I don't think one has to be hurt by women to be flabbergasted at someone who refuses to consider, without any real reason, a logical appeal to fairness.

We are all just astounded that you see no problem with women having reproductive choice when contraception fails and men not having the same opportunities, even when it has no effect on the woman's choice.

We have suggested a mechanism that would have no significant bearing on a woman's ability to choose, but added in the right for a man to also choose whether or not to be a parent.

Couple have protected sex.
Woman still gets pregnant.

At this time the woman has the choice to abort or not.
All that is suggested that at the same juncture, the man can also metaphorically abort, abort all responsibility for the child, baring in mind the state supports the woman in her decision 100%, and if money is the deciding factor, why is the woman's right to have an abortion on economic grounds valid but the man's right to not.

But you reject the idea that the state should also support the man's decision to abort.

The man and woman each get an identical timespan to make a decision on their future, and the woman still has total control over what happens to her body and child.

All we really want to understand is based on what do you reject this appeal to equality.

"In any case RObert, I'm sick of the personal attacks on me re this subject eg "You may well get on well with the men in your life or possibly they have learned how to avoid your ire..."

Susie, its you who often refers to the men in your life as though that somehow removes any possibility that you have some fairly deeply ingrained prejudices against men. We know nothing about how those relationships actually work but if the dismissive attitudes you show towards mens well being on this site are a reflection of your actual values then that defence seems somewhat constructed and or blinkered.

You often express some very sexist attitudes on this site, you have been called to explain one in particular in the basis of fairness.

Rather than retreating to an appeal to your relationships with the men in your life how about trying to construct a logical defense of what you espouse.

The contraception test is a reference to your support for the idea that if a man does not want the responsibilities of a baby he needs to ensure that the contraception is in use and working while seemingly exempting women from the same accountability by your support for abortion on grounds other than life threatening situations.

I can respect positions on either side of that argument but not the double standard that says only men should be forced to live with the consequences of the same mistake.

R0bert

Missed a point which added to my willingness to make the comment Susie objected to "But then again, none of them have been as badly hurt by women as you all have been, and I really am sorry for how you seem to feel about women."

Perhaps a little less willingness to dish it out might help if you don't like receiving it.

Some of us have been hurt fairly badly by specific women and or by organised feminism. That does not necessarily translate into a general bad feeling about women. It does in my case taslate into very little tollerence for those who demand special treatment based on gender.

I suspect that for others this is just a stance against double standards and unfairness - the same reason I generally try to stand against homophobes and others who advocate policies that hurt innocents for the sake of their own prejudices.

R0bert

Houellebecq
"At this time the woman has the choice to abort or not.
All that is suggested that at the same juncture, the man can also metaphorically abort, abort all responsibility for the child, baring in mind the state supports the woman in her decision 100%, and if money is the deciding factor, why is the woman's right to have an abortion on economic grounds valid but the man's right to not."

Yes, you have asked that question in a better way than most, by saying that men should be able to 'metaphorically abort ...all responsibility for the child", a child he doesn't want, or want to pay maintenance for?
(As long as no man is suggesting he should be able to force his partner to abort his unwanted child, as others have suggested.)

I can see the reasoning behind that, but is there much call for that kind of problem/situation?

In my experience, even if a man doesn't want the child while the woman is pregnant, or even when the baby is very young, they often change their minds later.

Would you like the laws to change so that biological fathers can say they want no part of their child's life, financial or otherwise, and are thus cut out of their offspring's life until they are at least 18, even if they might change their minds later?

Or would you want the law to say it's ok not to provide financially or emotionally for your child until such a time as you change your mind?

That wouldn't be fair on the child now would it?

Do you honestly think any Government is going to agree to provide more welfare payments to support single mother's children because they enacted laws to absolve the fathers of any responsibility, simply because the fathers say they don't want to provide for their child because the contraception failed?

Not a snowballs chance in hell of the Government agreeing to that!

RObert, the only men I have 'dismissive attitudes against' are men who speak out against all women and feminism as if they are all tarred with the same brush.

I usually don't consider you as one of them, but I realise there are others on this site who fire each other up on these issues such as abortion.

At least I am one of the few female posters left on this site still willing to ( foolish to?) argue against such ingrained opinions.

Who on earth would you all have to vent to, if all the continually dwindling numbers of female posters decided to ignore them?

Suse, You're full of it.

I gave you my specoifc reasoning and you came back with your view that men "should make sure they're wearing a condom". As it happens I agree, because it's clear that far too many women think like your do, which is that if you're lucky enough to get one in the oven, whatever you do don't let the one who put it there get away without paying for it if you decide you want to keep it. Sop let's get down to brass tacks, Suse: what's a night of sex with you worth? What's your price? After the sex act has taken place you make all the decsions, so there's obviously no further role for the man. How much will it cost him for you to let him get away from your control if that's what he wants??