Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
We should kill all babies, way easier and gets rid of that damn noise.
Also, slarg, get your head out of your arse, men will have to pay for the upbringing of the kid, they won't have to sacrifice parts of their body that may never fully recover.
Soladrin wrote: We should kill all babies, way easier and gets rid of that damn noise.
Also, slarg, get your head out of your arse, men will have to pay for the upbringing of the kid, they won't have to sacrifice parts of their body that may never fully recover.
Because it's impossible for a man working two jobs/extra hours to pay for himself and child support to break his back/have a workplace injury/similar and never recover for that.....
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
Soladrin wrote: We should kill all babies, way easier and gets rid of that damn noise.
Also, slarg, get your head out of your arse, men will have to pay for the upbringing of the kid, they won't have to sacrifice parts of their body that may never fully recover.
Because it's impossible for a man working two jobs/extra hours to pay for himself and child support to break his back/have a workplace injury/similar and never recover for that.....
Well then stop living in a country with stupid laws and gakky wages.
feeder wrote:I do not support "opt out" fatherhood. Someone's gotta pay for the kid, it may as well be the father.
So we can screw over the father, but not the mother?
Mr. Burning wrote:
Ouze wrote: Slarg - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
This. I don't think OP has thought it through this far though.
Then I suppose yes.
There are all kinds of ways to enjoy quality time together, be it oral, anal, not to mention stacking birth controls (Condoms, pills, similar) that if someone does get pregnant while not using any of these methods, that kid deserves a chance at life.
Oral sex, anal sex, abstinence, fingering...... all 99.99% proven to not cause pregnancies.
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
Soladrin wrote: We should kill all babies, way easier and gets rid of that damn noise.
Also, slarg, get your head out of your arse, men will have to pay for the upbringing of the kid, they won't have to sacrifice parts of their body that may never fully recover.
Because it's impossible for a man working two jobs/extra hours to pay for himself and child support to break his back/have a workplace injury/similar and never recover for that.....
Well then stop living in a country with stupid laws and gakky wages.
Well someone has to bail out Europe next time they start in-fighting again
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
Soladrin wrote: We should kill all babies, way easier and gets rid of that damn noise.
Also, slarg, get your head out of your arse, men will have to pay for the upbringing of the kid, they won't have to sacrifice parts of their body that may never fully recover.
Because it's impossible for a man working two jobs/extra hours to pay for himself and child support to break his back/have a workplace injury/similar and never recover for that.....
Well then stop living in a country with stupid laws and gakky wages.
Well someone has to bail out Europe next time they start in-fighting again
Oral sex, anal sex, abstinence, fingering...... all 99.99% proven to not cause pregnancies.
I'm just going to NSFW and spoiler this reply, because it's going to get clinical up in here.
Spoiler:
Here is how your argument breaks down.
For all of them: You will be making out. Naked bodies will move around and at some point your penis will get near her vagina. While you are aroused during this making out you will have seminal fluids already leaking out of your penis, so there is always a very real chance that your semen will get near her vagina and result in pregnancy. To further break it down.
Oral Sex: The old "you can't get pregnant if you swallow his sperm or spit it out somewhere" trick. But while she is going down on you she will be using her hands, she will be using her lips, all areas that now have come in contact with your sperm. Afterwards she kisses you (or does the old snowball, I don't know what you are into) and then you go down on her. She has sperm on her mouth, transfers it to your mouth, you transfer it to her vagina. Or she has sperm on her hands that she got there while going down on you, she touches your hands which touch her vagina. Boom, transfer of sperm. Of maybe she uses her hands on you and then decides to stimulate herself a little bit. Straight transfer of your sperm from your shaft to her privates.
Anal Sex: You are going at it, slide all the way out, and accidentally stick it in the wrong (right) hole. Now your seminal fluids are in her vagina. You keep it perfectly in the two hole the entire time and finish. Now seminal fluids can leak out and drip into the vagina. Wonderful way to avoid pregnancy.
Fingering: Transfer of seminal fluids from penis to hands to vagina.
Abstinence: Works 100% as long as people practice true abstinence. That includes no fingering, no hands down the pants, no dry humping, no "just the tip, just a little bit, just to see how it feels". If you are aroused and leaking seminal fluids and either of you is touching your penis then there is a real chance that this seminal fluid can end up in her vagina.
Might have been a bit too much for DakkaDakka. But this is a grownup topic and I'm going to talk to you as if you were a grownup that can handle the responsibility of having your penis outside of your pants near a woman.
d-usa wrote: Might have been a bit too much for DakkaDakka. But this is a grownup topic and I'm going to talk to you as if you were a grownup that can handle the responsibility of having your penis outside of your pants near a woman.
There are laws making sure I have to handle the responsibility of having my penis outside of my pants near a woman
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Ouze wrote: - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
Then I suppose yes.
And that's the point I stopped paying any attention to what you said.
Sorry. To advocate forcing women to go through birth against their will equates to fining/punishing people for daring to avoid extreme pain at the least, and forcibly restraining and operating at the most.
No man's right to fatherhood supersedes the right of a woman not to be tortured (e.g. to undergo extreme physical pain against their will).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/10 14:00:48
Ouze wrote: - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
Then I suppose yes.
And that's the point I stopped paying any attention to what you said.
Sorry. To advocate forcing women to go through birth against their will equates to fining/punishing people for daring to avoid extreme pain at the least, and forcibly restraining and operating at the most.
This is why I advocate test tube babies. I'm slowly pushing for Huxley's Brave New World.
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Ouze wrote: - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
Then I suppose yes.
And that's the point I stopped paying any attention to what you said.
Sorry. To advocate forcing women to go through birth against their will equates to fining/punishing people for daring to avoid extreme pain at the least, and forcibly restraining and operating at the most.
This is why I advocate test tube babies. I'm slowly pushing for Huxley's Brave New World.
Fafnir wrote: The male commitment to a fetus is just a loving spoonful.
While there can be emotional investment involved, if the woman doesn't want a child, it's her body, and regardless of the feelings of her partner, she's the one forced to make the biggest commitment.
If you're with someone who doesn't want a child, and you do, and you consider that to be a major factor in your relationship, you might not be cut out for one another.
Yes, but if a woman doesn't want to go to jail, she doesn't murder someone.
If a kid doesn't want to swatted with a wooden spoon, (s)he doesn't try to steal a cookie from the cookie jar.
Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.
'Simply don't do the thing if it has potentially bad consequences' - do not have sex with a woman who would have an abortion if she got pregnant. If you disagree wholeheartedly with the concept of abortion, find a partner who does likewise before jumping into bed with them. If people did this, one stage up the chain of causation for pregnancy from the bit where you get pregnant, then there would be no problem.
It is unfortunate that it is only women who have the potential to bear a child, otherwise this discussion would be immaterial. However, as it stands, it is a woman's body which goes through the substantial changes of pregnancy, and it should be nobody's right to force anybody to go through painful alterations to their body when an alternative exists. This is essential what happens when a woman's partner denies them the right to an abortion.
If any of the points that I have made here are unclear, feel free to offer counterpoints or ask for clarifications.
Why must I always choose beween certain death and probable death.
Ouze wrote: man gets a vasectomy the spouse didn't agree to, she's free to seek a divorce. That's her right.
While I pretty much agree with you... where I live and from what I know elsewhere... Urologist will refuse to perform Vasectomy w/o wife's approval.
I got a vasectomy in the army (so far it's worked... ) and the only involvement my wife had was when the Doc asked me, "does your wife agree to this?" to which, of course I said "yep" ... ohh and she drove me home, but thats about it
My own personal view:
Barring rape/incest/molestation, or risk to the life of mother, abortion should not be legal. Period.
Again, if someone makes the decision to open up, and there are consequences, they should deal with them. And for me, consequences could be a little as crabs, or herpes, or children. Certainly not all require the same level of commitment, but there are options out there for those who do not wish to take care of children. I have plenty of close friends who are physically incapable of bearing children, most of them have been able to adopt. Is it perfect? No, but then again, even kids who are born to a "happily married" couple arent going to come out perfect.
Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.
It should only be noted that this 'thing with potentially bad consequences' is only a thing with 'bad consequences' if other people insist on there being 'bad consequences'. An abortion is not a 'bad consequence' necessarily. You catch it early enough, it's just a few pills.
No, the 'bad consequences' only come about when other unrelated people start insisting that a woman should be forced to carry every single child to term. Otherwise, sex is just a 'thing'.
I've always thought that women being allowed to vote, be educated, drive, run for office, and have control of their own body was a wonderful thing. I've never understood why some men have this urge to repress and control half the human race.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/10 14:15:03
Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.
It should only be noted that this 'thing with potentially bad consequences' is only a thing with 'bad consequences' if other people insist on there being 'bad consequences'. An abortion is not a 'bad consequence' necessarily. You catch it early enough, it's just a few pills.
No, the 'bad consequences' only come about when other unrelated people start insisting that a woman should be forced to carry every single child to term. Otherwise, sex is just a 'thing'.
I've always thought that women being allowed to vote, be educated, drive, run for office, and have control of their own body was a wonderful thing. I've never understood why some men have this urge to repress and control half the human race.
Aren't you a third party who represses and controls what people say online?
I honestly am not thinking about "repressing and controlling" women. I'm more worried about the child.
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
Aren't you a third party who represses and controls what people say online?
Not particularly. I'm a Swapshop Moderator, not a general one. Nice attempt at a sly and totally irrelevant ad hominem to divert from what I said though.
How about calling me an SS (SwapShop) Mod next time? Then you can break Godwin's Law as well!
I honestly am not thinking about "repressing and controlling" women. I'm more worried about the child.
At three weeks in, the 'child' is a lump less sentient than my pet venus flytrap. The 'child's' right to life only comes into play when it becomes a child (aka, capable of surviving independently). Then it becomes something of a stickier issue. But that wasn't the original scenario posited.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/10 14:33:18
Slarg232 wrote: I'll try to make this quick and to the point, but this is something that just doesn't make sense to me.
On the subject of Abortion, I've always been of the notion that a father should have a say in if an Abortion can happen; this still allows unwanted pregnancies from ruining lives due to financial reasons or similar, but provides an additional safety net to protect the life of the unborn. This is usually shot down because of the following reaons:
- "It's her body, not his. The choice should be hers!" (By this logic, you could argue for the legalization of Meth, LSD, and Crack.)
- "What about Rape Victims; the Rapist shouldn't have a say!" (Agreed, see below)
- "Why should the father have a say?" (Because he had a say in making the baby in the first place [Barring rape])
I have always proposed that it should have to have yes votes from both mother and father, with a judge being able to rule in favor of the mother being able to ignore the father's wishes (In case of rape, a incompetent father, or some other mishap.) This has always been shot down as being too much of a hassle; it should be solely in the mother's choice to have an abortion, father should NOT have a say in it.
But does this mean that murder cases are too much of a hassle?
What I am saying, is that if someone's brother was brutally murdered, is it "too much of a hassle" for them to be dragged into a long, arduous and painful trial so as to see justice is done? What about a witness, they are asked to keep the brutal murder fresh in their mind and retell the tale over and over so as to allow the facts to be brought to light in court. Is that trial any less agonizing? Is a murder, a cessation of an old life, more important than an abortion, a stymieing of a new life?
Any sort of argument of an abortion not requiring a trial can be used for murder, as well; If a woman is raped, she should not have to wait for a trial for an abortion. However, if a man is killed, should his brother have to wait for a trial to imprison the murderer for 5-20 years? If a pregnancy is the result of a mutually consenting "good time" and doesn't require a trial, why do accidental murders (Such as a gun discharging at a firing range on accident and killing someone) require a trial and potentially bump the accidental death up into a Manslaughter charge?
Now, I'm not saying that Abortion is Murder. Letter of the Law, Murder is a human killing another, and a Fetus technically isn't classified as Human. I will fully state that I disagree with this, but that is not the point of this thread. This thread is about the Logical Jump from a Trial for Crime A and how it is too much of a hassle, but Crime B requires a judge, jury, and potentially executioner?
Thoughts, Dakka? I'm trying to open up a discussion, NOT a flame bait argument thread. Let's be civil, please.
When Men can have babies, they can have a say. Until then, off.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
This is why I advocate test tube babies. I'm slowly pushing for Huxley's Brave New World.
The womb with a view approach.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Medium of Death wrote: What the actual feth do you care if somebody gets an abortion or not? Stop trying to control peoples lives and guilt trip women.
These are strange days when the Libertarian agrees with the Brit...
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Where I live... I had to get my (then) wife's signature/approval before I can get my vasectomy.
Is that right?
Bingo, many places require then, but the men have no say the other way around.
My opinion is the man should have just as much say. Sure the gestation takes place in the woman, but that is a baby, a child, a son/daughter to the man. That is a life, a lifetime of memories, joys, fun, anger, hatred, whatever that the woman has sole discretion over. That is wrong in my eyes.
I see no reason why the woman gets total say over that much of my life. Especially when she made the same decision I did to engage in sex.
And now that I've put my opinion in, I will not visit this thread again, because nothing will have come of it.
You're not the one carryign said baby to term, potentially endangering your life.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Father shouldn't make the final decisions.... its the woman's body, her say. A reasonable woman should take the guy's stance into consideration though.
feeder wrote: Seriously think this borderline misogynistic gak all the way through, fellas.
A woman is pregnant. Man wants baby, woman does not. Where do we go from here? A woman is forced to carry the baby to term and birth it? Against her will??? Fething nuts, man. Out to lunch. Totally fething bonkers.
If a man really wants a baby, then he first gets his gak together, finds a willing partner and commits to having a planned baby.
Or, oops! knock up your girlfriend, find out she's not the baby gettin' rid of kind, and sack the feth up and be an accidental father.
Both parties agreed to have sex in the first place, no? Babies are a consequence (Not a BAD consequence) of having sex, is it not?
It wouldn't be "Man say woman have baby, woman have baby", but a judge would hear the case out.
And before anyone says "What if both parties didn't agree to have sex?" (Ergo, rape), than I would like to direct that person to read the original post; rape victims need not apply.
Er no. Both parties are agreeing to make the beast with two backs. There is no agreement that both parties are having a child, unless there is an agreement for that.
If you go joyriding on a motorcycle you're not agreeing to have a wreck and end up in the hospital.
whembly wrote: While I pretty much agree with you... where I live and from what I know elsewhere... Urologist will refuse to perform Vasectomy w/o wife's approval.
I don't know if it's legal or malpractice requirement.
I guess the man could lie about being married... *shrugs*
I suspect this is a policy, rather than a legal requirement. It's an awful policy and I'd imagine you could get a referral to a urologist who didn't have such a policy.
You're probably right...
I'm not too hung up about it, I just thought it was an interesting slant... ie, it's easier for a woman to get an abortion compared to married men getting a vasectomy.
That's just the way it is and we *men* just need to deal with it.
I wouldn't wish abortions to be made illegal... but, I do wish it's rare.
Actually one could argue the operation itself violates the Hypocratic Oath (sp): do no harm. Of course that standard would kill most of the cosmetic surgery industry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlaxicanX wrote: I don't think a Man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion under any circumstances.
However, I do think that there should be an option for a Man to offer to pay for an abortion in exchange for being legally exempt from having to pay child support. Simply put, if the man fills out the necessary paperwork and submits the money to pay for an abortion, and the woman turns the offer down and chooses to have the baby, the man should therefore be free from having to pay child support.
Thus women get to retain their freedom of choice, while we simultaneously prevent dumb gak like women choosing to have a baby so that they can trap a dude and get paid every month for 18-years.
Sorry Charlie, do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
You cannot effectively sign away the rights of the child.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/10 15:55:01
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
off.
