use a condom then I could get a sexually transmitted disease or get my partner pregnant. It is up to the individual to assess risk before taking action. If they choose not to wear a condom, or not to discuss with their sexual partner if they are using any form of contraception ect, then whatever consequences that follow is a consequence of their own choices. Accidentally pregnancy is not a choice because its very nature is accidental.

That really didn't address my point at all. If for men, consent to sex is consent to parenthood, why do women get the option to opt out? Why for us consent to sex isn't consent to parenthood?

Because like I explained you did not have a point to begin with. Action and consequence are two different things. An action requires consent but a consequence doesn't. I could consent to smoke but that doesn't mean I consent to getting lung cancer. More importantly a lung cancer or even conception does not need consent to happen. Couples who consensually try to have a baby, fail to get pregnant. The consequence of pregnancy through heterosexual sex, isn't exactly unheard of. There are many ways men and women can prevent pregnancy.
So finally, why do women get to have an abortion and men don't. Well the answer may shock because it is so simply- women have wombs, and men do not. Men can not have an abortion because they will never have a womb in which to conceive in. We can not offer a man an abortion, and by some ******** logic people think that we need to compensate for nature.

EDIT: Men are not forced into parenthood, they are forced to pay child maintenance. You are deluding yourself if you think that a fiscal abortion has anything about choosing to be a parent. This is all about a man's autonomy over his wallet.

[Jessi Danger]

Anouska

Jessi Danger

Anouska

Jessi Danger

Anouska

You mean 'our' responsibility, and responsibility that will be unequally shared. There is no way of replicating abortion for men, there can never be a 'male abortion' because men will never carry a fetus to abort. The legislation that you are proposing empowers men to have sex without consequence and father offspring without responsibility.

So by this justification, isn't consent to sex inherently consent to parenthood? If men defacto consent to fatherhood by having sex, don't we implicitly consent to motherhood by having sex?

Why do we get the right to an abortion?

Yeah sure like, just like consent to sex is consent to getting a sexually transmitted disease. This is what happens when you take a reductionist stand point. In reality there is a varying level of risk that accompanies an action, i.e if I do not use a condom then I could get a sexually transmitted disease or get my partner pregnant. It is up to the individual to assess risk before taking action. If they choose not to wear a condom, or not to discuss with their sexual partner if they are using any form of contraception ect, then whatever consequences that follow is a consequence of their own choices. Accidentally pregnancy is not a choice because its very nature is accidental.

That really didn't address my point at all. If for men, consent to sex is consent to parenthood, why do women get the option to opt out? Why for us consent to sex isn't consent to parenthood?

Because like I explained you did not have a point to begin with. Action and consequence are two different things. An action requires consent but a consequence doesn't. I could consent to smoke but that doesn't mean I consent to getting lung cancer. More importantly a lung cancer or even conception does not need consent to happen. Couples who consensually try to have a baby, fail to get pregnant. The consequence of pregnancy through heterosexual sex, isn't exactly unheard of. There are many ways men and women can prevent pregnancy.
So finally, why do women get to have an abortion and men don't. Well the answer may shock because it is so simply- women have wombs, and men do not. Men can not have an abortion because they will never have a womb in which to conceive in. We can not offer a man an abortion, and by some ******** logic people think that we need to compensate for nature.

EDIT: Men are not forced into parenthood, they are forced to pay child maintenance. You are deluding yourself if you think that a fiscal abortion has anything about choosing to be a parent. This is all about a man's autonomy over his wallet.

Isn't getting pregnant a consequence of consenting to sex? Why do we get an opt out ability? A way to cheat the consequences. More over, even if we accept the consequences of our decision we can press gang another into paying for it.

A man should have autonomy over the sweet of his brow and his labor. After all he had no say in if the child actually was born. The only person who makes that choice is us. Therefor we should live with the consequences of that choice, alone. It is our choice and our burden, why is it just to force someone to give us money when they did not make a choice to do so?

[Knobist]

Jessi Danger

Isn't getting pregnant a consequence of consenting to sex?

Or Rape.

Quote:

Why do we get an opt out ability?A way to cheat the consequences. More over, even if we accept the consequences of our decision we can press gang another into paying for it.

Women get the autonomy because the justice system thought they would be able to handle it.
Can women handle it? Yes, they certainly can!

Quote:

A man should have autonomy over the sweet of his brow and his labor. After all he had no say in if the child actually was born. The only person who makes that choice is us. Therefor we should live with the consequences of that choice, alone. It is our choice and our burden, why is it just to force someone to give us money when they did not make a choice to do so?

His say was the act of consensual sex. He's also aware of the probable consequences like STD's or childbirth. He made the choice and took the risk just like the woman did. Both parties are responsible when the sex is consensual.

[Jessi Danger]

Jacque De Molay

Women get the autonomy because the justice system thought they would be able to handle it.
Can women handle it? Yes, they certainly can!

I doubt that was the actual reasoning.

Jacque De Molay

His say was the act of consensual sex. He's also aware of the probable consequences like STD's or childbirth. He made the choice and took the risk just like the woman did. Both parties are responsible when the sex is consensual.

So consent to sex is inherently consent to parenthood. Why do I get to opt out and he doesn't get to opt out of the consequences?