Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BTW, castration is when they cut yours off, which affects your hormonal level, so you lose interest. Getting snipped is not castration. If you don't know this, you need more help than we can offer.
Frankly, it appears that you are completely and utterly clueless about the magic of hormone replacement therapy.
But I get the strong feeling that it is not your main complaint; which is, men are "forced" to be responsible for their offspring.
Well, female-bodied people who have no access to safe abortion can move to a place where they would have access to safe abortion, so yeah.
Quote:
Right. And when my credit card company goes after me for not living up to my obligations to pay back my debt, they are "harming" me. And when my car is repossessed because I refused to pay, I am being "harmed." Sure. Right.
The difference appears to be that you have already voluntarily agreed to take on these responsibilities and obligations, though.
Quote:
And there's a difference between making choices that result in the creation a life that is dependent upon support, and helping someone else who already exists. You seem to resent that the act of sex cannot be distanced from the consequences. You want to be absolved of any responsibility when you engage in a voluntary act which can impregnate a woman. You somehow think that some nebulous "other" should support this life, instead of yourself, it seems.
Cry me a river, go complain to your MRA and Red Pill brethren!
How exactly is extending someone's existence meaningfully different from causing someone to cause into existence in the first place, though? After all, in both of these cases, one would have a longer lifespan and existence than he or she would have otherwise had.
OP, you cannot totally eliminate risk. Risk is part of life. As human beings we can mitigate the risk but there will always be a small element of the risk remaining and this is true in all aspects of life. That small element of risk is what keeps (most of) us from being reckless, careless and stupid. If you can't accept an infinitesimal amount of risk, it might be time to reflect on your life and decide whether you want to opt out.
Really? There is a risk of an unplanned pregnancy after surgical castration and 2+ successful semen analyses?
Well, female-bodied people who have no access to safe abortion can move to a place where they would have access to safe abortion, so yeah.
So, you concede that your main complaint IS that the poor men are "forced" to support their own offspring?
Quote:
The difference appears to be that you have already voluntarily agreed to take on these responsibilities and obligations, though.
And voluntarily taking actions (choosing to have sex with a fertile female) is not "agreeing"? Millions of people make decisions every day that can result in obligations or consequences. In all sorts of ways, as you do. But somehow you think that this one type of decision (having sex) should be consequence-free, but ONLY for the men?
Women do face consequences when they choose to have sex. Deciding to have a medical, surgical procedure is a consequence. Deciding to do nothing results in the baby continuing to grow inside of them. No matter what decision they make—if there is a pregnancy, if there is an abortion—either way—they cannot escape something happening to them.
What seems to gripe you is that men have ANY consequences whatsoever when they engage in sex. I suppose you find it better that instead someone else will magically will take on the consequences (supporting a child if it is born) instead of these men who actually fathered the children. So, anything less than complete lack of consequences for the men is terribly unjust, in your mind. But JUST for the men. Because, as I have explained, it's impossible for women to have no consequences.
Quote:
How exactly is extending someone's existence meaningfully different from causing someone to cause into existence in the first place, though? After all, in both of these cases, one would have a longer lifespan and existence than he or she would have otherwise had.
And how exactly is extending someone's existence meaningfully by saving their life (from a car accident or from a devastating illness) any different, meaningfully, to donating them an organ? Either way, they have had their life extended. So, why not argue that any time you help someone else extend their life, that you are obligated to continue to support them?
So, you concede that your main complaint IS that the poor men are "forced" to support their own offspring?
Male-bodied people, Yes. After all, I would likewise be concerned about a trans-woman who has not gotten rid of her testicles yet (and especially if she did not start taking HRT yet).
Quote:
And voluntarily taking actions (choosing to have sex with a fertile female) is not "agreeing"?
No more than voluntarily extending some poor kid's life by donating one of your kidneys to this poor kid is agreeing to pay child support to this poor kid afterwards.
Quote:
Millions of people make decisions every day that can result in obligations or consequences. In all sorts of ways, as you do.
Do you know of any other cases where a person is forced to endure involuntary responsibilities and obligations to other person as a result of previously giving this person a gift, though?
Quote:
But somehow you think that this one type of decision (having sex) should be consequence-free, but ONLY for the men?
Women do face consequences when they choose to have sex. Deciding to have a medical, surgical procedure is a consequence. Deciding to do nothing results in the baby continuing to grow inside of them. No matter what decision they make—if there is a pregnancy, if there is an abortion—either way—they cannot escape something happening to them.
What seems to gripe you is that men have ANY consequences whatsoever when they engage in sex. I suppose you find it better that instead someone else will magically will take on the consequences (supporting a child if it is born) instead of these men who actually fathered the children. So, anything less than complete lack of consequences for the men is terribly unjust, in your mind. But JUST for the men. Because, as I have explained, it's impossible for women to have no consequences.
I feel like I must clarify something here--causing someone to exist is not a harm; however, causing someone to get pregnant is a harm. Thus, I would probably see more of a case in favor of forcing male-bodied people to pay financial compensation to the female-bodied people whom they got pregnant than I would see in favor of forcing male-bodied people to pay child support for children whom they never wanted.
Indeed, exactly how much would being a surrogate mother for one pregnancy cost at free market rates? Whatever this amount is, let's divide this amount by three or four times and add the cost of an abortion and the necessary travel costs to this amount. Indeed, this amount is the amount that male-bodied people should be forced to pay to the female-bodied people whom they got pregnant. Of course, if you are going to use this argument, then you might as well support forcing me to pay financial support/financial compensation to my friend's family and especially to my friend's children if I will play baseball with my friend and end up accidentally hitting him in the head with this baseball (and thus causing him to die as a result of this injury shortly afterwards).
Quote:
And how exactly is extending someone's existence meaningfully by saving their life (from a car accident or from a devastating illness) any different, meaningfully, to donating them an organ? Either way, they have had their life extended. So, why not argue that any time you help someone else extend their life, that you are obligated to continue to support them?
Actually, that appears to make sense. Indeed, by your logic and rationale here, you should be forced to pay child support to any child whose existence and lifespan you extended. Also, though, this would be especially true if this child is poor and/or if this child has one deceased parent.
Frankly, it appears that you are completely and utterly clueless about the magic of hormone replacement therapy.
If it's so simple, then why not get castrated? It seems that you already have an answer to your dilemma. You're the one who doesn't want to support your spawn, so you should be the one to take steps to eliminate the possibility you'd have spawn to support.
Male-bodied people, Yes. After all, I would likewise be concerned about a trans-woman who has not gotten rid of her testicles yet (and especially if she did not start taking HRT yet).
Sure, sure.
Quote:
No more than voluntarily extending some poor kid's life by donating one of your kidneys to this poor kid is agreeing to pay child support to this poor kid afterwards.
You want to blur the lines between "helping someone who already exists" and "helping create a new life which requires support." I see no reason why those lines should be blurred.
Quote:
Do you know of any other cases where a person is forced to endure involuntary responsibilities and obligations to other person as a result of previously giving this person a gift, though?
Do you know of any cases where a person is forced to endure responsibilities for the actions of ANOTHER completely separate person? Like when a guy gets a girl pregnant, which results in a new life, and he expects someone else entirely (like the taxpayers) to foot the bill for this child's support?
Oh, wait. We already have that. Irresponsible parents who keep on having kids that they cannot support and acting like it's an injustice that they should put any effort into supporting them.
Society looks down upon that, and does not feel that those who created the life should be off the hook for its support. It's just the MRAs and Red Pillers who feel that only the MEN should be off the hook.
Quote:
I feel like I must clarify something here--causing someone to exist is not a harm; however, causing someone to get pregnant is a harm.
Oh no! No no. You can't have it both ways. It's not "harm," it's a GIFT! The man gave her a GIFT!
It's weird how you want to classify the whole process of sex and pregnancy into some horrible thing that is "done" to someone, while at the same time acting like this horrible, dreadful thing is also a "gift." A "gift," apparently, that the taxpayers, or maybe just the mother only, should pay for. But not the father—never the father!
Quote:
Thus, I would probably see more of a case in favor of forcing male-bodied people to pay financial compensation to the female-bodied people whom they got pregnant than I would see in favor of forcing male-bodied people to pay child support for children whom they never wanted.
They BOTH "got" her pregnant. And it was a "GIFT"! A new life!
Quote:
Indeed, exactly how much would being a surrogate mother for one pregnancy cost at free market rates? Whatever this amount is, let's divide this amount by three or four times and add the cost of an abortion and the necessary travel costs to this amount. Indeed, this amount is the amount that male-bodied people should be forced to pay to the female-bodied people whom they got pregnant.
So you do concede that the man is RESPONSIBLE for the state that she is in (he GOT her pregnant—as if she had nothing to do with it! ). And that when he GOT her this way, that this could result in a new life, which requires financial support?
But, since he GOT her this way, and a life is the result, then you don't think it's fair for the man, who "got" the woman pregnant, to be in any way responsible for the upkeep and support of this life, and instead the taxpayers and society should foot the bill.
Make up your mind. It's a "GIFT," no, it's this awful thing that he did to her, and he needs to compensate her for what he did TO her. And yet again, he GIFTED this new life with life, and therefore it is a terrible unfair burden to expect him to help support this life. (That's for the taxpayers to do instead, apparently.) But ONLY if he's the man. The woman is "burdened" with carrying this child, and that's okay, it's only not okay if HE'S expected to do ANYTHING he doesn't want to do. It's only okay if he's able to have sex as much as he wants without any consequences. That's the ONLY way it's "fair."
Your logic is all over the place.
Quote:
Actually, that appears to make sense. Indeed, by your logic and rationale here, you should be forced to pay child support to any child whose existence and lifespan you extended. Also, though, this would be especially true if this child is poor and/or if this child has one deceased parent.
So everyone would be supporting everyone else, and in turn, they'd be supported right back, because in some way, most of us have helped someone else extend their life. So it would be diluted and blurred down to nothing in the end.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a risk of an unplanned pregnancy after surgical castration and 2+ successful semen analyses? 
Because, as I have explained, it's impossible for women to have no consequences. 
