Andre Lieven wrote:
> "bluesmama" (onebluesmama{at}gmail.com) writes:
> > Andre Lieven wrote:
> >> "bluesmama" (onebluesmama{at}gmail.com) writes:
> >> > Andre Lieven wrote:
> >> >> "bluesmama" (onebluesmama{at}gmail.com) writes:
> >> >
> >> >> > They can quibble away. My viewpoint is that whether it's
planned
> >> >> > or unplanned, once a woman is pregnant, it
should remain her
> >> >> > decision whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term,
> >> >> > considering that it's her body that will be carrying the
extra
> >> >> > passenger for nine months.
> >> >>
> >> >> And, no one here is argueing with that. The point is that HER
> >> >> choices should NOT obligate anyone who had NO such say, one
> >> >> way or the other.
> >> >
> >> > No one here is arguing with the fact that it is a woman's right
to
> >> > choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term? I think some
> >> > people might take exception to that.
> >>
> >> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
> >>
> >> > But won't her choices depend somewhat on the choices her partner
is
> >> > making? If he does not take responsibility for his own sperm,
but
> >> > chooses to leave it up to her, and she gets pregnant by accident
or
> >> > design, hasn't he - by his irresponsibility -
"made" his choice?
> >>
> >> You do realise that that is the EXACT argument *against any and
all
> >> women post-coital choice* ?
> >
> > Not remotely close.
>
> LOL ! Denile ain't just a river to a Feminist...
>
> > Sperm is sperm.
>
> And, without it: NO fetus.
>
> > A fetus is a bit more than that,
> > and if a woman chooses to get pregnant, she can choose to get
> > unpregnant, without so much as a phone call to the sperm donor.
>
> Excellent ! Thanks for making my point for me, tartlette, for if
> the grrl goes to a sperm bank, she CANNOT GET child support...
>
> ROTFLMAO ! Once again, your *double standard* stands... nekkid.

I mean "sperm donor" in the sense of "the man who contributes the
sperm". I'm sorry I wasn't clearer, but sperm banks weren't something I
was talking about. So pick yourself up off the floor, the hilarity
wasn't at all necessary.

> > Just as conception doesn't make someone a mother, it doesn't make
> > someone a father either. It just provides the possibility.
>
> Yet, ONLY the woman gets to void that " possibility "...

Yep. Because her body is carrying that possibility.

> Uh huh. Rights for women, ONLY, responsibilities for men, ONLY.

I tell you what. Work on some way to let men carry babies, and then
come back to me when men start understanding why abortion, adoption or
birth should be the choice of the person who has the baby growing
inside them. Until then, you have nothing to add to the debate.

> >> No sauce for the gander ? Very well then, none for the goose,
either.
> >>
> >> That is, after all... equality. 
> >
> > No, that's a silly argument masquerading as equality. But if making
it
> > amused you, then it's worthwhile, I suppose.
>
> Flounce with NO rebuttal ? Point stands.

No. But your love of repetition certainly does.

> >> >> > I'd hope that any woman who was in a committed
relationship
and
> >> >> > considering abortion would take her partner's
concerns and
> >> >> > rights to heart whe making her decision.
> >> >>
> >> >> But, theres NO legal mechanism to enforce this. There IS one,
to
> >> >> *enforce her sole choice's consequence* upon someone... else.
> >> >
> >> > There's no legal mechanism to enforce many things people should
do.
> >> > But I can see where it appears unfair. But again, I'd argue that

> >> > he made his choice when he _didn't_ take responsibility for
> >> > contraception.
> >>
> >> Then, so did she: No abortions, no other post coital choices for
her,
> >> either.
> >
> > Post-coital choices must differ for men and women. Surely you can
see
> > the difference between the two situations.
>
> Nope. The choice to void the legal status of parenthood, IS the same.

What's that joke about the pig and the chicken and a breakfast of ham &
eggs? The chicken is an interested party. The pig is committed. I hate
to liken women to pigs or men to chickens, but oh well. I'm sure we
would have gotten to that point at some time.

> Methods may vary, but as we give women, ONLY, NON medical and NON
> biological means by which to do this, its pure *misandrous sexism*
> to not give men the *equal and same NON medical and NON biological
> rights*.
>
> >> >> > If she's not in a committed relationship, I don't think
> >> >> > the partner has rights in that situation
anyway. And I'm sure
> >> >> > neither of those opinions will be popular here,
but that's
where
> >> >> > some of us will just have to disagree.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure: Your view is more rights for women, more
responsibilities
> >> >> for men.
> >> >>
> >> >> That, of course, is... sexism.
> >> >
> >> > That's certainly your view of my view. I think the man is
claiming
> >> > a right where he has abrogated a responsibility and I don't
believe
> >> > it's fair that you should be able to do both.
> >>
> >> ... Unless you're a woman... Got it.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >> >> >> That said, what do you think, as a
self-proclaimed feminist,
> >> >> >> about the possibility of many women who had
previously
> >> >> >> only had access to motherhood through
"oopsing" remaining
> >> >> >> childless?  In a very short time, sperm
banks will be hit
> >> >> >> by women who intend to go on state welfare support.
> >> >> >> What do you think the state will do then?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Deception is deception. Wrong if a woman does
it, wrong if a
man
> >> >> > does it.
> >> >>
> >> >> No man's deception can *obligate* a woman to 18 years of
legally
> >> >> enforced payments...
> >> >
> >> > Then again, men should be careful where they're depositing their
> >> > DNA.
> >>
> >> Why ? Is there a problem with *irresponsible egg holders* ?
> >>
> >> According to you, there is. Thanks for showing that YOU view women
as
> >> being fundamentally *irresponsible*... 
> >
> > Sure there are some irresponsible women. Just like there are
> > irresponsible men. Unlike you, though, I don't make the mistake of
> > thinking that "some" and "all" are synonyms.
>
> Irrelevent. ANY women can get the law to MAKE ANY man " support "
> HER sole choice. This is NOT possible, the other way.

Irrelevant to you, perhaps. Ain't free speech a lovely thing. So change
the law.

> Thats a *double standard*: A *sexist* one...

So change the law.

> >> > The climax is the choice. If a condom is a barrier to pleasure,
go
> >> > find that male contraceptive. If you don't like the laws, fight
the
> >> > lawmakers, not the women or the single mothers or the feminists.
It
> >> > seems like the effort's wasted. If the laws change, behavior
will
> >> > change.
> >>
> >> And, we're doing that: C4M. Deal with it.
> >
> > I have no problem with it. I welcome men taking responsibility for
> > contraception. It's about damn time.
>
> Only a Festering Femmeroid can take a situation where women have
> ALL the post-coital choices, and MOST of the pre-coital methods,
> and then demand that men do " an equal share "...

Is there a certain point in the dialogue when you just have to bring
out the "festering femmeroid" thing, or does it just randomly occur to
you?

> >> >> > So any woman who intentionally
"suprises" a man with
paternity
> >> >> > is being deceitful, and wrong. Even a self-proclaimed
feminist
> >> >> > can see that.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then, lets see you lobby your legislators to give men equal
rights
> >> >> to not be responsible for choices they had NO part
in making...
> >> >>
> >> >> Uh huh.
> >> >
> >> > If it's an important fight to me, I'll fight it.
> >>
> >> Thanks for proving that empathy for others, ISN'T a trait you
> >> possess.
> >
> > I can be empathetic and not involved, the two words are not
synonymous.
>
> Non sequitur. Denial *isn't* necessary for non involvement.

Check the meaning of non-sequitur. But anyway, it's not my fight,
whatever my level of empathy, denial, or involvement.

> > Thanks for proving that a grasp of vocabulary isn't a trait you
> > possess.
>
> 

No need to project. I know my own flaws quite well. But then again, I'm
aware that I have some.

> >> > This isn't an important
> >> > fight to me, so waiting for me to lobby on men's behalf will
> >> > mean a very long wait. Men are taking responsibility for their
own
> >> > contraceptive options. That's admirable.
> >>
> >> Nice of men to have been more empathic to women, than women like
you
> >> are, eh ? After all, MEN gave you all your post coital choices.
> >
> > When will you realize that no one can force a person to act against
his
> > will?
>
> Really ? Been assessed for non rebuttable child support ?

Choice 1: Pay it.
Choice 2: Don't pay it and go to jail or whatever the punishment is.

Is choice always a pleasant one? No. But choice is the only thing that
cannot be taken away from anyone, no matter how unnappetizing the
selections might be. Don't like the choices available? Lobby for better
ones. Complaining about the ones available doesn't help much. But I can
understand how it might vent frustration in the short term.
> > Choice, free will, have you heard of those?
>
> Yep: Thats why I want men to have them, *too*...
>
> Unlike man hating sexist you...

Now there's a projection for you.

> > Men more empathetic
> > to women? Again, it turns into a pissing contest with you.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Deep Black.

Hey man, that's so....profound.

> >> >> > Still, if there is no sperm, there is no oops.
> >> >>
> >> >> Still, if there are no eggs, there is no oops.
> >> >
> >> > Now you're being silly.
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >> > An egg alone is no problem.
> >>
> >> A sperm alone is no problem.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >> > Keep your sperm
> >> > where they belong and you make the choice and the responsibility
is
> >> > yours.
> >>
> >> Keep your eggs safe, and alone, and you make the choice and the
> >> responsibility is yours.
> >
> > I'm not the one arguing about contraceptive responsibilities.
>
> Of course not: You don't want women to have ANY responsibilities...

How skillfully you miss the point.

> > I take responsibility for my own sexuality and procreative ability.
>
> Free Clue: This isn't about you. DEal with it.

Everything I write is about me. Just as everything you or anyone else
writes is about you or them, no matter the subject. That's human
nature. And it's why someone else's opinions coming out of your mouth
are so pointless.

> > So your argument is silly.
>
> 
>
> > It's the unprotected sperm we're talking about.
>
> No, thats what YOU want to talk about, since you don't ever want to
> hold women *responsible* for what they do with their unprotected
> eggs...

The thread is about male contraception. I must be confused, but isn't
that about sperm?

> >> > Spread it here and there and hey - you play, you just might pay.
> >>
> >> And, there we have the Feminist view of women: WHORES.
> >
> > No, there we have the anti-feminist's view of the feminist's view
of
> > women, which probably - remarkably - resembles his own.
>
> No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Your language is all the proof necessary. Anything I said would just be
icing on the cake. Your contempt for women, feminist or not, is all too
obvious.

> >> > Can't have unbridled, unlatexed pleasure AND irresponsibility
both.
> >>
> >> ... Unless you're a... woman. Got it.

Get pregnant and we'll talk about women and responsibility. Until then,
you're just talking out of your ass on this subject. Stick to a male
point of view, you understand that.

> > Oh you haven't even come remotely close to getting it.
>
> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>
> > But you do snipe well, though.
>
> Baby Feminists is such EASY targets...

And the easy target is the one you so often go for. I'll leave it to
you to determine what that says about you.

> > Always good to do in case of a lack of something useful to say.
>
> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>
> >> >> Thanks for showing that *you* view women as totally
> >> >> non-responsible...
> >>
> >> Indeed.
>
> Quite.

(Trying to think of a pithy one word response that will say nothing but
look wise or logical. Nope. Can't think of one. I'll leave the next
word to you.)

> >> >> > Some men don't take responsibility for their
own deception.
> >> >
> >> > I view some women as responsible, and some men as responsible.
It's
> >> > a character trait, not a gender trait.
> >>
> >> You demand responsibility for ALL men, that you do NOT require,
from
> >> ALL women...
> >
> > No, that's what you think I demand.
>
> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>
> > Your confusion isn't my problem, it's yours.
>
> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>
> > And that's not ducking blame (another claim you love to
> > throw out), it's properly assigning responsibility.
>
> Indeed, and when men *give birth*, I'll be sure to hold them
responsible

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 100