Welcome to Thunderdome

I think people should be allowed to have abortions. I don't know at what point to draw the line. Somewhere in the 12 to 20 weeks, I'd say.

Leisher wrote: If a woman gets pregnant while raping a man, does the man then get the power of deciding upon an abortion or not?

He should.

Leisher wrote: If a woman gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion, the man involved has ZERO say or legal recourse. However, if a woman gets pregnant and decides to have the baby, the man is financially responsible for the child whether he wants it or not. Is that "equality"? Doesn't that seem like something that should be addressed?

Maybe. But it's simpler if he doesn't.

TheCatt wrote: I think people should be allowed to have abortions. I don't know at what point to draw the line. Somewhere in the 12 to 20 weeks, I'd say.

I probably fall in the same area.

TheCatt wrote: He should.

Yep, but that's not what we're being told. I have a problem with that.

TheCatt wrote: Maybe. But it's simpler if he doesn't.

Sure, but in that case, he should be allowed to renounce any claim to the child, and thus, not be financially responsible. If she wants to have it, fine, but she doesn't then get to use it against him.

There would need to be a time frame and certainty to this action. For example: You can renounce rights up to the day of the child's birth. After that, you're responsible, no matter what. But, if you take financial responsibility, you cannot later renounce. There should also be a condition to allow people to take back their renouncing of rights up to a certain point.

Leisher wrote: There would need to be a time frame and certainty to this action. For example: You can renounce rights up to the day of the child's birth. After that, you're responsible, no matter what. But, if you take financial responsibility, you cannot later renounce. There should also be a condition to allow people to take back their renouncing of rights up to a certain point.

It gets too complicated. She never tells him during the responsibility window, etc. He says he never found out, she says he did, etc.

Include a legal document that he has to sign with a witness. Now she can't claim he knew when she didn't tell him.

It all matters because if you deny the guy any rights, you're basically telling men "Your rights don't matter." That's discriminatory. It's biased, bigoted, etc.

Leisher wrote: Include a legal document that he has to sign with a witness. Now she can't claim he knew when she didn't tell him.

You're just making a bad thing worse.

Seems to me this would affect the poor and minorities more. Why are you a racist who also hates the poor?

But seriously, you're not doing anything to fix said bad thing, so...

Leisher wrote: Seems to me this would affect the poor and minorities more. Why are you a racist who also hates the poor?

But seriously, you're not doing anything to fix said bad thing, so...

I'm saying let women choose, the end, cuz otherwise it's too complicated.

I saw a banner here in Cambridge (Harvard) that said "Outlawing abortion is a form of modern slavery" held up by two white women

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: Seems to me this would affect the poor and minorities more. Why are you a racist who also hates the poor?

But seriously, you're not doing anything to fix said bad thing, so...

I'm saying let women choose, the end, cuz otherwise it's too complicated.

Women can choose all they want, as long as they aren't consigning a man into slavery if he doesn't want the kid.

TheCatt wrote: I saw a banner here in Cambridge (Harvard) that said "Outlawing abortion is a form of modern slavery" held up by two white women

You should have stopped and asked them to explain the logic underlying that conclusion.

TheCatt wrote: I'm saying let women choose, the end, cuz otherwise it's too complicated.

I honestly don't give a fuck.

You want to condemn a person because they have a dick. There's no getting around that. Thus, some compromise has to be found.

Allow women all the decision making rights once preggers, but what do men get in return?
Losing almost by default in all divorce cases?
Losing almost by default in all custody cases?
Being portrayed as a sex obsessed and incompetent boob in most TV Shows and commercials?
Having two leaders of the Democratic party bash men in general and not be criticized for it, but rather praised?
Always being assumed to be the aggressor in domestic violence calls?
Always assumed to be a rapist by certain segments of the population?
Being called the greatest evil the world has ever known if they're also white and straight?
Having to sacrifice their own lives in favor of letting women live in dangerous situations?
Being the last ones the cops ask to be freed in hostage situations?
Having to fight all wars?
Being expected to pay for dinner on dates in this "equal" world?
Being expected to open doors for women, and all the other gentlemanly deeds?
Expected to be the contact initiator in social interactions with women?
And so on and on and on and on and on and on...

By all means, let's make sure we don't end any of these hypocrisies in this age of equality.

Ok, I'm having a bit of fun there, but there has to be a compromise somewhere, complex or not, to allow for men to have some say in an 18 year (minimum) financial commitment.

GORDON wrote: Women can choose all they want, as long as they aren't consigning a man into slavery if he doesn't want the kid.

And that's what I'm getting at. Keep the kid, but don't expect the guy to pay for it if he didn't want it.

Leisher wrote: Ok, I'm having a bit of fun there, but there has to be a compromise somewhere, complex or not, to allow for men to have some say in an 18 year (minimum) financial commitment.

I think they should have a say, but I'm also saying it's too hard to work out practically, so default to the person with the baby growing inside of them choosing. Men made their choice by sleeping with the woman. The consequence is that he no longer gets to choose, as he already made a decision to risk it.

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: Ok, I'm having a bit of fun there, but there has to be a compromise somewhere, complex or not, to allow for men to have some say in an 18 year (minimum) financial commitment.

I think they should have a say, but I'm also saying it's too hard to work out practically, so default to the person with the baby growing inside of them choosing. Men made their choice by sleeping with the woman. The consequence is that he no longer gets to choose, as he already made a decision to risk it.

And if she tells him she's on the pill?

Also, we could easily fix a lot of this by only allowing citizens to have babies.

Leisher wrote: And if she tells him she's on the pill?

People lie.

Without repercussions apparently.

Leisher wrote: Without repercussions apparently.

Pretty sure lying isn't illegal.

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: Ok, I'm having a bit of fun there, but there has to be a compromise somewhere, complex or not, to allow for men to have some say in an 18 year (minimum) financial commitment.

I think they should have a say, but I'm also saying it's too hard to work out practically, so default to the person with the baby growing inside of them choosing. Men made their choice by sleeping with the woman. The consequence is that he no longer gets to choose, as he already made a decision to risk it.

I think that argument is horseshit.

Women also choose to fuck. If they aren't ready for the consequences of pregnancy, with the chance that the anonymous Tinder date may not want to support a child with their crazy ass, then she shouldn't be fucking.

Women are either equal, or they aren't. They fight every day for the right to terminate pregnancies, to have the right to choose. Their right to choose does not trump a man's right to not be on the hook for a pregnancy with a stranger... men also have the right to choose. Except... no, they don't. At all. Until women have the freedom of full consequences of their actions without a man to enslave, they are still inferior.

TheCatt wrote:

Leisher wrote: Without repercussions apparently.

Pretty sure lying isn't illegal.

Isn't it illegal to lie about HIV status?

GORDON wrote: I think that argument is horseshit.

Then we'll just disagree. When men can have babies, I'll reconsider.

Possession is 9 tenths of the law and all that.

And women should absolutely not be guaranteed support from whatever random man ends up on the hook for the kid, even when he isn't the actual sperm donor.

They have the rights to keep it or not, but they shouldn't have the right to have someone else finance their choice.

GORDON wrote: And women should absolutely not be guaranteed support from whatever random man ends up on the hook for the kid, even when he isn't the actual sperm donor.

They have the rights to keep it or not, but they shouldn't have the right to have someone else finance their choice.

I see your point, but I still disagree from a simplicity perspective. Their choice was sleeping with the woman. The woman's choice is what to do if that makes a baby.