GOP Platform: Women Not Human

[christiefan915]

A man would be taking care of himself. He's not responsible for being intentionally deceived. You are literally making him responsible for something he should be considered a victim of.

Which was my question all along. If the man is fully protected, how can the woman take advantage? I'm looking for specifics here.

Irrelevant. You brought it up, so we are now addressing those cases, rare as they might be. (and truthfully, I think the "OOOPS, i forgot birth control LOL" excuse probably comes up a lot more often that you may want to give credit for.

If the "oops, i forgot birth control" comes from the woman, the correct response from the man is "no problem, I didn't." And vice versa.

If it's through her own purposeful deception, then tough shit. It's on her.

I don't know how else to explain myself. Even if the woman is purposefully deceptive about being on birth control, the man should be fully prepared to take care of his own interests (i.e. not making babies) in all circumstances. That means using a condom all the time, every time. And vice versa.

It's like saying a bank robber would have to pay a higher price for robbing a bank assuming he's caught, so it's actually fair"

There's nothing consenual about robbing a bank. We're talking about two people who consent to have sex and what they should do to prevent pregnancy.

So are we agreeing both are wrong, or only one of the situations is wrong? Also your example doesn't necessarily imply pregnancy and all the problems that deviate from it.

Both are wrong. My example doesn't necessarily imply pregnancy but it doesn't omit it as a result of the interaction, either.

"If he didn't leave his keys in the car than how could I have stolen it? We are equally responsible."

Again I don't understand this, take pity on me and explain it further. If the woman has the intent to get pregnant but the man has taken all precautions against it, how does pregnancy happen, except by some unforeseen accident? I'm certainly not sticking up for deceptive women, they put the movement back decades. I don't even know why a woman would want a man she had to trap by some means. But in today's world, with the easy access to all sorts of contraception, there is no reason why a man should get deceived into pregnancy.

That, or pretending to be on birth control when you are not, are both completely immoral.

Agreed, and that goes both ways.

Thank god for that. It probably is comparatively rare. But it's also probably more prevalent than you would give credit to.

It's more likely that someone I know or know of has had an abortion, rather than tried to trick somebody into impregnating her.

That may be so but again, when addressing that issue specifically we should focus on the context of the situation itself and not how unlikely it might be to come up

No argument here. And the issue is that each partner is 100% responsible for insuring that no unwanted pregnancy occurs.

 

[zappasguitar]

yet another example of your bullshit.

Just following the example set by you...

Still can't explain why you pro-lifers won't make sure miscarriages are given the opportunity to live productive lives?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Without a paternity test and legal intervention, yes he can walk off into the sunset. And if so legally ordered to support the child because he's proven to be the father, his legal obligation ENDS after he signs the check. He doesn't have to lend emotional support or participate in the child's development unless he CHOOSES to.

um legal intervention happens all the time. paternity tests are mandatory if the mother chooses to enforce it. And yes, having to sign a check for 18 years is a travesty and an utter disaster.

 

[christiefan915]

um legal intervention happens all the time. paternity tests are mandatory if the mother chooses to enforce it. And yes, having to sign a check for 18 years is a travesty and an utter disaster.

Does this mean that if the woman supports a child made by the couple, it's a travesty that she has to sign the checks?

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

Does this mean that if the woman supports a child made by the couple, it's a travesty that she has to sign the checks?

the women can abort the child. Or give it up for adoption. If she continues to have the child it's on her.

 

[christiefan915]

the women can abort the child. Or give it up for adoption. If she continues to have the child it's on her.

I'm having a difficult time with what I see as your excusing men for unwanted pregnancy by using the argument that they've been deceived.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Supercandy keeps calling it a child...

so do doctors and millions of other people....

 

[Phantasmal]

Is it possible for you to acknowledge the part men play in unintentional pregnancy, or are you of the aspirin-between-the-knees mindset?

Aspirin between the knees, it is all the woman's responsibility!

 

[CanceledB]

Or not, there are cases where the cells do not develop and die, ther are cases where the woman is not able to carry to term. There are cases of stillbirth. Not every pregnancy results in the birth of a child.

Also, there are cases where women are responsible and use birth control and coitus results in pregnancy. It is called an accident.

I'd like to hear what the zygote-protectors think about all of the snowflake embryos who get incinerated when they're no longer wanted at the fertility clinic. Are those 'deaths' acceptable?

 

[Phantasmal]

Which was my question all along. If the man is fully protected, how can the woman take advantage? I'm looking for specifics here.



If the "oops, i forgot birth control" comes from the woman, the correct response from the man is "no problem, I didn't." And vice versa.

I don't know how else to explain myself. Even if the woman is purposefully deceptive about being on birth control, the man should be fully prepared to take care of his own interests (i.e. not making babies) in all circumstances. That means using a condom all the time, every time. And vice versa.



There's nothing consenual about robbing a bank. We're talking about two people who consent to have sex and what they should do to prevent pregnancy.



Both are wrong. My example doesn't necessarily imply pregnancy but it doesn't omit it as a result of the interaction, either.



Again I don't understand this, take pity on me and explain it further. If the woman has the intent to get pregnant but the man has taken all precautions against it, how does pregnancy happen, except by some unforeseen accident? I'm certainly not sticking up for deceptive women, they put the movement back decades. I don't even know why a woman would want a man she had to trap by some means. But in today's world, with the easy access to all sorts of contraception, there is no reason why a man should get deceived into pregnancy.



Agreed, and that goes both ways.



It's more likely that someone I know or know of has had an abortion, rather than tried to trick somebody into impregnating her.



No argument here. And the issue is that each partner is 100% responsible for insuring that no unwanted pregnancy occurs.

I taught my sons to be responsible and not leve it totally to he female! If you not wnt a child make sure you use a condom. If it breaks, buy the morning after pill for her.

 

[Phantasmal]

I'd like to here what the zygote-protectors think about all of the snowflake embryos who get incinerated when they're no longer wanted at the fertility clinic. Are those 'deaths' acceptable?

Good point, if not, what should be one with them?

 

[CanceledB]

um legal intervention happens all the time. paternity tests are mandatory if the mother chooses to enforce it. And yes, having to sign a check for 18 years is a travesty and an utter disaster.

Boo-hoo. It pales in comparison to rearing a child. In fact, it's a piece of cake by comparison and that's why so many dads are absent, aside from that check.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Whereas you're part of an industry predicated on killing people that someone decided is an enemy.

When NORAD screws up, people die, such as on 9/11. Other than that, we basically let the enemy name and define itself. Unless you think it's a good idea to just let foreign powers fly their industry into our airspace.

 

[CanceledB]

Good point, if not, what should be one with them?

I already asked SF this question once before, and he ran from it then - I'm sure he'll do the same this time as well.

 

[Minister of Truth]

BTW, I agree with Christie and Rana on the issue of responsibility and birth control.

 

[christiefan915]

When NORAD screws up, people die, such as on 9/11. Other than that, we basically let the enemy name and define itself. Unless you think it's a good idea to just let foreign powers fly their industry into our airspace.

The entire country wasn't under attack. 9/11 was an individual act of terrorism. And there was no excuse, none whatsoever, for the debacle called Iraq; even Vietnam, for that matter.

 

[CanceledB]

The entire country wasn't under attack. 9/11 was an individual act of terrorism. And there was no excuse, none whatsoever, for the debacle called Iraq; even Vietnam, for that matter.

All atrocities (known as 'terrorism' when committed by other nations) committed against innocents in the name of freedom by the United States are accepted as necessary 'collateral damage'. Such is the luxury of American Exceptionalism.

 

[blackascoal]

I don't know how else to explain myself. Even if the woman is purposefully deceptive about being on birth control, the man should be fully prepared to take care of his own interests (i.e. not making babies) in all circumstances. That means using a condom all the time, every time. And vice versa.

I disagree good sister.

I have a son whose mother assured me that she was still on birth control when we discussed not having a baby. This was not a fly-by-night relationship .. and there is no real relationship without trust. I trusted her as anyone in a real relationship would do.

Needless to say, she stopped taking her birth control pills. When I discovered that she was pregnant I was stunned. I asked her why she would stop taking birth control lmowing that I did not want her to get pregnant, and she said because she wanted to have the baby even if I didn't. She knew how am I am about my kids and she knew there was no way I was going to walk away from the baby .. although I certainly walked away from her.

Additionally, I have a daughter from a "defective" condom. I ended up raising her by myself. She's in college now.

My point is that birth control does not always work .. and when it doesn't work, men have little choice or control. Even if he wanted to have the child, but the woman does not, there is no way he can make her. If he doesn't want to have the child and she does, she wins.

What I've hoped would evolve in our society is a bit of respect for fatherhood and the plight of fathers. In this society, motherhood is more important than the child.

The narrative is that men don't care about their children. But I used to volunteer for a father's rights group in Seattle. I took hotline phone calls from men who needed advice. I had to quit because I couldn't take listening to the pain .. listening to men on the verge of suicide because they've broken up with the mother of their children, the courts are treating them like shit, and they're being denied access to their kids.

Just saying .. there is another side to the story.

 

[christiefan915]

All atrocities (known as 'terrorism' when committed by other nations) committed against innocents in the name of freedom by the United States are accepted as necessary 'collateral damage'. Such is the luxury of American Exceptionalism.

Exactly. American exceptionalism, respect for life, huh!

 

[Minister of Truth]

Iraq isn't part of what I do. Multiple targets were hit on 9/11 - it wasn't all about the WTC.