We men aren't free

Quite generally when soldiers kill people it isn't premeditated, and the target generally speaking isn't a baby. I mean yeah, that happens, but who ever says, "I can't judge a soldier who, of his own accord, plans ahead of time to kill a baby and does so"?

But, to your earlier point Daybreaker which Unifier responded to: why is it okay for a woman alone to decide that it isn't the right time for her to have a baby? Yes, of course she can have valid reasons to decide that she doesn't want to, but that seems to be entirely extraneous, because you would seem to be suggesting that men can not ever have any reason to decide that it is not the right time for them to become a father [please stay apples to apples here]. I assume that you don't actually believe that, but you are providing a defense for a, shall we say "privilege" granted to women that isn't granted to men.

Because if it's okay for a woman to relieve herself of parental responsibilities before a child is born than what kind of gender equality are we looking for if we deny men that same option?

 

Wow- I wonder how long ago I posted the post you are responding to?

No- men were not 'shamed' for sleeping around.

At one point in time 'respectable' men had mistresses, and the rest went to whore houses.

It was always quite the double standard.

Just look at the use of the term 'slut'.

 

Mis-attribution of Godwin's law. Godwin's law isn't a prescriptive law, but a descriptive one (more like a scientific one).

Godwin's Law: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Nothing in that about meaning a thread is over.

 

No, what I said was that men are discriminated against because they don't have any legal say in the fate of their own child. They have zero legal recourse to protect their own offspring from state-sanctioned infanticide. It's about the life of the child. Not control over anyone. It is you who chooses to view that as "making a woman continue a pregnancy against her will" because you deny the humanity of the third person in the equation whose life hangs in the balance.

 

Sorry, but that's not how it's applied in modern usage. As you can see from the pic (which I didn't make, I just googled it). It's the same as the race card. Usage of these arguments is widely agreed to be a tacit admission of defeat since they hinge upon a cliche and often times an abject straw man. At best, they are considered lazy debating and poor substitutes for cogent arguments. Hence the end of the discussion.

 

The BS is all yours, sex does not create a new person it only creates the risk of creating a new person, (hell sex is even required in order to create a new person) the only thing that creates a new person is fertilization and just because a man provides 50% of the DNA does not give him ownership, neither the woman or the man have ownership .. you cannot own another person.

This pure fallacy of consent to sex = consent to pregnancy is put about so often and it is still a load of crap.

As a person the fertilized ovum MUST gain separate consent to keep the woman in a pregnancy state, consent is not transferable without the agreement of the person who gave the original consent. If the zef is a person then it is bound by the same restrictions that all other people have .. unless, of course, you are advocating that a zef be a 'super'-person with rights that no other has .. are you?

Even implied consent does not swing it, implied consent is only valid to the point that the person, by word or action, explicitly says 'no', from that point onwards implied consent is moot.

However ... I do agree that a man should have the right to revoke his parental obligation if he does not consent to being a father, tell me do you support the increase in tax to fund the welfare in order to support all those extra children whose fathers are no longer libel for child support, or do you think that the woman and child should suffer?

and as has been pointed out ad infinitum this type of usage is informal, just as me calling my car, my boat or my wife 'baby' is .. or are you suggesting that my car or boat are actually babies or that my wife is between birth and one-year old?

It is 100% disingenuous of pro-lifers to use the word 'baby' to describe a fetus and it is only done in order to project emotional overtones, furthermore even you own comment of "when the royal family is expecting" shows it to be a future event, so yes the royal is expecting a baby as in "to look forward to; regard as likely to happen; anticipate the occurrence or the coming of: " ie all FUTURE events.