By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Man Tricks Girlfriend Into Getting Abortion

Vertigo-X on 18 May 2013
Jay520 said:
curl-6 said:
Jay520 said:
No, he probably didn't decide to have a baby. BUT he did make the decision to take part in an activity which had a high risk of him being a parent. He took a risk, so he should be prepared to accept the consequences of this risk.

Just because society is fucked up and people treat sex like a game doesn't mean it isn't serious and people shouldn't have to pay the consequences. That's a weak argument.

This isn't the stone age, sex and procreation are no longer one and the same. There's nothing "fucked up" about having sex for fun.


Sure, you can treat sex like a fun little game if you want, by its fucked up if you don't take responsibility when the real and serious consequences result. Just because you partake in an activity for fun, doesn't mean you shouldn't take responsibility for the consequences of that activity


Ouch. So, by your logic, it's only serious consequences when the woman decides to keep the fetus... Forcing a guy having recreational sex to father/support a child is okay with you...

 

The gender rights disparity here is flabbergasting...



The BuShA owns all!

Around the Network
betacon on 19 May 2013
Jay520 said:
Okay, I understand you now. You're right, the bolded is hypocritical, but I fixed that sentence in a later post. Instead of " A woman can only have a baby with a consenting male", I should have said, "a woman can only have a baby with a man who agrees to have sex with her." So, if a man does agee to have sex with a woman, and a baby is born, then he should take care of it, because he was well aware of this risk.

As for the comparison, that's a good point, but there's a difference. It's common sense that If you have unprotected sex then you risk having a baby. It's not so common to know that the tablets your boyfriend gave you are abortion pills (though she still should have checked). If a person partakes in an activity with certain well-known risks, then they should have to face the consequences of those risks. However, if there is some extremely unlikely scenario (such as a condom breaking, or your boyfriend altering pills), then they should not have to take as much responsibility.

BTW, I've changed my stance on if a condom breaks. If that happens, then I don't think he should have to support the child.

Too many variables to have one solid stance, even a difference in relationship type with the same scenario eg (a condom breaking) significantly changes my opinion. For example if a relationship was confirmed and the above scenario occurred I'd be leaning towards the father paying some form of support compared to a fling, where the mother took on responsibility on herself and that’s her financial burden

Glad you got the comparison, didn’t feel at ease using it given how large of a difference the two were on a moral compass. I still feel if one member of a relationship is being deceptive it’s unfair to ping the other with the responsibility of the outcome



Jay520 on 19 May 2013
Vertigo-X said:
Jay520 said:
curl-6 said:
Jay520 said:
No, he probably didn't decide to have a baby. BUT he did make the decision to take part in an activity which had a high risk of him being a parent. He took a risk, so he should be prepared to accept the consequences of this risk.

Just because society is fucked up and people treat sex like a game doesn't mean it isn't serious and people shouldn't have to pay the consequences. That's a weak argument.

This isn't the stone age, sex and procreation are no longer one and the same. There's nothing "fucked up" about having sex for fun.


Sure, you can treat sex like a fun little game if you want, by its fucked up if you don't take responsibility when the real and serious consequences result. Just because you partake in an activity for fun, doesn't mean you shouldn't take responsibility for the consequences of that activity


Ouch. So, by your logic, it's only serious consequences when the woman decides to keep the fetus... Forcing a guy having recreational sex to father/support a child is okay with you...

 

The gender rights disparity here is flabbergasting...



Yeah...I'm not sure why so many people think a man deserves a second chance after willingly ejaculating inside a woman's vagina. Why is that? Sure, the woman has 9 more months to make her decision, but that in no way handicaps the man. It doesn't negate the fact that the man did something well aware of the consequences.

Vertigo-X on 19 May 2013
Jay520 said:
Vertigo-X said:

Ouch. So, by your logic, it's only serious consequences when the woman decides to keep the fetus... Forcing a guy having recreational sex to father/support a child is okay with you...

 

The gender rights disparity here is flabbergasting...


Yeah...I'm not sure why so many people think a man deserves a second chance after willingly ejaculating inside a woman's vagina. Why is that? Sure, the woman has 9 more months to make her decision, but that in no way handicaps the man. It doesn't negate the fact that the man did something well aware of the consequences.

But didn't the woman do something being "well aware of the consequences"? Why is it only about her rights to her body?



The BuShA owns all!

ultima on 19 May 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
 

 

No one is forcing it. It's a consequence of an action most people make the consious decision to partake in.

By having protected sex you're not signing up to have a child, any more than by walking down the street you're signing up to get run over by a car or mugged.

Why that's a terrible argument. First of all, protected sex is not 100%. Most people know this and thus know their might be reprucussions of the action. Secondly, protected is pretty irrelevant. By your argument if they didn't sign up for it they shouldn't have to be responsible. Lastly, your argument is even remotely similar. Walking down the street doesn't cause being hit by a car

I agree with Curl. And that's actually a pretty good analogy. 

This is what you're saying: protected sex isn't 100% reliable. Most people know this. So, if the choose to have sex, they should be prepared to deal with becoming a parent.

Likewise, walking down a street isn't 100% safe. Most people know that they might get hit by a car of get mugged. So, by walking down the street people are consciously making the decision to accept the consequences of getting hit by a car or getting mugged?

At bolded: no walking down the street does not cause you to be hit by a car per se. It is, however, a possible side-effect of walking down a street. Just like conception is a possible side-effect of recreational sex.



           

Around the Network
Max King of the Wild on 19 May 2013
ultima said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
 

 

No one is forcing it. It's a consequence of an action most people make the consious decision to partake in.

By having protected sex you're not signing up to have a child, any more than by walking down the street you're signing up to get run over by a car or mugged.

Why that's a terrible argument. First of all, protected sex is not 100%. Most people know this and thus know their might be reprucussions of the action. Secondly, protected is pretty irrelevant. By your argument if they didn't sign up for it they shouldn't have to be responsible. Lastly, your argument is even remotely similar. Walking down the street doesn't cause being hit by a car

I agree with Curl. And that's actually a pretty good analogy. 

This is what you're saying: protected sex isn't 100% reliable. Most people know this. So, if the choose to have sex, they should be prepared to deal with becoming a parent.

Likewise, walking down a street isn't 100% safe. Most people know that they might get hit by a car of get mugged. So, by walking down the street people are consciously making the decision to accept the consequences of getting hit by a car or getting mugged?

At bolded: no walking down the street does not cause you to be hit by a car per se. It is, however, a possible side-effect of walking down a street. Just like conception is a possible side-effect of recreational sex.

Yes, an action that you partake in directly causes an effect is the exact same as someone else being responsible for the control of their own vehicle striking you when you walked down a street...

This is absolutly ridiculous train of thought



ultima on 19 May 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:

Parenthood is too big a thing to be forced on someone who took all reasonable steps to avoid it. It should be voluntary.

And its not being forced. You just have no sound argument here.

Not wanting something but being made to do it anyway (be a parent) is being forced.

I didn't want a hangover but I was forced to have one because I got drunk last night. BUT I MADE ALL THE REASONABLE ATTEMPTS NOT TO GET ONE! I took pregame (a hangover pill). I drank liquor before beer. I ate something before drinking... but I still got one

Now that's a bad argument. You're basically equivocating. Here, you're using "forced" to mean "have to experience a physical consequence". When people say "forced to be a parent", they mean literally being forced by a higher power.

Even if one were to ignore that, it's laughable to actually compare contraception, which is truly a reasonable attempt at avoiding conception, to what you claim to be reasonable attempts at avoiding a hangover. Your reasonable attempts are more comparable to someone saying "I expect a lot of precipitation, I've killed a dozen spiders in the past week".



           

Max King of the Wild on 19 May 2013
ultima said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:

Parenthood is too big a thing to be forced on someone who took all reasonable steps to avoid it. It should be voluntary.

And its not being forced. You just have no sound argument here.

Not wanting something but being made to do it anyway (be a parent) is being forced.

I didn't want a hangover but I was forced to have one because I got drunk last night. BUT I MADE ALL THE REASONABLE ATTEMPTS NOT TO GET ONE! I took pregame (a hangover pill). I drank liquor before beer. I ate something before drinking... but I still got one

Now that's a bad argument. You're basically equivocating. Here, you're using "forced" to mean "have to experience a physical consequence". When people say "forced to be a parent", they mean literally being forced by a higher power.

Even if one were to ignore that, it's laughable to actually compare contraception, which is truly a reasonable attempt at avoiding conception, to what you claim to be reasonable attempts at avoiding a hangover. Your reasonable attempts are more comparable to someone saying "I expect a lot of precipitation, I've killed a dozen spiders in the past week".

It is a bad argument isnt it? It's the same exact argument presented by curl. I used a technigue to analyze arguments logically to see if they are valid by substituting.



ultima on 19 May 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
ultima said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
 

 

No one is forcing it. It's a consequence of an action most people make the consious decision to partake in.

By having protected sex you're not signing up to have a child, any more than by walking down the street you're signing up to get run over by a car or mugged.

Why that's a terrible argument. First of all, protected sex is not 100%. Most people know this and thus know their might be reprucussions of the action. Secondly, protected is pretty irrelevant. By your argument if they didn't sign up for it they shouldn't have to be responsible. Lastly, your argument is even remotely similar. Walking down the street doesn't cause being hit by a car

I agree with Curl. And that's actually a pretty good analogy. 

This is what you're saying: protected sex isn't 100% reliable. Most people know this. So, if the choose to have sex, they should be prepared to deal with becoming a parent.

Likewise, walking down a street isn't 100% safe. Most people know that they might get hit by a car of get mugged. So, by walking down the street people are consciously making the decision to accept the consequences of getting hit by a car or getting mugged?

At bolded: no walking down the street does not cause you to be hit by a car per se. It is, however, a possible side-effect of walking down a street. Just like conception is a possible side-effect of recreational sex.

Yes, an action that you partake in directly causes an effect is the exact same as someone else being responsible for the control of their own vehicle striking you when you walked down a street...

This is absolutly ridiculous train of thought

Do you mind rephrasing that? That's one hell of a convoluted sentence. I literally got nothing out of it.



           

ultima on 19 May 2013
Max King of the Wild said:
ultima said:
Max King of the Wild said:
curl-6 said:
Max King of the Wild said:

Parenthood is too big a thing to be forced on someone who took all reasonable steps to avoid it. It should be voluntary.

And its not being forced. You just have no sound argument here.

Not wanting something but being made to do it anyway (be a parent) is being forced.

I didn't want a hangover but I was forced to have one because I got drunk last night. BUT I MADE ALL THE REASONABLE ATTEMPTS NOT TO GET ONE! I took pregame (a hangover pill). I drank liquor before beer. I ate something before drinking... but I still got one

Now that's a bad argument. You're basically equivocating. Here, you're using "forced" to mean "have to experience a physical consequence". When people say "forced to be a parent", they mean literally being forced by a higher power.

Even if one were to ignore that, it's laughable to actually compare contraception, which is truly a reasonable attempt at avoiding conception, to what you claim to be reasonable attempts at avoiding a hangover. Your reasonable attempts are more comparable to someone saying "I expect a lot of precipitation, I've killed a dozen spiders in the past week".

It is a bad argument isnt it? It's the same exact argument presented by curl. I used a technigue to analyze arguments logically to see if they are valid by substituting.

That's not what I said. His argument has merits. I said that your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum is terrible.