Viagra was created to treat angina, the "side effect" is what it's used for now. What I've learned from this thread is we need someone to create Sexbot's pronto. That can cook, preferably.
You are expeditiously ignoring the fact that a woman can force a man into indentured servitude for 18 year.s That does affect his body. The OP made a good point, that men do not have any reproductive rights equality, and rather than addressing that inequality, you diverted.
Whose father? Ah....you mean potential father. The potential father doesn't have to pay for anything. However, it's understandable that a man would look on it as a good thing to do. The law didn't force your friend to pay. Your friend thought it was a good idea to pay for it so he wouldn't become a father.
So we recognize it is ok to take away the man's choice over the matter. Would it not likewise be acceptable to take away the woman's choice over the matter when the father wants the baby? After all, if we have accepted that the law must reflect the inequal biology, then there becomes no reason to complain "it isn't fear" for the woman to have choice taken away in certain situations. That the woman is the one who has to carry the pregnancy is just an inequal fact of biology, and weren't we saying that the law should reflect that inequal biology? Well, which is it? You can't have it one way and not have it the other. If the law must reflect the inequal biology that the woman is carrying the baby and the man cannot force her to abort then it should also hold the woman to the reverse standards, that if one of the parents wants the baby, the woman will just have to deal with it because she is the gender that has to carry the baby. Inequal biology. Some women's rights choicers just want to have their cake and eat it too. You can't claim inequal biology to take away the man's rights and not be open to the inequal biology argument detracting from women's rights as well.
We can have it any way that works for the taxpayer and the child. We honor the right of the woman to decide what to do, and we insist Mom and Dad bear the price for the sex. We've been doing it for decades and its the best option. While we could hold the woman solely responsible,ut the consequence will be felt by either the taxpayer or the baby for whatever Mom cannot manage. Neither in the states' interest. We do not intend to let children starve or be deprived because Dad does not feel inclined and we do not intend to pick up whatever part of the tab is left because Dad does not feel paying for anything. Nope. Dad is stuck, and the baby gets two people to pay for his diapers, for his ear infections, and for a bedroom with dresser. Its all good and you can take your argument to a philosophy class. Society benefits by seeing Mom as the attorney for Health care decisions over this fetus, and Dad as - well - a sperm and money machine, who has the right to be more after the attorney for health care decisions is done making some calls., but Dad cannot be less than a sperm and money machine because that is what the kid needs.
As long as the state keeps silent on this issue everyone's gonna be alright. I believe most couples are rational enough to find a common ground here- "Do we want a child?" Of course nowadays promisciousity is sky rocketting and we see a lot of so called "Unwated pregnancies" which further complicates this. If comes to extramarital/-relationship sex I would say the decision should be completely and solely the womans. If the man and woman are in a loving relationship though, they should discuss it and come to a solution together.
The day a man dies of complications of pregnancy, is the day I'll call for equal abortion rights for men. The day a man contracts gestational diabetes, is the day I'll call for equal abortion rights for men. Not a diversion. A fact. Deal with it.
Of course! An Egalitarian would be of the oppsite opinion but I feel I finally found someone who too sees Egalitarianism is anti-human.
If man didn't exist, there would be no reproduction. If the world was only made of women all human life would end after the last woman died, because there would be no reproduction.
Men can also get breast cancer, the percentage is lower, however, cases have been reported, women do not appear to suffer from prostate cancer for some odd reason, snicker - giggle, Sarcasm......
100% for discussion between the people in a relationship, however, a Woman's body is her own, and Women in general need to decide this matter, not Men.
While that may have been the case for years, it is not longer true .. stem cells taken from another woman can be induced to grow into sperm cells
By nature homosexuals possess 0 reprouctive rights. Literally and biologically speaking. Just sayin'.
Could that have been done without the existence of man that was initially needed to reproduce long enough to gain that type of scientific ability? And if there was no man to initially reproduce, even if the technology existed initially, there would never have been the ability to reproduce, thus knowing what a sperm cell was wouldn't even have been on the radar. Now, if you are suggesting since the ability is now there, and there is no longer a need for the male gender........
Women are the only ones who get pregnant so of course they have the only say during the pregnancy. It's completely ridiculous to think you deserve control over another person's body. After birth, both are accountable for the welfare of the child. Your best bet to avoid the pitfalls of unwanted pregnancies is to make sure you're always using protection. It's no cakewalk for the mother either, who must either give birth or have an abortion.
Do you know what an appeal to nature is . .you should as that is what you have just used. - "When used as a fallacy, the belief or suggestion that natural is always better than unnatural. You are also moving the goalposts (another fallacy) your initial statement was answered, just because the answer wasn't what you wanted you start adjusting your question in order to achieve your already decided result. Your original comment of was answered and shown to be incorrect. - - - Updated - - - appeal to nature, a fallacy.
Fugazi once accused me of making a "hasty generalization fallacy," that was based on 200,000 years of known human history
Yep and you still do, you can add appeal to tradition as well now. Your posts a usually full of fallacies of one type or another.
Here's what I think: A man should have no say in weather a woman gets an abortion or not. BUT, there should be some way that a man is able to legally sever himself from the child before it is born, and a woman should not be able to just show up on your doorstep 9 months after a one night stand with a baby and demand child support. 2 Things should happen before a man is legally obligated to pay child support: 1. He must be notified of the pregnancy with ample warning before the birth of the child. 2. He must then take no action to legally sever himself from the child. If a woman has total control over weather the pregnancy will be terminated or not, the man should have the option to sever himself legally from the child, and he should not be required legally to pay for a child he did not know existed. If the "you should have thought about the consequences BEFORE you had sex" argument is not a valid one to make abortions illegal for women, then it should not be the one binding men to that responsibility.
If I had a hypothetical girlfriend or wife whom I was ready to have children with and had talked about it with would be pregnant without telling me and then have an abortion without telling me, I'd feel betrayed.. What about the child/fetus (whatever you prefer) where is their say in this? To me, abortion is a very complez and difficult matter.
Unfortunate, but it's not you that has to go through pregnancy and childbirth. It doesn't exist. Luckily, you won't ever have to undergo one.
So, that is the reason your opinion shouldn't count in the grand scheme of things. I've had two miscarriages. At neither time did the point of view of the embryo concerned have any bearing on it because their point of view didn't exist. Well, that's just your opinion. Nobody needs your approval.
