"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[Grammatron]

Since we're dealing in hyperbole, then I shall characterize your position as desiring to defend everyone from all negative consequences of any of their actions, no matter how stupid.

Only when the negative consequences are result of deceit.

 

[Grammatron]

Again, it takes two to make a kid. Don't want to pay child support- don't have sex with her.

Yeah I can say that too:

Again, it takes two to make a kid. Don't want to support a kid on your own- don't have sex with him.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Only when the negative consequences are result of deceit.

"Of course I'll let you use my bank account for a funds transfer, Mr Abwele Mfume of Lagos, Nigeria!"

 

[Grammatron]

"Of course I'll let you use my bank account for a funds transfer, Mr Abwele Mfume of Lagos, Nigeria!"

And your point is what?

 

[Elaedith]

Does anybody see the unfairness in that a mother can give up her baby for adoption, and be done with any legal respnsibilities, but a father's responsibilities can only be terminated by the mother?

I think if a mother wants to give the baby up for adoption (in the event that the mother didn't want an abortion) and the father doesn't, he should be entitled to custody and the mother should have to pay maintenance.

I see the right to an abortion as connected to refusal to go through an unwanted pregnancy, therefore the father has no equivalent right.

If in some hypothetical future a way was discovered for a man to carry a pregnancy to term and the embryo could be removed and implanted into the father, then the father should have the right to refuse this, and this would be equivalent to the right to an abortion. He should also have the right to have the embryo implanted in the event that the mother doesn't want to carry the pregancy to term and he does, and the mother would again be liable for maintenance.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And your point is what?

That sometimes people are stupid and deserve to reap the consequences of their actions, even if they were being deceived.

Physically, a man has complete control over his reproductive potential. He can abstain, he can have non-vaginal intercourse, he can use a condom, he can withdraw, he can use a spermicidal lubricant. If he decides not to use one or more of these five methods to control his own reproduction, then he is basically ceding control to chance and the goodwill of other people. He is not taking responsibility, and therefore he has little grounds for complaint when things don't turn out as he wishes they would. "Oh, but she lied to me!" doesn't cut it, because she was only in the position of power because he put her there. He had control and he gave it up, willingly.

 

[Grammatron]

That sometimes people are stupid and deserve to reap the consequences of their actions, even if they were being deceived.

Deserve? You might want to rethink that.

Physically, a man has complete control over his reproductive potential. He can abstain, he can have non-vaginal intercourse, he can use a condom, he can withdraw, he can use a spermicidal lubricant. If he decides not to use one or more of these five methods to control his own reproduction, then he is basically ceding control to chance and the goodwill of other people. He is not taking responsibility, and therefore he has little grounds for complaint when things don't turn out as he wishes they would. "Oh, but she lied to me!" doesn't cut it, because she was only in the position of power because he put her there. He had control and he gave it up, willingly.

You have some funny idea about life. It seems everyone is free to screw over whoever they want in any way they want as long as they can get away with it in the end.

 

[Jocko]

Unwilling father tests men's rights



Hell...I'm no legal expert and even I can tell you that his case doesn't have a chance.

Really? You don't think a Constiutional equal protections challenge has a chance? How odd. Maybe we should start defining which races get certain rights too. That was quite vogue, once.

 

[Jocko]

That sometimes people are stupid and deserve to reap the consequences of their actions, even if they were being deceived.

Physically, a man has complete control over his reproductive potential. He can abstain, he can have non-vaginal intercourse, he can use a condom, he can withdraw, he can use a spermicidal lubricant. If he decides not to use one or more of these five methods to control his own reproduction, then he is basically ceding control to chance and the goodwill of other people. He is not taking responsibility, and therefore he has little grounds for complaint when things don't turn out as he wishes they would. "Oh, but she lied to me!" doesn't cut it, because she was only in the position of power because he put her there. He had control and he gave it up, willingly.

Not to sound dense, but how is that different that the woman's involvement? They even have the added advantage of societal norms encouraging purity. Men do not.

 

[Jocko]

Again, it takes two to make a kid. Don't want to pay child support- don't have sex with her.

Change that to "you shouldn't have gotten yourself knocked up" and you'd have a NOW vigil on your lawn by morning.

You know, the more I think about it, the stronger this case sounds. Equal protection, like payback, is a bitch... ain't it?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not to sound dense, but how is that different that the woman's involvement?

It's not. If she were complaining about him getting her pregnant, then I'd be pointing out that she had plenty of methods and opportunities to avoid that event.

It's not rocket science. F***ing makes babies. It's what it's for. So unless you take steps to prevent it, it's silly to act surprised when babies show up.

 

[Grammatron]

It's not. If she were complaining about him getting her pregnant, then I'd be pointing out that she had plenty of methods and opportunities to avoid that event.

It's not rocket science. F***ing makes babies. It's what it's for. So unless you take steps to prevent it, it's silly to act surprised when babies show up.

"Hey can you have babies?"
"No."

Hence the case.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Deserve? You might want to rethink that.

Why? He's not retarded, or a minor, or having diminished capacity to make sound judgments, is he?

You have some funny idea about life. It seems everyone is free to screw over whoever they want in any way they want as long as they can get away with it in the end.

You have some funny ideas about life, too. It seems anyone can do as they please without taking responsibility for their actions, and yet still cry for assistance and sympathy when the predictable consequences ensue. You touch the stove, you get burned. You drink the poison, you get a stomachache. You **** someone of the opposite sex without protection, you get a baby. Wah wah wah. Who could have seen that coming? Everyone, that's who. It's pretty common knowledge where babies come from.

 

[TragicMonkey]

"Hey can you have babies?"
"No."

Hence the case.

And he believed her? Enough to not use condoms? In the era of HIV? Fool on both counts, then.

 

[Grammatron]

Why? He's not retarded, or a minor, or having diminished capacity to make sound judgments, is he?

Crime is commited against and he deserves that? I want to mak sure you understand what you are saying here.

You have some funny ideas about life, too. It seems anyone can do as they please without taking responsibility for their actions, and yet still cry for assistance and sympathy when the predictable consequences ensue. You touch the stove, you get burned. You drink the poison, you get a stomachache. You **** someone of the opposite sex without protection, you get a baby. Wah wah wah. Who could have seen that coming? Everyone, that's who. It's pretty common knowledge where babies come from.

You are overlooking the lie factor over and over again.

 

[Grammatron]

And he believed her? Enough to not use condoms? In the era of HIV? Fool on both counts, then.

We don't know all the facts of the case but yes, it sure looks like that.

For a moment, forgo pregnancy here and think of it in these terms:

Person A deceived person B and created a situation where B must pay A due to the deceit.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Crime is commited against and he deserves that? I want to mak sure you understand what you are saying here.

Is lying a crime? And it's not proven she was lying. She may have thought she was barren.

You are overlooking the lie factor over and over again.

Because I consider that the man is responsible for placing himself in a position where a lie would matter. Had he taken steps to prevent the possibility of pregnancy, it wouldn't matter whether she were lying or not. But he just left it up to the woman, ceding control, and abdicating his responsibility. His victimhood is his own doing.

 

[Spidey13]

You have some funny ideas about life, too. It seems anyone can do as they please without taking responsibility for their actions, and yet still cry for assistance and sympathy when the predictable consequences ensue. You touch the stove, you get burned. You drink the poison, you get a stomachache. You **** someone of the opposite sex without protection, you get a baby. Wah wah wah. Who could have seen that coming? Everyone, that's who. It's pretty common knowledge where babies come from.

This sounds exactly like an anti-abortion speech.

 

[TragicMonkey]

We don't know all the facts of the case but yes, it sure looks like that.

For a moment, forgo pregnancy here and think of it in these terms:

Person A deceived person B and created a situation where B must pay A due to the deceit.

And Person B could have easily avoid this situation by taking any number of sensible precautions, but deliberately chose not to, and let Person A create any situation Person A cared to, without oversight, examination, reflection, or care. Person B would never have been trapped by Person A's deception had Person B spent a whole thirty seconds taking responsibility for himself instead of leaving his fate in Person A's hands.

 

[Grammatron]

Is lying a crime?

Since we're talking civil action here and money's involved - sort of.

And it's not proven she was lying. She may have thought she was barren.

Since the article presents it like we assume it to be so for the sake of the discussion. Though yes, that could be the case.

Because I consider that the man is responsible for placing himself in a position where a lie would matter. Had he taken steps to prevent the possibility of pregnancy, it wouldn't matter whether she were lying or not. But he just left it up to the woman, ceding control, and abdicating his responsibility. His victimhood is his own doing.

How's that different from psychics who lie to get people out of money?