Originally posted by UshgarakBut so true. 🙂 Women can't claim to want equal rights, when we have so many laws directly tilted towards them and men need to step up and say something about it and get some of this changed. Women extorting men and taking their assets that don't belong to them is immoral.
Oh gosh yes, you now ranting on about how states are run by 'butch dykes' makes you look like such a well-informed and rational person.This is pathetic.
Also I responded to your top post.
With 3/10 men paying for kids that aren't theirs, something should be done. I believe you also misunderstood what we were talking about. I never said a man should force a woman to abort, that's her business. A man should be given a window to opt out, and if he legally gives up rights, then he no longer has rights to a child. Something like that.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your argument boils down to "It's not fair that women have full biological control over the baby" and literally speaking it's not fair, no, though frankly that is far harsher on the women than the men of this world.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
But it is completely irrelevant. All men KNOW the risk they are running when they have sex with someone and that's just how it is. If they don't want to face up to the responsibilities of getting a woman pregnant, they shouldn't have slept with her. That is 100% and absolutely the end of the line because there is [b]no question whatsoever of men having a legal say in a woman's decision to abort and any attempt to make that so is utterly immoral. You may not like the idea of men being forced to pay out for kids they did not want- but tough. It is the ONLY acceptable alternative and there is not a single man in that situation who did not know what he was getting into. [/B]
I see a very clear contradiction in your points.
It takes two to tango but only one gender has control over the situation, currently.
Sex is not always about having kids. Sometimes...it's to have sex. Sure, you can say that sex is there to make kids...but you can hardly say that's the reason sex is had most of the time it occurs. Just like eating junk food: you're not eating it because you need the calories to go hunt a giant Bison.
You claim both parties are responsible because they both had the sex. But then you say that the man isn't responsible for the decision on keeping the child. "because there is no question whatsoever of men having a legal say in a woman's decision to abort and any attempt to make that so is utterly immoral." No, what's immoral is that a man doesn't have a say but has to live with the consequence of a decision he cannot make. It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do.
The two choices are:
1. The woman keeps the child but the man is forced to take legal responsibility for a child he does not want. The man loses his ability to choose. Win-Lose.
2. The woman does not have a say in whether or not she can keep the child and the decision is 100% the males. The female loses her ability to choose. Lose-Win.
So what is the win-win scenario?
Allowing the man to opt out.
Why is that a compromise? Because no one is forced to do something they don't want to: the woman can still keep the child and the man can opt out of the legal responsibility of her making that decision. All choices are preserved in that system and no one has their ability to choose removed from their personal decision making process.
HOWEVER! What if the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't? In that case, the woman's decision should win out because she is the one that has to carry the child to full term. That's the one exception in which there should not be "gender equality" in the decision making process.
No, that's just as bad, and still completely immoral.
There's only one question to be asked as far as the man having responsibly is concerned- did he willingly have sex with the woman? Having sex doesn't necessarily mean you want kids- but it DOES mean you are accepting the consequences. If you didn't want kids, you shouldn't have had sex.
If the answer to that is 'yes', then he's stuck with the kid and whatever decision the woman makes as to whether to keep it, and this is by FAR the most moral option.
You are stuck in a fictitious scenario where you think men are the losers- whereas in fact, by FAR, the biggest problem is men running away from the woman when they find she is pregnant and abandoning the baby. It took centuries to get the laws in place to stop that and now you want to start undoing it.
Like I said- no-one is going to be stupid (or immoral) enough to do it and you SHOULD feel ashamed for espousing such views, though you are clearly so lacking in rationality that you will never feel that way.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I see a very clear contradiction in your points.It takes two to tango but only one gender has control over the situation, currently.
Sex is not always about having kids. Sometimes...it's to have sex. Sure, you can say that sex is there to make kids...but you can hardly say that's the reason sex is had most of the time it occurs. Just like eating junk food: you're not eating it because you need the calories to go hunt a giant Bison.
You claim both parties are responsible because they both had the sex. But then you say that the man isn't responsible for the decision on keeping the child. "because there is no question whatsoever of men having a legal say in a woman's decision to abort and any attempt to make that so is utterly immoral." No, what's immoral is that a man doesn't have a say but has to live with the consequence of a decision he cannot make. It's immoral to force someone to do something they don't want to do.
The two choices are:
1. The woman keeps the child but the man is forced to take legal responsibility for a child he does not want. The man loses his ability to choose. Win-Lose.
2. The woman does not have a say in whether or not she can keep the child and the decision is 100% the males. The female loses her ability to choose. Lose-Win.
So what is the win-win scenario?
Allowing the man to opt out.
Why is that a compromise? Because no one is forced to do something they don't want to: the woman can still keep the child and the man can opt out of the legal responsibility of her making that decision. All choices are preserved in that system and no one has their ability to choose removed from their personal decision making process.
HOWEVER! What if the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't? In that case, the woman's decision should win out because she is the one that has to carry the child to full term. That's the one exception in which there should not be "gender equality" in the decision making process.
No, you are completely wrong. There is no contradiction, only your immoral ramblings.
It is irrelevant as to what your sexual intention was. If you have sex, you accept the risk of there being kids. End of story.
It is not even SLIGHTLY immoral that a man has no say over whether the woman keeps the baby. On the contrary, it would be immoral if he DID, as he has no moral right to terminate what is in her body. What it is, quite simply, is a morally neutral fact of life that the man knew when he had sex with her.
But then you have already identified your views as being on the insane fringe so I am safely discounting everything you say.
The both of you are in a very poor moral state to be considering this seriously. Like I say- nothing remotely like it will ever happen, and pushing for it will always be rightly condemned.
I'm not in a poor moral state, I'm in an honest moral state. Women don't have kids unless their is money in the picture, they aren't biologically designed to do so. If there is no money coming from somewhere (the government, a man) they don't have as many of them. This is why there are less births in a bad economy and less marriages. There are less men who can pay up now and women don't have as many financially suitable options.
Having a kid with a man who is not interested and not involved isn't good for the child anyways, so why would extorting a man for money make any difference?
Again, I'm not saying men should force women to abort, that is immoral. There is a hard double standard here which boils down to: "It's the woman's kid, but the man should still pay." Basically making a man a walking wallet in the eyes of the state.
Not to mention women commit damn near 80% of divorces in this country and take money from men there too, it's quite obvious women do these things for money, which is why they want to be married in the first place, as there is no benefit for a man to get married in this society.
Originally posted by UshgarakThat's ridiculous though. Saying people should never have sex if they don't want to have kids? People are going to have sex regardless, just like they are going to eat and sleep. Women can have sex with whomever they please, but men can't? Out of the thousands of times a person has sex in their lives, only a small percentage is for child bearing, the vast majority of the time is for pleasure.
No, that's just as bad, and still completely immoral.There's only one question to be asked as far as the man having responsibly is concerned- did he willingly have sex with the woman? Having sex doesn't necessarily mean you want kids- but it DOES mean you are accepting the consequences. If you didn't want kids, you shouldn't have had sex.
If the answer to that is 'yes', then he's stuck with the kid and whatever decision the woman makes as to whether to keep it, and this is by FAR the most moral option.l
You are stuck in a fictitious scenario where you think men are the losers- whereas in fact, by FAR, the biggest problem is men running away from the woman when they find she is pregnant and abandoning the baby. It took centuries to get the laws in place to stop that and now you want to start undoing it.
Like I said- no-one is going to be stupid (or immoral) enough to do it and you SHOULD feel ashamed for espousing such views, though you are clearly so lacking in rationality that you will never feel that way.
It is nothing moral about it. How is a man mailing a check every month good for a kid? It isn't, and it isn't good for a man. It is good for the woman only who just wants money from a man. Women can't say they're independent and then extort money from men. Not only that but they don't have to prove what they spent the money on and usually spend it on themselves.
Men are the losers. Because they have no choice. Women win, because they can have a kid whenever they want by whomever they want and force men to pay. Even if the kid isn't theirs. Women can make pay even if the man came into the picture and the kid is by another man and the guy has a DNA test.
Women are irresponsible for choosing irresponsible men and I don't feel sorry for them. If you choose to sleep with a womanizer, a felon, a drug addict, etc then you knew what you were getting yourself into. Women choose these men because they want to be with a "bad boy" and then complain later.
When men are given the same rights as women (which they should) there would be a lot less of this happening and a lot less fraud. I don't feel "ashamed" and feminist shaming tactics won't work on me. There's nothing immoral about equal rights. Women should not be able to have a kid and extort a man for money. If a man wants the kid and she doesn't he's still screwed. You seem to be under the impression that women are innocent lambs and that they are damsels in distress women many have kids *for* the sake of keeping a man around or getting money out of a man, whether it's 200 a month or 20,000 a month. A man should not be paying 100's of thousands of dollars for something he had no say in, that's immoral. *Especially* when he was lied to about birth control or that she couldn't have a kid. That's fraud. But that's ok too because women are all innocent and men are the bad guys.
No, see, your attitude is utterly mal-adjusted. It is not even vaguely ridiculous to say that that if you were not prepared to have kids with someone you shouldn't have slept with them. Although it might not be your intent, you know- you know full well- that having kids was a possible outcome and that has to factor into your decision. And of course people will go ahead and do it anyway! And if they have kids as a result, they have to face up to that responsibility.
That you cannot see this simple moral (and almost globally accepted) fact is why you have this so badly wrong.
Mailing the kid a cheque is infinitely better than mailing nothing, and again we have all of single-mother history to back me up on this one. This is a right we fought for as a society.
Men may or may not be literally the losers, if you want to frame it that way. As I said, I think by far women are the losers with the biological facts of pregnancy. However, it is irrelevant- those ARE the facts and men have to live with them. Allowing them to opt-out of parenthood makes it worse, not better- again, history bears me out.
You don't feel sorry for women- fine. I'll add it to the list of extremely unattractive facets of yourself you are presenting in this argument.
Btw, saying you are not in a poor moral state kinda loses its force when you immediately afterwards claim that women only ever have kids if money is involved, combined with all your anti-women ranting you have done so far. Again, you should be ashamed. Though most people trying to claim to be 'honest' are generally just using that as a cover for being wrong.
In the end- you get a woman pregnant, you are stuck with her decision. This is good, it is moral, and if you don't like it, tough shit. Your alternatives are feeble and morally inferior. You had sex with her, and you knew what you were doing. That's that.
Originally posted by UshgarakIt is utterly ridiculous. I believe men should discuss with women about these options, but people are going to have sex, this is the 21st century.
No, see, your attitude is utterly mal-adjusted. It is not even [b]vaguely ridiculous to say that that if you were not prepared to have kids with someone you shouldn't have slept with them. Although it might not be your intent, you know- you know full well- that having kids was a possible outcome and that has to factor into your decision. And of course people will go ahead and do it anyway! And if they have kids as a result, they have to face up to that responsibility.That you cannot see this simple moral (and almost globally accepted) fact is why you have this so badly wrong.
Mailing the kid a cheque is infinitely better than mailing nothing, and again we have all of single-mother history to back me up on this one. This is a right we fought for as a society.
Men may or may not be literally the losers, if you want to frame it that way. As I said, I think by far women are the losers with the biological facts of pregnancy. However, it is irrelevant- those ARE the facts and men have to live with them. Allowing them to opt-out of parenthood makes it worse, not better- again, history bears me out.
You don't feel sorry for women- fine. I'll add it to the list of extremely unattractive facets of yourself you are presenting in this argument.
Btw, saying you are not in a poor moral state kinda loses its force when you immediately afterwards claim that women only ever have kids if money is involved. Again, you should be ashamed. I think you are elevating yourself to one of the most unpleasant and immoral posers I've seen around here, based on these views. [/B]
Globally accepted? By manginas and feminazis. Men don't have over a dozen forms of birth control and only have a temporary one which is one of the least effective forms, and a permenant one which doesn't work for all men even if they wanted it. Women have well over a dozen forms including RU486 and the morning after pill. So if a kid is born it isn't an "accident" it is because they wanted it to be born.
It isn't better at all, it isn't going to the kid in most cases. Single mother is a good reason? Single mother hood is a bad thing to put upon a kid and it nothing to be proud of, I would never advocate something like that. It isn't good for the kid, it isn't good for the man, it isn't really good for the woman either, and it isn't good for society. Women who call themselves "proud single mothers" and feel they don't need a man are utterly selfish and stupid. Kids raised by single parents are not only more likely to be poor. They are more likely to grow up in crime infested areas, more likely to be molested, more likely to have depression, more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be a felon or a criminal in general, more likely to be a teenage parent. Not only is extorting a man bad, extorting the system and having responsible individuals like myself pay for these irresponsible fools is even worse. People like me who chose not to have kids because I had goals I wanted to accomplish and kids would interfere with that.
Men are the losers, the kids lose, the women lose when a kid is born like that, and society loses, because you have another kid in lack being brought into society that is going to cost everyone either by money or by them having problems later. I would never want that for a kid.
I can pull stats on all of this and I have in the past. History has never brought out that single motherhood was good for kids.
And it's extremely unattractive that you'd feel sorry for someone who chose to spread their legs for a loser. Women don't want responsible guys who aren't as attractive or "exciting" they want men who are "bad boys" and then they choose to have kids with them and complain. Please, whose fault it is? Who had the choices in that situation. It's hypocritical to say women should have more rights and then not hold them responsible for something they had full power over. I know several women like this in real life from the past who have multiple kids with irresponsible men and complain he's irresponsible. But they *knew* he was irresponsible. They're just morons and just contribute to the problem. Women are not innocent little lambs who need extra protection, if they are as capable as they say they are they should prove it.
They do have kids when there are adequate financial resources. They are engineered biologically to find financial support. If women weren't getting welfare, alimony, child support and had to pay themselves they'd be less likely to have them, that's a fact. Born out by the fact whenever they give more "assistance" to these women, they have more kids. Now they have schools around here that have built in babysitters for these little whores who have kids at 16 and 17. What a waste of tax dollars. Women who do this should become pariahs. It isn't good for men, women, children, society, or people who choose not to have children. It isn't morally superior, it is immoral and unconstitutional to give men and women unequal rights, all while women are the ones who wanted equal rights to begin with. With more and more men raised by single mothers I'm not surprised this mindset exists. Men are brainwashed into thinking women deserve special rules and rights on top of everything else they get and that they are innocent. Women can kill their husbands and children and get away with it because of mindsets like this. Nothing feeble about my decision because I have common sense the best protection of all. I knew I didn't want to have kids because of my company but it doesn't mean men who aren't as smart should get shafted because the corrupt system exploits men. Tough on them when they make more birth control options for men (which they need) they won't be able to spread their legs and get a check anymore like they have been doing.
See, again, your talk of 'manginas and feminazis' puts your entire attitude in perspective. Other than pointing out that this is in fact the considered opinion of civilised western society after much careful consideration of the issue and your position that it is being imposed so is, again, utterly idiotic, all I can do is refer you back to what I already said. Your other words are, literally, of no value. All you are trying to do is give license for men to avoid their responsibilities. Feeble.
As I say- luckily, such immoral views will never be given serious consideration.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, you are completely wrong. There is no contradiction, only your immoral ramblings.
Come on, now. I thought we patched things up and agreed not to get like this with each other?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It is irrelevant as to what your sexual intention was. If you have sex, you accept the risk of there being kids. End of story.
To you, it is the end of the story. Obviously, that's not the case for others. As intelligent adults, we will have differing opinions.
Unless you mean that there's an objective morality (moral universalism)? In which case, I am open to your reasoning/justification for such a concept as it pertains to the topic.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It is not even SLIGHTLY immoral that a man has no say over whether the woman keeps the baby. On the contrary, it would be immoral if he DID, as he has no moral right to terminate what is in her body. What it is, quite simply, is a morally neutral fact of life that the man knew when he had sex with her.
This was never in question by me. In fact, I argued that the man should not be allowed to force her to keep and I implicitly stated that he should not be allowed to make her abort.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
But then you have already identified your views as being on the insane fringe so I am safely discounting everything you say.
That's definitely your prerogative but I don't think you understood my position based on the previous summary you just gave.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The both of you are in a very poor moral state to be considering this seriously. Like I say- nothing remotely like it will ever happen, and pushing for it will always be rightly condemned.
I consider your perspective to be morally wrong. I think your position is sexist and restrictive of individual freedoms. It's quite disturbing, actually but only because of how adamant you are about your position being a moral absolute.
Lastly, you say nothing like it will ever happen (keep in mind that I am using your own description of what you think I was talking about...namely...the man forcing her to keep or abort. Again, that's NOT my position)? I disagree:
http://www.lifenews.com/2007/02/19/int-188/
"An Italian judge has ordered a thirteen year-old girl to have an abortion because her parents are opposed to their daughter giving birth. The decision relies on laws in Italy that allow parents to make the pregnancy decisions for their teenage children."
It looks like reason is ALMOST getting through in western societies. I would like to see more autonomy from the females (even if they are underage) while also giving the males more autonomy as I've outlined. Rightly so, a parent is part of the decision making process for underage pregnancies. I feel that in an underage case, there should be 3 votes: 1 from the legal guardian/parent, one from the potential father, and one from the potential mother.
Here's another case where a Judge ordered a probationary conditional to not have any more kids because she couldn't handle it:
"Judge Charlie Baird has ordered the end to childbearing as a stipulation of the Texas mother's 10-year probation sentence on charges of injury to a child by omission."
So it would seem that the idea of "nothing remotely like it" is actually not true because we have both sides" Forced to have an abortion and Forced to not have anymore kids. Those are close to the position you described.
What I would like to see is further social development among a less sexist and more intellectually conducive system where all parties maintain maximum decision making abilities. I feel that the current system of "force the man" is a bit socially outdated. It is, however, not as outdated as the once held position of "it's entirely the man's decision". That position is only superseded by the most archaic of all positions which was "there is no decision."
I'm sure you agree that those last two are outdated, but you don't think the third to last is outdated. I do. I think we will get to a less sexist reproduction system as technology improves.
I don;t really care about what you thought was or was not patched up. My attitude towards you has not changed at all, and if you post crap you have to be prepared to be called on it. You were wrong to say I was contradicting, and what you are suggesting is immoral. Sorry you have an issue with that being mentioned, but the solution to make more considered posts.
Your opinion may be different- but it is also wrong. I don't give a damn about you thinking mine is wrong, especially when yours is self-evidently grotesque and the vast majority of civilised society and just about every western legal system backs me.
Your examples don't prove a darn thing either (one involving a minor, the other about probation conditions; neither vaguely relevant).
Again, just like c-master, all you are doing is espousing a system where men can evade their responsibilities- and you really should question your views when you see the quality of person your argument is associating with. Unless you7 want to go with c-master's insane chauvinist ramblings about women controlling society, of course.
You won't be persuaded- you never are. Nonetheless, the objections needed to be told to you, very strongly.
I'm done with it there; you can just read back what I said again.
So because you don't like something, we're wrong and grotesque. It isn't wrong, it is a fact, and it is true. The constitution says we should be treated equal, and we're not. That's strike one.
Chauvinist is a person who believes in their cause, so I take that as a compliment. And men aren't avoiding anything, they're being forced into it by manipulative women. If women abort aren't they "avoiding responsibiliites"? Please. Quality of person? I believe in people taking responsibility for themselves and I also agree to equal rights. It's no different than equal pay for equal work, women want that even though they work less on average. It is contradictory. My quality of person is great. I lead an excellent successful life and I wouldn't trade it for anyone else's. I'm not some loser cranking out kids I can't afford.
Everything I have said has been true and proven. And women having kids with no father around is bad for society and it is bad for the kid.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
See, again, your talk of 'manginas and feminazis' puts your entire attitude in perspective. Other than pointing out that this is in fact the considered opinion of civilised western society after much careful consideration of the issue and your position that it is being imposed so is, again, utterly idiotic, all I can do is refer you back to what I already said. Your other words are, literally, of no value. All you are trying to do is give license for men to avoid their responsibilities. Feeble.As I say- luckily, such immoral views will never be given serious consideration.
Your ad hominem attacks aren't making your point any better, you've attacked me and dadudemon with being "morally inferior and sick". Despite the numerous statistics that men are getting shafted, and lied to, and forced to pay out billions annually.
3/10 men are paying out money to kids that aren't theirs. Men are served papers late and forced to pay on purpose for kids that aren't theirs. Even if they have a DNA test. These aren't just opinions, these are facts. It happens every day and that you think nothing is wrong with it almost seems a bit sociopathic.
You're under this impression that men just want to have kids and run off, but if men had the same options this wouldn't be a problem because there would be an agreement beforehand, which I think is fair. Men don't want to have kids usually in the first place and are forced to, which is immoral. It is also bad for kids an bad for society. Men sending money to some greedy broad hasn't helped out anything.
Now if a man and a woman have been together some time and they know the kid is their that is obviously different. But men do need more options in their favor as they have next to none.
That's not actually ad hominem, c-master. Aside from your anti-women stance actually being a legitimate query as to you being biased, it's just down to the way you are presenting yourself- which bis a logical fact, not a fallacy.
In my opinion, you need help. That's not ad hominem either as it is not an argument- it's advice.
Originally posted by UshgarakAttacking the person instead of the argument is ad hominem. You can disagree with me as others have but no need to attack me.
That's not actually ad hominem, c-master. Aside from your anti-women stance actually being a legitimate query as to you being biased, it's just down to the way you are presenting yourself- which bis a logical fact, not a fallacy.In my opinion, you need help. That's not ad hominem either as it is not an argument- it's advice.
Anti-woman? Not at all. I just want equal rights for both parties.
This whole system is anti-male and this thread is too.
Ultimately the kid comes into play here, and having kids by an unwilling parent *is* bad for the parents, kid, and society, that's a fact. Kids growing out of single mothers households are more likely to be depressed, commit suicide, do badly in school, become teenage parents, criminals, etc. It isn't good and I don't advocate women cranking out kids without a care and then complaining about it. If women didn't receive easy money from the state and from men for engaging in irresponsible behavior this would tone down dramatically. Women crank out kids when they know they'll get easy "assistance" and money for it. That's why poorer areas have so many kids at a younger age. I grew up in an area like this and I know full well what it is like, which is why I don't advocate it. It's just bad.
We need equal rights all around or admit the constitution is one big fallacy and women are inherently inferior to men which is why they need superior protection. If they are equal then they are equal.
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
You have tried to make my argument invalid by saying I'm sick, and I have a "low quality of person" which wasn't really necessary even if you disagree.
Originally posted by UshgarakAnd again... 😬
No, that's not what I did, and you thinking it was ad hominem makes you a fool.But if you want to discuss that in detail, do it in another thread.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this topic. Not that these discussions really ever change anybody's stances to begin with.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don;t really care about what you thought was or was not patched up. My attitude towards you has not changed at all, and if you post crap you have to be prepared to be called on it. You were wrong to say I was contradicting, and what you are suggesting is immoral. Sorry you have an issue with that being mentioned, but the solution to make more considered posts.
I was talking about you and I having civil discourse without the need for us to talk down to each other, not thinking the other was wrong. I think it's perfectly okay for us to think the other is wrong because I obviously think your position is morally inferior to my position, outdated, and close-minded. It would be very hypocritical of me to make such statements and then expect you not tell me you think I am wrong.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your examples don't prove a darn thing either (one involving a minor, the other about probation conditions; neither vaguely relevant).
But you said "remotely close" and that was in reference to your incorrect idea of my position. That incorrect idea you had about my positions was: the man controlling whether a woman can keep a child or whether she must abort.
Both examples are remotely close to those two poles and both articles were quickly found to show that, yes, there are situations in Western Society that ARE remotely close to those two poles.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, just like c-master, all you are doing is espousing a system where men can evade their responsibilities-
This is a strawman.
I'm proposing a system where both the man and the woman can decide to keep the child. If the man does not want it but the woman does, he should not be forced to take legal responsibility very specifically because he did not want to keep it.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
and you really should question your views when you see the quality of person your argument is associating with. Unless you7 want to go with c-master's insane chauvinist ramblings about women controlling society, of course.
I did contemplate this, of course. While I do not agree with his sexist remarks, the overall idea of allowing the man to opt out is what I consider a higher moral position than the perspective you hold.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You won't be persuaded- you never are. Nonetheless, the objections needed to be told to you, very strongly.
I've already expressed why I think your position is morally inferior but I don't feel the need to do so as strongly by insulting that position. I feel you do understand so me adding anything more than that could be perceived as trolling and I'm not looking to irritate you for obvious reasons. 😄
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm done with it there; you can just read back what I said again.
I agree. You did not capture my perspective in your previous responses to me, but I feel you understand my position in this last post. So there really is not need to go back and forth at this point.