Scotty starts off the discussion in his opening post: Why are men not allowed to have the option of raising a child (fetus,blob, whatever), that a woman, he has slept with, has chosen to terminate. We are expected to take responsibility if the woman chooses to not terminate. I think it should be a crime to abort a pregnancy without first notifying the father (sperm donor, whatever), if at all possible. Why is it that we are given this option. And how is it not a violation of my right to the pursuit of happiness.
OreoBabe chimes in with some feminist wisdom: Why don't you get a say? Because you don't have to carry it for nine months, that's why. Don't insist that an accident come to define the lives of you, the woman, and your child.
Apparently for this feminazi, children are just annoying little "accidents", pesky "side affects" to having sex, and no one should let an "accident" (read: human child) define their lives. However, doesn't a woman let this "accident" define the life of the man who she forces to pay child support for 18 years? Once again, woman retain privilege, men remain obligated.
BigSur, in typical mangina fashion, replies: Unless a man wants to take FULL responsibility for care and upbringing (this doesn't mean your mom raises it) of an infant, his say in the matter should be "yes, dear".
So, once again, women have the privilege/options of having the child and raising it as a single mother (living parasitically off child-support and state/federal aid: having her Daddy government help her), but if a man wants to keep the child, he has to raise it 100% with "FULL responsibility" (huh?) without any outside help. Yeah, give men a semi-option but make it more difficult for them. Wonderful.
Surrealiste backs BigSur up with: It's a woman's body.
Men should be able to talk their partners about it, but the final choice is not theirs. Would you like someone telling you what to do with your body and 9 months of your life? Of course not.But she fails to take into consideration the MAN'S body. A woman doesn't want to be told to do with her body for 9 months... but it's okay for a man to be told to do with his body for 18 years (after all, you use your BODY to work and earn money). Once again: Women get freedom and independence, men get... the consequences of her choices.
Arrrghr shows a modicum of enlightement (at last!): Women ultimately have the final say in whether or not to keep the child, as physically it is their burden to bear. However, if the woman decides to keep the child when the man does not, then I think there should be a process for the man to receive a "social" abortion. It is unfair that women should have ultimate say in the matter if men are not allowed at least the ability to remove themselves from unwanted obligation. There would of course need to be a special process to determine the legitimacy of the man's claim for desiring a social abortion, but I think the process should exist.
Yes, it is a woman's "final say" whether the human child lives or dies, because it's "her burden to bear" - and in fairness, it should be the man's option to have a "social abortion" and opt out of child support for 18 years. Hey, don't get made: it's called equality.
Scotty makes a second appearance and trumps it up with some cold hard logic and the concept of personal responsibility - yes, women have that, too!: surrealist- if she doesn't kill the child(fetus, blob, whatever), then the courts will take the effort to ensure that he is held accountable for a least 18 years. But, wow, 9 months. How about this. Don't fuck someone that you wouldn't be cool, potentially starting a life with. If you do, accept the consequences of your gamble. But, please stop with whining about "it's my body". Yes, it is your body. However, if are going to be adult enough to play the game, you should be grown enough to accept the responsibilities.
Yes, finally, more men, who aren't even aware of MRA, standing up with logic against the feminazi regime of death and slavery. It warms my heart to see.
Neurotica86, a fat bisexual gal, lives up to her name: Okay, I'll make it very simple for you...you will never understand the pain (both physical and emotional) that comes along with pregnancy and labor...so you are not qualified to judge. I firmly believe that any time a man makes a statement like that, his manly parts should be put in a vice and squeezed until he sees the error of his ways. Or until they're rendered useless, thus doing a huge favor to society.
Any time a man dare say "Don't kill the baby, I want it, I'll raise it, I'll nurture it." he should have his genitals removed. Because... we don't want responsible, loving, caring father's in society? We want the deadbeat dads, right? I guess a woman's physical and "emotional" pain trumps a man's physical and emotional pain... at either losing his child and being robbed of raising his own child... or the physical pain of working to pay 18 years (in some states 21) of child support payments.
Onlyeyes4u, another fat bisexual gal, concurs with Neurotical in the same ignorant, gynocentric "our pain trumps your pain" statement: Totally agree with Neurotica86. Well said. A man can not possibly understand not only the physical and emotional things a woman goes through during pregnancy. Pregnancy actually does a lot of internal "damage" sort to speak. And who usually gets stuck taking care of it? Who's the one who usually has to give up their hopes and dreams for this accident? Not the man. He sends the check and that's usually the end of it. Until you have to make the choice of carrying and birthing the child, a man has no say over what a woman does with her body. In fact, I advocate not even telling the man, avoid the drama if he's narrow minded like the types who don't get it.
"Stuck with"? Who usually gets "stuck with" the child? These are obviously women who have no bussiness bearing children in the first place! But don't they realize the reason women get "stuck with" the child is because Family Court gives it to them? Because... almost every single woman tries her damned hardest to get "stuck with" the child? Because women have campaigned for decades to engineer this situation? The man just sends a check... which means a financial burden impeding his lfie and dreams for 18 years - whether he wanted it or not! But the woman has the option. The man is stuck with "whether he wanted it or not" - the man has no options. The man has no options because the "pain" and "burden" of 9 months pregnancy. What ever happened to the smiling happy mother who was exuberant that she was going to bring a precious new human life into the world? I guess that's all a "burden", an "accident" that forces her to give up her "dreams" of climbing the corporate ladder.
What a sad world? Let's take a look at some more replies:
... I read the rest and it's more of the same old "it's her body", "pregnancy is hell", "children are accidents", "children are a burden", bla bla bla. Thank God for abortion, really, in these cases it is desperately needed!
I saw surprisingly few manginas. What a relief.
Most of the men seemed very aware of the concepts:
Pregnancy is 9 months - and if you take better care of yourself than the average lazy American whore, isn't actually that bad. Same with the birthing process.
Child support is 18 - 21 years.
A man and woman's life is changed by bringing a child into the world - both financial and as far as "dreams" are concerend - however, women have the option, men have the obligation.
"My body, my choice" logic was applied to the man's side (it's his body, it should be his choice too, right? I mean, men aren't slaves, are they?) and the idea of "social abortions" and "opting out" the same way women do physically was mentioned. There was outrage at this idea, because it's "the man's responsibility, after all, he's the one who had sex with her" (but, apparently, women never have sex with anyone, right?).
Men and women seem to be at a crossroads - at least on this issue. Women are going one way (special privileges, options, entitlement, having a male slave...) and men are going another way (actual equality, actual fairness, actual logic).
The funny thing is that the men were using FEMINIST'S OWN LINE OF REASONING and TAKING IT SERIOUSLY - which, in this case, was a very bad thing for women because it meant men should have options as well - thus putting equal responsibility on women. *gasp*
Women... with responsibility?
Men... with reproductive rights?
My god, what is the world coming to?
PERSONALLY I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE!
You can read the thread in it's horrid entirety here: http://www.okcupid.com/forum?low=1&tid=16241858694255923483
Feel free to sign up and set those women straight!