Message Boards

Replies to '07/06 Baby Wars'

 

Message Emote
blank
April 20, 2006, 10:08 pm PDT

huh

Quote From: lieven

If woman demand the right to not suffer any consequences, POST-coitally, including by means that are neither biological nor medical ( See " Legal Abandon Laws ", and " Adopting Out Laws " ), 

then its anti men sexism to deny men the same kinds of legal choice by which to say " no ". 

If " sex is a two way street ", how come the consequences of sex are held ONLY against men ?  

And, how about asking *women* to live up to their responsibilities, too ?  

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility* ". 

  

I'm not sure if we were agreeing on the same page (I agree with what you're saying, but i'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not), but my post was about how unfair it is for people say that a man should take responsibility or not have sex at all, even though women are the other part of the whole thing.  I agreed it is anti men sexism because the whole thing is so one sided.  It's nice to see the parents take responsibilites or make the best choice whatever it maybe, at the same time  due to the situation it's unfair women can do what they please and men can't.  That's what I meant. 

 
User Mood
Happy

Message Emote
blank
April 28, 2006, 8:03 pm PDT

04/21 Baby Wars

Quote From: lieven

If woman demand the right to not suffer any consequences, POST-coitally, including by means that are neither biological nor medical ( See " Legal Abandon Laws ", and " Adopting Out Laws " ), 

then its anti men sexism to deny men the same kinds of legal choice by which to say " no ". 

If " sex is a two way street ", how come the consequences of sex are held ONLY against men ?  

And, how about asking *women* to live up to their responsibilities, too ?  

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility* ". 

  

a man makes the decision when he has unprotected sex with a woman. the choice doesnt come when a woman gets pregnant.
 
User Mood
Happy

Message Emote
confused
July 6, 2006, 8:39 pm PDT

do you REALLY think that?

Quote From: lieven

If woman demand the right to not suffer any consequences, POST-coitally, including by means that are neither biological nor medical ( See " Legal Abandon Laws ", and " Adopting Out Laws " ), 

then its anti men sexism to deny men the same kinds of legal choice by which to say " no ". 

If " sex is a two way street ", how come the consequences of sex are held ONLY against men ?  

And, how about asking *women* to live up to their responsibilities, too ?  

" Her body, her choice... HER *responsibility* ". 

  

do you really think that 'the onseuences of sex are held ONLY against men?'.  Have you ever concieved?  Have you carried a baby in your womb?  Have you gained anywhere from 30-50 pounds?  Nursed?  Been woken up 3,4,5 times a night by a baby crying?  Have you bathed a child, cared for a child 24/7?  take the child to the doctors and held them while they got their vacinations or comforted afterwards to calm them down from crying?  Have you heated bottles, cleaned bottles or done laundry for a baby?

The 'consequences held ONLY against men" are such a small fraction of the whole picture - we are talking $50 a week - that is what my friend gets - is that really the bigger part of the 'consequences of sex?"  less than $10 a day?  If you really feel that way - than you have NO IDEA how different life is after a child is born.  You have NO IDEA of the time it takes just to care for a child.  I'm not saying that father's shouldn't have rights, I believe they should - but the rights of the child should be paramount.  The father has a right to choose not to see the child - and if he can work out some arrangement to 'reliquish his rights' like I did with my daughters father, than great - but if it comes down to food on the table for a kid - the consequences to daddy are minimal.
 


Return to the Message Board


First Page | Previous Page | 1 | Next Page | Last Page