Does he have a valid point?

[Zzyzx]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 278 by Hamsaka]

Agreed. Try telling that to a militant feminist, though. Why does a woman get the right to destroy a potential offspring up to a certain month of gestation but not a father. Answer: inequality.

Whatever limit is set for women to abort, so should the father have that same right. No more women telling men that they're on the pill, carrying a fetus to full term without the fathers knowledge, then at birth telling the father that he is a slave for the next three decades through infant hood through college degree. What's right for the goose is right for the gander.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 278 by Hamsaka]

Agreed. Try telling that to a militant feminist, though. Why does a woman get the right to destroy a potential offspring up to a certain month of gestation but not a father. Answer: inequality.

Whatever limit is set for women to abort, so should the father have that same right. No more women telling men that they're on the pill, carrying a fetus to full term without the fathers knowledge, then at birth telling the father that he is a slave for the next three decades through infant hood through college degree. What's right for the goose is right for the gander.

Naw, we get greater upper body strength, they get the right to choose, it may not be a trade off you like or bargined for ... tough, that's the way it is.

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to post 278 by Hamsaka]

Agreed. Try telling that to a militant feminist, though. Why does a woman get the right to destroy a potential offspring up to a certain month of gestation but not a father. Answer: inequality.

Whatever limit is set for women to abort, so should the father have that same right. No more women telling men that they're on the pill, carrying a fetus to full term without the fathers knowledge, then at birth telling the father that he is a slave for the next three decades through infant hood through college degree. What's right for the goose is right for the gander.

Wrap it up, the responsibility is yours. Plus, talk to your woman, know her and let her know kids are not in the cards. Better to be left than to be bitter. #1 cause of death of a pregnant woman is the father of the unborn.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 280 by H.sapiens]

There's no genuine inequality anyways, since the father and the mother are not in at all similar positions- obviously the father isn't carrying the infant in his womb, sustaining it at his own expense. There's no conceivable reason why fathers should have a similar amount of control over the fate of a fetus, given that its growing in the body of the mother.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 278 by Hamsaka]

Agreed. Try telling that to a militant feminist, though. Why does a woman get the right to destroy a potential offspring up to a certain month of gestation but not a father. Answer: inequality.

Yes -- but it's not values based. Females have the wombs, males do not. It's not personal, it's just a fact of life. It is 'unfair' like how winters are unfairly long in Antarctica

The only 'solution' I can offer (and I do mean this with compassion) is "to avoid a frown, cover your clown". Every female a male has sex with is the potential mother of his potential child, unless reliable birth control is used by both.

What's 'unfair' is how our frontal lobes shut down in the presence of arousal.

Until an embryo or fetus can be safely removed and hooked back up somewhere else, this is the dilemma for men who care about their possible, future children. Not only is the pregnancy completely outside the male's control, gawd help you if you got it on with a woman who'd be a terrible mother!

Whatever limit is set for women to abort, so should the father have that same right. No more women telling men that they're on the pill, carrying a fetus to full term without the fathers knowledge, then at birth telling the father that he is a slave for the next three decades through infant hood through college degree. What's right for the goose is right for the gander.

No man would be in this position without putting himself in it. I know how that sounds, and I'm genuinely NOT being flip (or shaking a finger at you). The pregnancy is in another person's body -- what are you going to do? This would be a fascinating secular debate.

A man who thinks ahead of time, like you are, need never be in that position.

[Buy Oz Moses]

[Replying to post 278 by Hamsaka]

Agreed. Try telling that to a militant feminist, though. Why does a woman get the right to destroy a potential offspring up to a certain month of gestation but not a father. Answer: inequality.

Whatever limit is set for women to abort, so should the father have that same right. No more women telling men that they're on the pill, carrying a fetus to full term without the fathers knowledge, then at birth telling the father that he is a slave for the next three decades through infant hood through college degree. What's right for the goose is right for the gander.

Wrap it up, the responsibility is yours. Plus, talk to your woman, know her and let her know kids are not in the cards. Better to be left than to be bitter. #1 cause of death of a pregnant woman is the father of the unborn.

Just playing devil's advocate...
"If you can't abort the fetus, abort the incubator!"

Condoms are not 100% birth control. And I'm assuming the woman was already spoken to for this argument's sake, as there would be no reason for the talk of pro-choice unless both parties were under the impression a child was not part of the intimate exchange, and the female has a last minute change of heart. (Unless it's the last minute change of heart on the part of an ignorant male, but in this case a fair and equal decision should be split amongst all parties involved in the reprocussions of bringing a child into the world and financially and emotionally raising it, regardless.)

Because one gender is the seeder and the other is the incubator does not give either of them anymore rights to the life of the child. It takes two to tango. Maybe we'd have less single parent households flooding the world if things were changed around a bit.

A woman has the right to raise a child on her own(if she is capable to do so on her own). But we already have an under appreciated market of adoption agencies and orphanages with a plethora of truly underprivileged children in need of a good parent.

If the female wants to instead "carry" a child to full term, do we not have sperm banks with a shopping mall sized catalog of ready made baby making juice? Do we need more love children torn between separated/unmarried parents because pills, diaphragms, condoms and the day after pill were all too pricey or unavailable at the time both dancers got down and dirty?

Consensual sex should not be the battleground for selfish mothers to attempt to keep ignorant wild oats sowing fathers at the cost of society's future youth. It should also be the last place a woman should rely on for her maternal instincts to be fulfilled if her partner is unwilling to settle down to be a parent with her. Adopt. Inceminate. Stop flooding the world with your illegitimate bastards. (Using these words in their formal terms meaning out of wed lock and without the birth father)

...and...scene...

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to post 278 by Hamsaka]

Agreed. Try telling that to a militant feminist, though. Why does a woman get the right to destroy a potential offspring up to a certain month of gestation but not a father. Answer: inequality.

Whatever limit is set for women to abort, so should the father have that same right. No more women telling men that they're on the pill, carrying a fetus to full term without the fathers knowledge, then at birth telling the father that he is a slave for the next three decades through infant hood through college degree. What's right for the goose is right for the gander.

Wrap it up, the responsibility is yours. Plus, talk to your woman, know her and let her know kids are not in the cards. Better to be left than to be bitter. #1 cause of death of a pregnant woman is the father of the unborn.

Just playing devil's advocate...
"If you can't abort the fetus, abort the incubator!"

Condoms are not 100% birth control. And I'm assuming the woman was already spoken to for this argument's sake, as there would be no reason for the talk of pro-choice unless both parties were under the impression a child was not part of the intimate exchange, and the female has a last minute change of heart. (Unless it's the last minute change of heart on the part of an ignorant male, but in this case a fair and equal decision should be split amongst all parties involved in the reprocussions of bringing a child into the world and financially and emotionally raising it, regardless.)

Because one gender is the seeder and the other is the incubator does not give either of them anymore rights to the life of the child. It takes two to tango. Maybe we'd have less single parent households flooding the world if things were changed around a bit.

A woman has the right to raise a child on her own(if she is capable to do so on her own). But we already have an under appreciated market of adoption agencies and orphanages with a plethora of truly underprivileged children in need of a good parent.

If the female wants to instead "carry" a child to full term, do we not have sperm banks with a shopping mall sized catalog of ready made baby making juice? Do we need more love children torn between separated/unmarried parents because pills, diaphragms, condoms and the day after pill were all too pricey or unavailable at the time both dancers got down and dirty?

Consensual sex should not be the battleground for selfish mothers to attempt to keep ignorant wild oats sowing fathers at the cost of society's future youth. It should also be the last place a woman should rely on for her maternal instincts to be fulfilled if her partner is unwilling to settle down to be a parent with her. Adopt. Inceminate. Stop flooding the world with your illegitimate bastards. (Using these words in their formal terms meaning out of wed lock and without the birth father)

...and...scene...

My not-well-thought-out reply revealed that I don't put much weight into a guy's saying after the fact, "she said she was on the pill!" Heard that before. What is usually meant is that if she didn't require him to wear a condom, he assumed she must be on the pill. My mistake.

Of course if the conversation had been had before she still could get pregnant, the pill is sometimes not used correctly, it is sometimes loses effectiveness (such as when a woman takes some types of antibiotics) or if she forgets a pill. The unmarried man should always "buckle up" and not only for birth control. If the condom breaks or comes off they should seek the morning after pill.

If she does become pregnant, however, they are both EQUALLY subject to the same predicament. What to do? If a man is not ready for children he needs to be careful. There is no way on Earth, however, that a man could or should legally be allowed to make a woman either terminate or give birth. That's an appalling barbaric thought.

I don't think a child should be brought into the world unless it is a planned pregnancy, as utopic as that seems. The Earth is overpopulated we should consider that as well as individuals and couples.

It will be great when vasectomy is 100% easily reversible. That way a man can choose when he is capable impregnate a woman. No more ooops babies.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 281 by suckka]

None of that has anything to do with the inequality present in the legal system. People lie. The law should be amended so that it is fair even if EITHER party lies. It should not be skewed to reward only the lies of one gender.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 283 by Hamsaka]

Yes, I'm thinking far ahead for others. (It's not a situation that has ever affected me or ever will. It's not personal to me). This topic is categorical for men.

What's wrong with equality?? It can be done. Simply.

A man can "reject" his offspring up to the date that the womb-owner can abort. If the woman does not inform the father within three weeks of the date by which the child could be legally aborted, he has three weeks to decide from he date he is informed.

Such a law provides fairness across both genders and does not allows for a dishonest person to enslave another person for a third of his life. Why should it be any other way that is unfair?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 285 by suckka]

Nobody is suggesting that a man have any control over a woman's body or that she should be forced to carry a baby longer than she wishes. I am suggesting that fetus/fathers be provided the same rights to disavow an offspring by legal fiat just as the woman can by abortion.