filial_piety
Banned
Same argument can be made for a man's finances.
Men should be allowed to legally opt out of being a parent
- Thread starter winb83
- Start date
Same argument can be made for a man's finances.
why would a woman ask me to get a vasectomy? that's a permanent operation. if she doesn't want kids there are plenty of things she could do that aren't permanent to prevent it. if it doesn't work out with her of if i decide in the future to have kids me getting that done at her request robs me of that future.
DaChampIsHere
Survive the drought
Because she, like you, doesn't believe you should be given full control over something she will have the responsibility for. This is her way of protecting herself.
You know exactly why. Nice way to avoid your own logic though.
Finances are completely different in that a person controls their own body. Money, no matter if you are employee or an owner or investor, always comes from and is controlled by somebody else but yourself.
If something impedes upon your money, do you have the right to kill it? No. If someone impedes upon your body/life, in many cases, you reserve the right to harm or kill them.
If you kill someone who has robbed you but they are running away and present you no bodily harm, you're going for murder. If this same person is causing you bodily harm, you're generally not gonna be punished for defending yourself to the ends of your abilities.
So, I ask you, are you too getting a vasectomy at the request of the woman you are with If she asks?
that's a permanent operation. if she doesn't want kids there are plenty of things she could do that aren't permanent to prevent it that are reversable. if it doesn't work out with her of if i decide in the future to have kids me getting that done at her request robs me of that future.Because she, like you, doesn't believe you should be given full control over something she will have the responsibility for. This is her way of protecting herself.
You know exactly why. Nice way to avoid your own logic though.
Finances are completely different in that a person controls their own body. Money, no matter if you are employee or an owner or investor, always comes from and is controlled by somebody else but yourself.
If something impedes upon your money, do you have the right to kill it? No. If someone impedes upon your body/life, in many cases, you reserve the right to harm or kill them.
If you kill someone who has robbed you but they are running away and present you no bodily harm, you're going for murder. If this same person is causing you bodily harm, you're generally not gonna be punished for defending yourself to the ends of your abilities.
So, I ask you, are you too getting a vasectomy at the request of the woman you are with If she asks?
my argument once again is if a woman becomes pregnant she at any time can opt out of being a mother. the man should be given that same right and since it is injust for him to force her to do anything with her body society should give him the ability to walk away with no obligations at all if he so chooses. this way he does not infringe on her right to control her body and have a child and she does not infringe on his right not to be a father if he doesn't want to be. its a compromise.
most of you don't seem to like that compromise because it places the responsibility solely on the shoulders of the woman. then again she would have to choose to take that.
DaChampIsHere
Survive the drought
In many cases, abortion leaves a woman's reproductive organs irreversibly damaged.
So it's okay for you to ask that of someone, that they take that chance at that possibility, but you aren't down for it yourself?
How convieniently hypocritical
I knew you weren't about that life when I asked though. 
Edit: The basis of your point is that since you don't have the "choice" you're reconciliation is to opt out. Inversely, you should have no problem with a woman making that request of you if you really feel like the ideal you have is all around just and right.
give men the opt out clause and i highly doubt another man will ask another woman to abort a child. more than likely he's gonna say do what you want i'm out.In many cases, abortion leaves a woman's reproductive organs irreversibly damaged.
So it's okay for you to ask that of someone, that they take that chance at that possibility, but you aren't down for it yourself?
How convieniently hypocritical
Edit: The basis of your point is that since you don't have the "choice" you're reconciliation is to opt out. Inversely, you should have no problem with a woman making that request of you if you really feel like the ideal you have is all around just and right.
i've never asked or had a woman get an abortion and i've been sexually active for over 11 years so don't push that on me.
my point is that all mothers and fathers in this would should choose to fill that role. if a woman asked me to get that operation and i wanted it i'd get it if i didn't i wouldn't. that decision doesn't affect her because she could get her own operation that is reversible and she has far more birth control methods than i do and she also has the final say so on whether or not she births a child and she can choose to take a morning after pill and the can drop that baby off at a safe haven and she could choose to give that baby up for adoption.
as a man i can choose to either keep my dikk in my pants or use a condom and hope an unplanned pregnancy doesn't occur or permanently rob myself of fatherhood with an operation.
so i have 3 options, and if i want to have sex i only have two and if i'd ever want to have the potential to be a father i'd only have one. how many does she have and how restrictive are they?
spliz
SplizThaDon
Son..it takes a lifetime to know someone...I mean really u CAN'T be this naive...and I'm not even saying I agree with the premise of the thread...I understand what ur TRYING to say...but if only the world really worked that way...
DaChampIsHere
Survive the drought
Lol @ "Give the man the clause...."
No nikka. I'm giving you an out to your problem now. Your problem is a man should be able to exercise his will on a woman's body since it results in him having a certain responsibility. I give you an equal out for a woman, and now you don't want it? You don't want to attack your problem (people not having a choice in things they are responsible for). If you don't think that men should have to take care of their kids, then say so. Don't sit around and try to disguise it as something else (people having control over their responsibilities)
That's not want you want, obviously Winb
No nikka. I'm giving you an out to your problem now. Your problem is a man should be able to exercise his will on a woman's body since it results in him having a certain responsibility. I give you an equal out for a woman, and now you don't want it? You don't want to attack your problem (people not having a choice in things they are responsible for). If you don't think that men should have to take care of their kids, then say so. Don't sit around and try to disguise it as something else (people having control over their responsibilities)
That's not want you want, obviously Winb
filial_piety
Banned
DaChampIsHere
I disagree with this logic. Money from whomever or however you've obtained it, is in your control. Once I obtain a dollar, I determine how that dollar is spent be it in investments, bills, luxuries or whatever. BTW using your logic one could also argue that just as money "always comes from someone else", one could say that the sperm does as well. and therefore the man (the other half) should have a choice in whether the child can be aborted or whether or not he wants to be a parent himself.
The fetus is to some extent an independent life form that is physically dependent on it's host (the mother)
Even the law recognizes this. If a cat bodies a pregnant woman, he will be hit with TWO counts of homicide, not one. One for the child and one for the mother. Therefore when a woman does have an abortion, she is killing what the law considers an autonamous living being with rights.
So now pregnancy is "causing bodily harm?"
I don't get this logic. The argument of abortion does NOT assume that the fetus is "killing" the host mother unless it inhibits her ability to be alive. Most people agree that if a mother's life is in danger as a result of pregnancy, then an abortion is warranted. But you've already made my point in the bolded sentence...if the fetus is not causing a woman bodily harm, then why isn't she going away for murder?
No, why should I? If I ask her to get her tubes tied, should she?
I disagree with this logic. Money from whomever or however you've obtained it, is in your control. Once I obtain a dollar, I determine how that dollar is spent be it in investments, bills, luxuries or whatever. BTW using your logic one could also argue that just as money "always comes from someone else", one could say that the sperm does as well. and therefore the man (the other half) should have a choice in whether the child can be aborted or whether or not he wants to be a parent himself.
The fetus is to some extent an independent life form that is physically dependent on it's host (the mother)
Even the law recognizes this. If a cat bodies a pregnant woman, he will be hit with TWO counts of homicide, not one. One for the child and one for the mother. Therefore when a woman does have an abortion, she is killing what the law considers an autonamous living being with rights.
So now pregnancy is "causing bodily harm?"
I don't get this logic. The argument of abortion does NOT assume that the fetus is "killing" the host mother unless it inhibits her ability to be alive. Most people agree that if a mother's life is in danger as a result of pregnancy, then an abortion is warranted. But you've already made my point in the bolded sentence...if the fetus is not causing a woman bodily harm, then why isn't she going away for murder?
No, why should I? If I ask her to get her tubes tied, should she?
*Hated the rules of monopoly*
*Decides to play anyway*
*Gets mad when I land on your property and I have to follow the rules*
*Petitions Milton-Bradley to change the rules*
Where does this logic apply in any place besides your ill-fated domes?
Dudes are really, essentially mad that they don't have vaginas and can't make decisions about housing life.
One of the most logical arguments I've heard thus far.
One fallacy tho
Appeal to status quo.
Still doesn't answer OPs question. The OP precisely states why can't the rules be challenged? Under what grounds?
Your argument is these are the rules. I'm not exactly sure why you can't change it, but they were set up by the powers that be so don't play if you don't like them.
You have no legitimate response for not being allowed to challenging the status quo. Your whole argument is based on it being the status quo. Circular argument. You're defending it by stating it already exists (for a reason you can't or are unwilling to explain.) If you could explain it, then you'd have an amazing argument.
Now you can say that this is her body and that's why you don't have a choice after conception to her having the baby. But then you'd have to realize that the OP is not and has never disputed this or attempted to usurp control from the woman. The OP actually asks how come a man can't have the choice after conception to opt out of the whole father process without consequence?
I'm assuming your response is women have vaginas and therefore have control over decisions about housing life. Good argument until you realize that the state controls the time frame at which a woman can legally have an abortion. If a woman could have an abortion at 8 months at her discretion, then this would be one of the strongest arguments thus far. But the facts are that her control over life is limited. This jeopardizes that argument.
when did i ever argue that a man should be able to exercise his will on a woman's body?
what you've basically done is constructed your own argument attributed it to me than constructed an argument to defeat it and patted yourself on the back for beating your own argument.
a man shouldn't have control over a woman's body but at the same time a woman should never be given the ability to make a decision that forces a man who doesn't want to be a father to be a father or have obligation to a child he doesn't want.
if a woman wants a child that is the result of an accidental pregnancy and a man doesn't want that child the woman should if she conses to have the child accept full responsibility for that child.
what shouldn't happen is that woman deciding i want this child and i want to be a mother therefore since that's what i want you need to step up to the plate and be a man and help me fulfill my desires to be a mother. all this is really is a woman deciding to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy allowing the man to become a random sperm donor and nothing more.
DaChampIsHere
Survive the drought
This is all I needed to know. Seems like every dude on this side of the argument loves the idea of exercising their will on someone's body when it impedes their responsibilities, but no one is willing to let someone exercise their will on them for the benefit of their responsibility.
Like I said, convienient.
------------------
Sharp, why play a game you don't like the rules of? Play another game. What's so hard to understand about this?
And again, if you want to change those rules on the stance that people should have a say in their responsibilities while disregarding their choices/actions, are you also letting women tell you whether to get vasectomies or not?
--------/
Winb, the basis of your argument lies on the fact you don't have control over whether a woman brings a certain life in the world or not. Do you want to solve that problem or do you just want the ability to not take care of your kid?
filial_piety
Banned
This is all I needed to know. Seems like every dude on this side of the argument loves the idea of exercising their will on someone's body when it impedes their responsibilities, but no one is willing to let someone exercise their will on them for the benefit of their responsibility. Like I said, convienient.
Translation, I couldn't counter your responses, so it's best to move on lol.
Your "logic" is so far off that it's strangely unique that you can't even see it for yourself. If you are telling men to get vasectomies for the "benefit of their responsibilities" then you can make the SAME argument for a woman to get her tubes tied instead of exercising her right to get an abortion lol. If "responsibility" can be applied to one, it can be applied to the other.
How you can't see that is amazing.
DaChampIsHere
Survive the drought
nikka, I don't care, because I have no problem eatig the consequences of my actions.This is all I needed to know. Seems like every dude on this side of the argument loves the idea of exercising their will on someone's body when it impedes their responsibilities, but no one is willing to let someone exercise their will on them for the benefit of their responsibility. Like I said, convienient.
Translation, I couldn't counter your responses, so it's best to move on lol.
Your "logic" is so far off that it's strangely unique that you can't even see it for yourself. If you are telling men to get vasectomies for the "benefit of their responsibilities" then you can make the SAME argument for a woman to get her tubes tied who is pro-choice lol.
How you can't see that is amazing.
Under your ideal (an idea i dont agree with, an idea you think is just and right) everyone should have complete control over everyone else's body where responsibility is attached.
I present your ideal back to you, you don't want it, and I'm magically the one who is wrong?
Truthfully, I didn't even read your whole response. I skimmed from the bottom, saw that you made a hypocritical statement that flawed your argument and went with it.?
