Conversation I Had With A Vegetarian Girl

ME: So you eat fish but not delicious pig or cow?

GIRL: Fish are different. I don’t like the way farm animals are treated. It’s inhumane. Some animals have intelligence and emotions. Have you seen those big brown eyes on cows?

ME: Changing the subject for a sec… you’re very pro-choice right? You believe abortion should be legal.

GIRL: Of course.

ME: You don’t have a problem with third trimester fetuses getting torn limb from limb and sucked out of the womb?

GIRL: Ugh, why do you have to say that? Are you anti-abortion or something?

ME: Actually, no, I have no problem with abortion. But then I have no problem with killing and eating cow either.

A big reason abortion has such wide acceptance is because the disgust reflex isn’t triggered. The bloody affair takes place hidden behind closed flesh, so to speak. If the womb were transparent, I doubt legal justification for abortion beyond the first trimester would exist.

A true sadist embraces cruelty even when, maybe especially when, he can witness the tortured writhings of his victim. Ever see video footage of a guy about to jump off a building? Some people in the crowd below will yell “Jump!” as the poor guy stands high above them, lonely on the ledge, contemplating a suicidal leap. Would you yell “Jump!” if you could clearly see that man’s face, etched with pain and sadness?





Comments


  1. I’m vegetarian, but I don’t sermonise about it. Often girls try to catch me out in some hypocrisy – especially when I wear a leather jacket.

    My response is “yeah, I’m a hypocrite” and then talk about something else. It seems to close the debate.

    Like


  2. Would you yell “Jump!” if you could clearly see his face, etched with pain and sadness?

    I’m am pretty impulsive.

    I expect a lot
    from my entertainment
    dollar

    Like


  3. Good post. Makes up for the last one.

    Like


  4. on November 9, 2009 at 12:05 pm Raymo in LeDroit

    Wearing leather as a veg is not hypocritical, for things like shoes no other materials can equal leather, yet. Someday mankind may engineer a fabric that can, but as of today it has not been done.

    Like


  5. I like making vegetarian girls eat meat.

    Like


  6. What’s odd is that the vegetarian / prochoice girls are unlikely to ever see a real cow in their entire life while at the same time they can see their belly and feel the third trimester child inside.

    I spent summers on my grandparents’ farm as a kid and once saw granddad kill a calf with an axe. Three solid strikes, and the headless animal fell. The calf’s mother cried for days. It was a difficult thing to hear, especially at night.

    Yet I detest cruelty and I am not a vegetarian. It’s a man-eat-animal world out there.

    Like


  7. Lefties have that insane conflict where killing innocent babies is ok but killing murderers and brainless cows is inhumane.

    It boggles the mind.

    Roissy is consistent. I may disagree, but he’s no hypocrite.

    Like


  8. Nice try again, Roissy. I know you are a good guy at heart, and not a true sadist, and I know you are a smart person too (some of your posts are truly brilliant!).

    That is why I know that if you think about it enough, you will understand that abortion is not about cruelty or pain, it is about power and control. (Everything is about power and control.)

    Men try to control women and their sexuality by saying they can’t have abortions.

    No one wants abortions, they are indeed cruel and painful. That is why we should teach safe sex to teenagers, and not that crazy “abstinence” bullshit that the crazy religious freaks try to teach.

    Regarding animals, they are helpful before men. How we treat animals shows our true nature. Some people say it’s a savage world out there, but we as humans should seek to evolve to rise above that. Animals are beautiful. And we should try to avoid cruelty to animals as well as to fetuses.

    Like


  9. MiamiKing, how is sucking Nobama’s cock going?

    “That is why I know that if you think about it enough, you will understand that abortion is not about cruelty or pain, it is about power and control. (Everything is about power and control.)”
    –Fetuses feel pain. Fact.

    “Men try to control women and their sexuality by saying they can’t have abortions.”
    —lol. Feminazi talking point. Untrue.

    “No one wants abortions, they are indeed cruel and painful.”
    –Fact: Planned Parenthood has quotas for abortions. they want them. And Feminist scholars do teach that every women should have one, for her “power.”

    “That is why we should teach safe sex to teenagers, and not that crazy “abstinence” bullshit that the crazy religious freaks try to teach.”
    —lol. Insane liberal fantasy. Because giving every gangbanger a condom will stop unwed teen mothers.

    The government should not be involved in teaching sexuality. Abstinence or “safe sex” training are both useless.

    ” How we treat animals shows our true nature.”
    —oh go hug a tree.

    “Some people say it’s a savage world out there, but we as humans should seek to evolve to rise above that. Animals are beautiful. And we should try to avoid cruelty to animals as well as to fetuses.”
    —so now it is about cruelty. You contradict your moronic ass with every sentence, dummy.

    Animals are meat and worthless beyond what they give to us. There’s no such thing as “inhumane” treatment to mere beasts, since they aren’t human. QED, hippie.

    Like


  10. How do you get the director of your local Planned Parenthood to quit on the spot?

    Show her an abortion.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115476

    Like


  11. Wow, PA, nice story.
    Way to trigger the girl’s tribal reflex, R, “Ugh, why do you have to say that? Are you anti-abortion or something?” How dare you challenge her self-satisfaction.

    Like


  12. Many people are vegetarian for their health concerns….not because they care about the welfare of farm animals…

    Like


  13. Roissy,

    Most importantly, did you swoop her?

    – MPM

    Like


  14. Third trimester abortions are a brutal reality that almost never happen. Fetuses are viable after 24 weeks and exceedingly rare, but I do understand you aren’t really looking for the facts in this argument.

    Like


  15. Lemmonex, but when they do, it is a barbaric act. In fact, the pro-abortion side so dehumanizes children, they are willing to fully deliver a child and then kill him in the pan/toss him in the garbage and claim it is an abortion.

    Serial killers who are cannibals are exceedingly rare as well.

    Like


  16. on November 9, 2009 at 12:35 pm Una Salus Victus

    Simply put, hypocrisy is easily found and its logical reasonings are usually riddled with inconsistencies.

    Like


  17. MiamiKing,

    If you went back throughout history, you would find, believe it or not, that women tend to be the baby-killers from somewhere deep inside themselves. Always have, always will be. And there will always be women, and their pansy male enablers, who instantly try to pass the buck to those awful men. It is kind of a sign of immaturity – like how a teenager tends to blame his parents for his own shortcomings, rather than take responsibility on a personal level.

    In London, it was known for women to drop unwanted newborns into the Thames. You can find similar stories from Rome or other civilizations. Today, it is still women dumping unwanted newborns in trash bins, or abandoning them similarly.

    The Bible, whether you believe in it or not, still has some historical context that is valid… and there are many instances where it is shown that women were told enmasse to butcher their baby boys, and they complied!

    “Amoral” comes to mind. And it is kind to say so, for if they were held to male standards, we would have to judge “moral or immoral,” and there is no getting off scot free in those definitions as there is with the definition “amoral.”

    Like


  18. Another liberal inconsistency is that we have to do everything in our power to preserve the primitive tribes of Bora-Bora or the Amazonian jungle, but the natives of UK, Sweden or France are not worth preserving. In the first case you’re a humanist, in the second – a racist.

    Like


  19. Yeah I never get these people either. They’ll eat fish but no meat. What’s the difference?

    Like


  20. i find myself being OK with abortion in principle. its a woman’s body. i also find myself being OK with vegetarianism. same principle applies.

    at the same time i judge people negatively for each action. i wouldn’t want an abortion for my woman, and i personally wouldn’t forgo meat. both – abortions and meat abstinence – are an affront to human nature. we protect and nurture our young and have eaten meat to survive and flourish.

    they are, as miami said earlier, contests of power. except they aren’t about men trying to exert authority over women and such, its women thumbing their nose at the patriarchy in order to gain power.

    Like


  21. Killing an animal is inherently cruel. Aand abortion, from the moment of conception, is homicide.

    So is killing an enemy combatant or a home-invader, or euthanizing a man with 90% third degree burns. Sometimes homicide is the better choice.

    I live in the real world and not a fantasy, so I am neither a pacifist nor a vegetarian.

    Like


  22. lemmonex

    Third trimester abortions are a brutal reality that almost never happen.

    tease.

    you only come out for the food posts.

    ps
    tell finefantastic! i like her ass

    Like


  23. Well, this may be another example of female amorality. Abortion, killing a human, is ok but farming is bad.

    Like


  24. Abortion triggers my disgust reflect. I believe life begins at conception, so in my eyes abortion for any reasons other than to save your own life or due to severe fetal abnormalities is on par with murder.

    However, I believe your body is your own body and although I don’t believe abortion is right I wouldn’t necessarily stop women from doing it.

    Like


  25. Two nitpicks:

    The girl isn’t a vegetarian. She’s a pescetarian because she eats fish.

    Also, I don’t believe abortions are permitted after the first trimester. Maybe it’s different in the States.

    Like


  26. [If the womb were transparent, I doubt legal justification for abortion beyond the first trimester would exist.] -Roissy

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571215,00.html

    The former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in southeast Texas says she had a “change of heart” after watching an abortion last month — and she quit her job and joined a pro-life group in praying outside the facility.

    Abby Johnson, 29, used to escort women from their cars to the clinic in the eight years she volunteered and worked for Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas. But she says she knew it was time to leave after she watched a fetus “crumple” as it was vacuumed out of a patient’s uterus in September.

    ‘When I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice,” Johnson told FoxNews.com. But after seeing the internal workings of the procedure for the first time on an ultrasound monitor, “I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart … a spiritual conversion.”

    Like


  27. Gooch, thanks to the Supreme Court, abortion on demand is legal in all 50 states.

    In most nations that allow it, its first trimester.

    Shows you how feminized American culture has become.

    I want to follow the G Manifesto when the end comes. Fly Honeys. Good Beaches. And a Desert Eagle.

    Like


  28. Maybe it’s different in the States.

    In Canada and the US, it’s the wild, wild west for abortion.

    Like


  29. Here is one case of abortion where homicide (aborting the child) is the better choice: conception by rape of a married woman.

    Although the child is innocent (the fact that he or she carries the dad’s rapist genes is a separate subject), the rapist must not be rewarded with issue, the woman must not be forced to carry and nurture the creature, and the husband must not be forced to support it.

    Like


  30. Beat me to it Miley Cyrus.

    Like


  31. the disgust reflex, ……………interesting thought.

    the panic reflex, …………….also in play.

    This weekend I butchered and stewed two pheasants. Working from feathers, innerds, head, and finally to the meat dimmed my appetite. my admiration for the real butchers.

    My relationship to animals derives from Genesis 1: 28. “…have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

    Like


  32. Meat is murder. Tasty, tasty murder.

    Like


  33. regarding disgust and kind of OT:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2572192/

    the evolution of disgust and contempt in humans is an interesting topic. i’ve tried to make a connection between those reactions and the need for Game, but i haven’t come up with anything of value yet. nevertheless, disgust is a moral judgment based on violations of physical purity. the above study cites that women respond more negatively (they are shamed more effectively) by disgusted male faces than disgusted female faces.

    Like


  34. on November 9, 2009 at 1:06 pm Sebastian Flyte

    ‘I’m a vegetarian’
    ‘Wait, does that mean you dont suck dick? What if it’s kosher?’

    Like


  35. I have to say, I think I enjoy meat *more* when I know exactly what animal it has come from, when it is especially bloody, etc…basically when it is especially obvious that I am consuming a once living thing. It just gives me a great primal, caveman feeling that really enhances a dining experience.

    I also have no problem with abortion and, on a purely intellectual level, would not have a problem with the infanticide of the unwanted and resource-lacking (basically, those infants that later in life would be much more likely to cause societal problems). An infant fresh out of the womb has no more conscious capacity than a fetus, or a chicken for that matter, so I don’t see why it should be entitled to inalienable, adult human rights solely in virtue of having its umbilical cord cut off. While I do have this attitude on a purely intellectual level, I do admit, though, that the sight of actual infanticide would disturb me and uncontrollably make me think negatively of the infantilist.

    Like


  36. lurker
    If you get a Desert Eagle, get the .50 cal. You can then buy a .44 barrel/mags and shoot both. The .50 AE hits like a truck, but the ammo runs about $2 a round.

    Like


  37. I truly believe that abortion is the killing of a life, and don’t “support” it. It’s like stomping on an egg with a little baby chicken gestating inside.

    But if I knock up a girl she’s getting an abortion.

    Like


  38. [blockquote]The former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in southeast Texas says she had a “change of heart” after watching an abortion last month — and she quit her job and joined a pro-life group in praying outside the facility.

    Abby Johnson, 29, used to escort women from their cars to the clinic in the eight years she volunteered and worked for Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas. But she says she knew it was time to leave after she watched a fetus “crumple” as it was vacuumed out of a patient’s uterus in September.

    ‘When I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice,” Johnson told FoxNews.com. But after seeing the internal workings of the procedure for the first time on an ultrasound monitor, “I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart … a spiritual conversion.”[/blockquote]

    If watch the excellent, and very sober documentary “Lake of Fire,” they interview THE “Jane Roe” of roe v. wade. She has the same story as this person. Yes, the Jane Roe is now actually a pro-life activist.

    Like


  39. This weekend I butchered and stewed two pheasants.

    Damn. Still another month until pheasant season starts here.

    Like


  40. But if I knock up a girl she’s getting an abortion.

    An o m e g a can only dream of knocking up a girl

    A beta doesn’t have to ask a girl to get an abortion

    An alpha can talk a girl into getting one

    A superalpha can get the girl to keep the child and have her parents or a willing beta raise it.

    Like


  41. on November 9, 2009 at 2:28 pm Wendy Schwartz

    You can now stop crying yourself to sleep every night missing me.

    I’m back online and don’t have to attempt to use the awful “wordpress for blackberry” app (that I’d suggest no one ever use and wordpress just give up and start all over again on).

    I couldn’t bear to break your heart any longer and not give you someone to make your villainess any longer. So dry those tears, buttercup and start dusting off those tired old insults because I’m back, off my meds, and more evil than ever!

    Cheers!
    Wendy Schwartz

    Like


  42. Roosh,

    you might change your mind on the whole “any girl I get pregnant is definitely getting an abortion” thing.

    Who knows? You might make a wonderful father.

    Like


  43. on November 9, 2009 at 2:33 pm Wendy Schwartz

    Jeez, too easy already:

    If a fetus is not human life, then how come in states like Texas, should I murder a pregnant woman, I can be charged with two counts of First Degree Murder?

    Because the reason it’s called “choice” is because it’s not your decision to make to “end a fetus”, consider it a baby, not a baby, or have any business violently attacking a growing organism that is growing in someone’s body.

    It’s not your fetus/baby, not your sperm, and therefore not your right to decide when to end it’s growth process.

    Seriously, duh.

    Like


  44. An unborn undeveloped person =/= a full grown animal (or even a fucked up hormone injected young animal). Not eating meat and supporting abortion is not hypocritical.

    Third trimester is too late though, and I think most people could agree. How daft does a person have to be to wait that long?

    Like


  45. So, what I take from this post is, we should decide things based on how we emotionally react to something. Sounds like there is a little beta voice in roissy’s head afterall.

    Rights are not imparted at conception. End of.

    Like


  46. Wendy Schwartz said

    Jeez, too easy already:

    –“If a fetus is not human life, then how come in states like Texas, should I murder a pregnant woman, I can be charged with two counts of First Degree Murder?”

    Because the reason it’s called “choice” is because it’s not your decision to make to “end a fetus”, consider it a baby, not a baby, or have any business violently attacking a growing organism that is growing in someone’s body.

    It’s not your fetus/baby, not your sperm, and therefore not your right to decide when to end it’s growth process.

    Seriously, duh.

    Holy fuck are you ever a walking argument for getting women out of the public sphere and back into the kitchen!

    I should think the sisters would want to muzzle and gag the dumb ones like you.

    Like


  47. lol anony:

    “An unborn undeveloped person =/= a full grown animal (or even a fucked up hormone injected young animal). Not eating meat and supporting abortion is not hypocritical.”

    —a fetus is a human being. Your Singer-esque argument is groundless, baseless, and factless. Humanness exists at conception, not whether you have all 10 toes.

    animals are worthless other than what they can do for humans. Period. She is a hypocrite. Roissy is not.

    “Third trimester is too late though, and I think most people could agree. How daft does a person have to be to wait that long?”
    —when the pro-abortion movement delcares that live children out of their mother’s womb aren’t human—then you get people that daft.

    But but 3rd semester isn’t fully developed! I guess we found another abortion-lover with inconsistent logic!

    Sigh. If the pro-abortion movers and lovers were like Roissy, I’d have respect for them.

    Like


  48. j.d.: “Rights are not imparted at conception.”

    Passive construction is passive. By what agency are rights imparted?

    Like


  49. @PA

    “Here is one case of abortion where homicide (aborting the child) is the better choice: conception by rape of a married woman”

    What of the unmarried woman?

    Pat Buchanan says of conception from rape: “You want to execute somebody in the case of rape, execute the rapist and let the unborn child live. ”

    Which is consistent for those that believe life begins at conception. Why should a child be killed for its father’s sins? On the other hand, I don’t believe a woman should have to bear the burden of childbirth and delivery, when they have been raped brutally.

    Like


  50. “On the other hand, I don’t believe a woman should have to bear the burden of childbirth and delivery, when they have been raped brutally.”

    We’ll need proof that she resisted.

    Like


  51. @Nathan

    …as doug stanhope used to say, “what about all those rape babies???”

    Like


  52. Lemmonex–

    Third trimester abortions are a brutal reality that almost never happen. Fetuses are viable after 24 weeks and exceedingly rare, but I do understand you aren’t really looking for the facts in this argument.

    It’s very difficult even in NYC to get an abortion after 22 weeks, I’ve been told on several occasions. That’s the usual effective limit now, at least here, I understand. Before viability in other words.

    Of course the viability after 24 weeks only comes at huge expense and GREATLY elevated chances of birth defects, many of them very serious. Such as retardation or certainly significant lowering of IQ, and many life threatening defects.

    Like


  53. on November 9, 2009 at 1:54 pm Professional Engineer

    Abortion is murder. Better to avoid if at all possible. Concerning meat one should procure some for themselves(hunt or butcher). It is a wonderful experience and will instill a respect for the prey while strengthening its position in the world.

    Like


  54. Wendy Schwartz
    … I’m back, off my meds, and more evil than ever!

    Cheers!
    Wendy Schwartz

    As long as you
    kept up the Penicillin
    Glad to have you
    back

    Like


  55. j.d.

    …as doug stanhope used to say, “what about all those rape babies???

    After the original hosts whore out to greener pastures, they find work as replacements on The Man Show.

    Like


  56. on November 9, 2009 at 3:04 pm Wendy Schwartz

    fedrz–

    Well okay, but I don’t cook so that would be YOUR funeral….seriously.

    Let me put it in simpler terms:

    It’s legal to own electronics. It’s legal to sell electronics. It’s legal to take your electronics outside and smash them into pieces and light them on fire if you so chose.

    It’s not legal to do it to someone else’s electronics. Know why? Because they’re not yours.

    Get it?

    Like


  57. If a fetus is not human life, then how come in states like Texas, should I murder a pregnant woman, I can be charged with two counts of First Degree Murder?

    I think there are something like 14 states that have this feature in regard to the unborn.

    It used to be that the murderer had to know the woman was pregnant in order for two counts of murder to be leveled, but many have changed it to two counts of murder if it was unknown.

    In fact, there was a case in Texas recently – in the past few years – where a pregnant woman asked her boyfriend to step on her belly, and punch her etc, in order to cause her baby to miscarry… he went on trial for murder for killing the fetus, despite the death of the baby being the woman’s choice.

    Basically, a woman does not become pregnant when she actually conceives – not legally anyways.

    A woman does not become pregnant until she chooses whether what is inside of her is useless clump of cells which she can flush down the toilet along with her other wastes (in which the killing is not murder), or she can choose that what is inside of her is not a mere piece of waste tissue, but instead a beautiful human life. (In which case, killing it is a form of murder – for example, it will be considered a human life the instant YOU get into a car accident with her and cause her to miscarry).

    What a screwed up system.

    Like


  58. PA

    @Roosh- But if I knock up a girl she’s getting an abortion.

    An o m e g a can only dream of knocking up a girl. [True. But if the miracle occurs, he doesn’t have to ask her to abort.]

    A beta doesn’t have to ask a girl to get an abortion. [If she’s over 30 he does, and she probably won’t.]

    An alpha can talk a girl into getting one. [not if she’s over 25 and he makes strong bank.]

    A superalpha can get the girl to keep the child and have her parents or a willing beta raise it. [That’s not been Colin Ferrell’s or Tom Sizemore’s experience.]

    Like


  59. @Jamila

    “Roosh, ….. You might make a wonderful father.”

    I’ll take that bet.

    Like


  60. @doug
    You’re in NYC?

    Like


  61. on November 9, 2009 at 3:08 pm Wendy Schwartz

    Firepower–

    Nah I stick to coffee only now…..I realized that my meds were simply dulling my understanding that most humans really are deserving of my judgment and hatred 🙂

    I missed your taunts and playful hatred. You big charmer, you.

    Like


  62. on November 9, 2009 at 3:09 pm Wendy Schwartz

    Remember that politics has no place in game. I’d like to tap the retarded republican girls, and can’t let my politics interfere.

    “She may be a Republican, but she fucks like a Liberal.”

    Sorry I couldn’t resist. Okay I’m done now.

    Like


  63. MiamiQueen
    Some people say it’s a savage world out there, but we as humans should seek to evolve to rise above that.

    Your understanding of evolution is rather, well, religious.

    As scientifically understood, evolutionary processes exert no over riding purpose, direction or progress toward some specific, superior destination. One can not “seek to evolve” as all organisms currently alive are perfectly evolved to life on this planet, or they simply wouldn’t exist. The cockroach for example is quite highly evolved. It has survived and thrived before humans appeared and likely will be here after we are long gone.

    The only control an individual could ever have over this process rest with their choice of mate. Historically morals and self restraint, taught by parents not the schools, have mediated this process and got humans to where we are today as a species. Pass on your genes or you contribute nothing to the species genetically. Don’t you see that abortion is rather oppositional to this?

    Like


  64. Interesting post, and raises two very important points/questions for me:

    1. Why is it Vegans have to moralize to everyone else about what they eat? I mean, why can’t they simply go about their business, not eat meat (or whatever) and live their lives? Why must they sermonize to the rest of us? No one is preventing or otherwise persecuting vegans for choosing to go meatless. Why do they have to give the rest of us such a hard time?

    And

    2. The question of abortion comes down simply to one of Reproductive Rights-either you’re for it, or you’re not. Being for it for only one half of the human population is, at least as far as American law goes, inherently flawed. Most Women want the option to abort, but they don’t want Men to have it either-just like they want the option to “game” Men in the dating/social sphere, but just look at how much fervor Game has garnered in what, less than a decade? The reason why is simple. They don’t want Men to have options.

    It’s really as simple as that.

    The Obsidian

    Like


  65. on November 9, 2009 at 2:19 pm traveling boho

    Once as a child, we visited my great uncle’s farm where he had about 100 head of beef cattle.

    He took my sister and I out to visit the cows. A few ambled over thinking they might get a treat.

    My seven-year-old sister asked, “What are their names?”

    My great uncle replied, “That one there is Big Mac. And that’s the Whopper over there.”

    She immediately burst out in tears and did so several more times as we drove home.

    Like


  66. Abortion is no more unnatural to our species than hunting is. Its a highly preferable alternative to the old solution: infanticide.

    Humans in the ancestral environment would cast aside a burdensome and unwanted infant as necessarily as they would spear a mastadon.

    If you believe a fetus has human rights then you’re willing to enforce a woman to carry a rapist’s child to term.

    Show me the conservative who believes in the death penalty for rapists and I’ll show you a conservative who secretly supports abortion — at least for his/her female familiars and/or herself.

    On a related note, there’s an inverse correlation between a man’s sexual success and his anti-abortion vehemence.

    Like


  67. Obsidian

    The question of abortion comes down simply to one of Reproductive Rights-either you’re for it, or you’re not. Being for it for only one half of the human population is, at least as far as American law goes, inherently flawed. Most Women want the option to abort, but they don’t want Men to have it either

    Yes.

    If women have the post coital event right to abort a fetus within the first 26 or 22 weeks of conception then men should have the right o abort their parental responsibilities within that time. Which women can take into account. We don’t tell women they should have kept their legs closed; or feminists insist that we don’t legally.

    If women have the right to give their child up for adoption, in many states simply by leaving it at a firehouse or hospital no questions asked, then men should also have the post coital and post conception right to give the child up for adoption. (Which could be by the mother, if she earns or otherwise has the resources to do an adequate job.)

    This business where women can put unwilling men into indentured servitude, quite literally enforce by guns and jail, for children they didn’t want but the woman post coitally wouldn’t have to either have or keep herself if she didn’t want the child, is outrageous. It’s deeply unfair.

    The “best interests of the child” rubric shouldn’t overturn all other issues of fairness. As well women would have far fewer single mother babies if they knew they couldn’t get unwilling child support extracted by employers and ultimately by gunpoint from unwilling men. 40% of American births are now to unwed mothers, up from the single digits in 1960, and 12% in 1972.

    It’s remarkable how brainwashed the media and schools have made American men on this issue. It’s incredible to me really.

    Like


  68. Patrick, abortion is infanticide. It just occurs in the doctor’s office as opposed to the hills of rome.

    A woman should be forced to carry a child to term, even a rapists. But the rapist should get the death penalty and she should get all his property.

    Case closed. You lose.

    Like


  69. Abortion is no more unnatural to our species than hunting is. Its a highly preferable alternative to the old solution: infanticide.

    Why?

    If you believe a fetus has human rights then you’re willing to enforce a woman to carry a rapist’s child to term.

    False premise. Not every human is entitled to human right, but that alone does not justify homicide. Abortion is homicide, but sometimes it’s a preferable option.

    Show me the conservative who believes in the death penalty for rapists and I’ll show you a conservative who secretly supports abortion — at least for his/her female familiars and/or herself.

    Rape justifies abortion. And death penalty for rapists should be a given.

    On a related note, there’s an inverse correlation between a man’s sexual success and his anti-abortion vehemence.

    Not necessarily. Some men are pro-life for nationalistic reasons, others for religious ones, independent of their success with women.

    Like


  70. Abortion is no more unnatural to our species than hunting is.

    Morality means transcending the state of nature. Murder and rape are perfectly “natural” – doesn’t mean they are moral.

    If you believe a fetus has human rights then you’re willing to enforce a woman to carry a rapist’s child to term.

    You can believe it is a person but still support pulling the plug. If you believe it is proper, necessary, or even simply expedient to kill people outside the womb under certain circumstances, then you can be fine with killing them inside the womb as well.

    Every woman who makes that “choice” needs to be intellectually honest and say, yeah, it is a person but I’m going to kill it anyway. Don’t give me any of that “it’s a parasitic blob of protoplasm” crap.

    Show me the conservative who believes in the death penalty for rapists and I’ll show you a conservative who secretly supports abortion — at least for his/her female familiars and/or herself.

    Why is it that the same liberals who will kill an innocent unborn child without hesitation get all weepy when the contemplate the execution of some vicious murdering felon?

    I’m against death for rapists simply because women lie about it too often.

    Like


  71. We don’t tell women they should have kept their legs closed; or feminists insist that we don’t legally.

    So then why is it ok to turn around and tell men who want the child aborted or given up for adoption: Tough. You should have kept it zipped. Why?

    Like


  72. Ignore the troll.

    Like


  73. The metaphor doesn’t fit. A vegetarian is making a personal choice, not (necessarily) trying to make eating meat illegal. You can be pro-choice (believing in other people’s right to choose), while making a personal choice never to have an abortion.

    Also, third trimester abortions should be illegal.

    Like


  74. All feminists should be raped.

    Like


  75. @ PA –

    “Not every human is entitled to human right, but that alone does not justify homicide.”

    This statement makes absolutely no sense. Is there a subclass of humanoids you wish to define?

    @ Tarl –

    “Why is it that the same liberals who will kill an innocent unborn child without hesitation get all weepy when the contemplate the execution of some vicious murdering felon?”

    Unborn children of rapists are also innocent, should they simply be afforded less hesitation and their mothers spared your proposed morality lesson / confession prior to the procedure?

    I have no sympathy for (rightfully convicted) rapists, I just don’t think the government should have the power to judicially execute people.

    @ lurker –

    “A woman should be forced to carry a child to term, even a rapists.”

    You’re too fucking stupid to to warrant any response other than this insult.

    Like


  76. traveling boho

    My great uncle replied, “That one there is Big Mac. And that’s the Whopper over there.”

    She immediately burst out in tears and did so several more times as we drove home.

    tb…
    your uncle –
    totally Alpha

    Like


  77. It’s a woman’s body so she has the “right” to choose to abort yet I don’t have the “right” to take a goddamn Hydroxycut.

    @Lurker- Fly honeys, good beaches, Desert Eagle, AND let’s not forget the bespoke suit

    Like


  78. “All feminists should be raped.”

    They are.

    “I should think the sisters would want to muzzle and gag the dumb ones like you.”

    Like


  79. Fallacious argument (not to be confused with a fellatious argument).

    Being vegetarian (which she isn’t really, if she eats fish), she is choosing not to eat meat. Which is not parallel to being pro-choice. Does she think eating animals should be illegal?

    She may well think that abortion should be legal, but not choose to have one — particularly a third-trimester abortion — if she found herself in that situation.

    Like


  80. @ Patrick Is there a subclass of humanoids you wish to define?

    Children, convicted criminals, retarded, mentally ill, etc. They do not have human rights in the full sense of being free individuals, but they are still protected from undue harm.

    But do answer my earlier question: why do you assert that abortion is “a highly preferable option” to infanticide?

    Like


  81. Wow, reading that made me dumber.

    Roissy, you’ve been slipping since the post about faking your own arrest records.

    Remember that politics has no place in game. I’d like to tap the retarded republican girls, and can’t let my politics interfere.

    Like


  82. Have to agree w/ other comments re: political talk on this blog. Interesting to see certain reader’s political ideas in response to Roissy’s, but the gaming and dating world posts are by far the most appealing and also Roissy’s strong suit. Not saying the political posts should stop, I’ve no feeling either way on that.

    It’s difficult to talk about things like abortion; everyone will disagree and in the end be left no more enlightened after arguing.

    Like


  83. Split topic, from veggie to abortion and jumping off the building. I will start with the last one, and the story of my crazy neighbor as the ultimate greyzone of human suffering. And he gets help from no one.
    My neighbor is about 30 years old, he never had any girlfriend, never had a job, he is skin and bone with translucent dermis from never going outside his house, he looks terrible, and through the ten years i have been living next to him, i have been absorbing his suffering, he has been a pain to me, and a threat to. He writes various letters about my dog or my trashcan being in the wrong place or the leafs in front of my door in the autumn, letters a 30 year old guy not suppose to write,, and they have a frightening undertone to it like, if you don’t do this, you will not deserve any human respect, or if your dog barks again, “anything” can happen “any” time…
    First i get scared then i think twice, and understand its a disturbed man writing these things. Its a blueprint of his pain, not really my fault.
    One year ago I went to my teacher that is a psychiatrist and showed the letters my neighbor wrote to evaluate him asking what is there to do?, and the psychiatrist told, there is very little I can do unless he wants to,, he suggested me to move, cause the psychiatrist told this guy was unstable and a threat, but also told there was nothing I could do,, so no help there,, its such a pain for me to see a guy rotten away in his best years, and being a danger for his surrounding, This guy is the next one jumping off bridge, really. What else is there? The main point is, there is little do to before a tragedy or wasting your life, which is terrible. Life is getting more and more inhumane as there is, or maybe it was always like this.

    Like


  84. on November 9, 2009 at 3:12 pm gunslingergregi

    Dang firepower it only took like 2 days to bring her back after the ritualistic summoning.

    Like


  85. Meat is meat, I’d eat people if there were no cow or pig.

    Eating meat is a pressure relief valve for your average stressed-out working man. It gives him a certain satisfaction to devour and ravage a stupid animal’s fat ass, one bite at a time.

    Hell, sometimes I think I’d go crazy if it weren’t for meat, beer, and porn. Life is a goddamn prison, where your every move is watched and questioned by over-educated pricks with little dicks. And you know what, I ain’t gonna explain myself anymore, so the hell with you!

    Like


  86. Yeah I never get these people either. They’ll eat fish but no meat. What’s the difference?

    Fish can’t scream and they’re cold, wet, and slimy, so they aren’t cuddly either. Therefore they have no reason to live.

    Like


  87. PA –

    Its preferable to infanticide because it directly prevents it, preserves the corporal integrity of the woman with far less resource investment (and risk) and doesn’t involve killing a person.

    If, as your statement implies, you believe in a varied and contingent gradation of entitlement to human rights based on freedom of an individual, you’d have to concede that a fetus is by definition entirely dependent and not in fact free from the agency of the mother, who’s own biological well-being is impacted by it.

    Also, do you realize how many otherwise-suitable women are rendered utterly hopeless for LTRs (not to mention undatable) by virtue of their single motherhood? You might if you dated.

    I for one am glad that my 22 yo ex-girlfriend had an abortion (and attendant preserved body) when she was seventeen rather than a five-year-old bastard when we were dating.

    Like


  88. Most people take their views from what their culture considers acceptable. Right now, her culture is giving her a hypocritical message for political reasons.

    She probably had a dim sense of agreement with one aspect of their politics once, and from then on was a devoted follower whatever that entailed. Just so she could feel like she fit in.

    She hasn’t ever really thought about anything. It’s never been in her best interest to do so, since that may leave her without a group to identify with. I see nothing surprising about this.

    Can anyone here not remember a time when you yourself were like this? If not, I submit that you probably still are…

    Like


  89. Why not use the protein in the pet food industry? Call it Fetal Chow. Should be tender and make a nice gravy. Its all the same eh? I am just glad my wisdom teeth are already in.

    Like


  90. “You’re too fucking stupid to to warrant any response other than this insult.”
    —that’s because St. Patrick has just been owned like an old cheap suit.

    Like


  91. @Patrick-

    Why do you rule out single women? Just curious, with the numbers of single mothers on the rise.

    Like


  92. Hitman,

    I thought the suit went without sayin’.

    Like


  93. Patrick…abortion is infanticide.

    You lose, fag.

    Like


  94. 1. Do vegans swallow?

    2. Vegetarian girls’ vaginas taste better

    3. Killing a baby the day it is born is wrong. Killing a baby the day before it is born is also wrong. You have to go back to a day when it is not really a baby before it is not wrong.

    Killing two human cells is probably okay. They are just two cells. There is some point where it is just a collection of cells, before it is a baby, that terminating it is not wrong. This is probably at the end of the first trimester. I am ok with abortion before that point.

    4. Killing fish is okay as their central nervous systems are pretty fucking insubstantial, and they don’t feel a lot of pain. Also, us humans would not have developed such big brains without fish omega 3 oil.

    5. Eating meat is probably wrong. We can survive just fine without meat. I just don’t care that it’s wrong.

    Like


  95. Dreamer –

    Because for a man of my age and means, I don’t have to settle for a woman who has a child by another man. Though this is not an absolute rule, it is nearly a deal-breaker for a long-term relationship and at minimum a hindrance to casual dating.

    That said, its true that capable guys can clean up with the young single moms as they (rightly) feel like they’ve lost a great deal of leverage and will attempt to make up for it with affection and outright sexual appeals. That, and their guilt complexes make them especially vulnerable.

    The numbers of obese women are also on the rise, but that doesn’t make me more likely to consider them either.

    Like


  96. Patrick

    Abortion is no more unnatural to our species than hunting is. Its a highly preferable alternative to the old solution: infanticide.

    Explain to me exactly how abortion and infanticide differ.

    Like


  97. Faolán –

    Have you developed an artificial womb which doesn’t result in retarded, malformed, and short-lived infants yet?

    Such a (potential) substitute exists for birthed infants, and has since before we came down from the trees.

    Like


  98. Roissy, I think abortion’s a bad topic for us.

    Half of the Gamers have no problem with abortion. However, they split into two factions: those like you who admit its killing and don’t care, and those morons like Patrick trying this feminist-twisted wordplay to argue that its not really killing somehow la-la-la can’t hear you.

    Then there are the other half those like me, driven to game by dislike of female immorality, who dislike abortion because it kills an innocent.

    Unfortunately, unlike most other political topics, its really irrelevant to Game. If you fuck a broad, you are fullfilling your Darwininan desire to impregnate her. Using protection is your only true help. Given our laws today and feminism, whether you want her to stay pregant 1) isn’t up to you; and 2) only brings out the anger on both sides.

    Like


  99. Yep, according to St. Pat, if it can’t live on its on, its not alive.

    Let all those people on respirators and pacemakers know that.

    Like


  100. I for one am glad that my 22 yo ex-girlfriend had an abortion

    Does your son or daughter visit you in your dreams?

    Not being wierd here, just noting that you are responsible for the death of another human being. But like I noted in my earlier comments in this thread, sometimes homicide is justified.

    (and attendant preserved body)

    Women do not necessarily lose their figures due to pregnancy. Many just use it as an excuse to pull all stops on the gorging.

    Like


  101. “Good post. Makes up for the last one.”

    Dumb comment. Doesn’t make up for the previous ones.

    Like


  102. “Have you developed an artificial womb which doesn’t result in retarded, malformed, and short-lived infants yet?

    Such a (potential) substitute exists for birthed infants, and has since before we came down from the trees.”

    None of this answers my question to you.

    Like


  103. PA: “Women do not necessarily lose their figures due to pregnancy. Many just use it as an excuse to pull all stops on the gorging.”

    —Darn, darn true. Women in the 1950s and before retained their old figures long after 5+ kids. They didn’t overeat. Look at pictures of your grandmom if she was middle class or above.

    Like


  104. “Yep, according to St. Pat, if it can’t live on its on, its not alive.

    Let all those people on respirators and pacemakers know that.”

    No living organism can survive “on it’s own”.

    Breathing, eating, drinking, all require that an organism interact with others and it’s environment.

    Like


  105. point taken, Faolan. St. Pat set up a really weird rule there.

    Like


  106. Lurker, you’re unequivocally saying that if your hypothetical wife or girlfriend were pregnant with a rapist’s baby, you’d want the law to see to it that she carried it to term.

    Or does the rapist’s race factor into it for you?

    Like


  107. Yes.

    No, it doesn’t.

    But the rapist should be exectued. Except the Supreme Court, in its infinite unelected wisdom, stated otherwise.

    Hope that answers your questions, St. Patty.

    Like


  108. “A woman should be forced to carry a child to term, even a rapists. But the rapist should get the death penalty and she should get all his property”

    — lurker

    Lurker, what do you think about the Duke Lacrosse Rape case?

    Like


  109. xxx, relevance? It was faked.

    Like


  110. Lurker –

    So long as you (the forcibly cuckolded), your violated wife, and the rapist’s baby get his X-box upon death, you’re cool with it.

    Awesome.

    Like


  111. Not cool with it, St. Pat. But I don’t go killing someone who is innocent of the crime.

    Of course liberals like you beleiving in punishing 3rd parties. That’s why you blame todays whtie men for the sins of old ones.

    Awesome, killer.

    Like


  112. i don’t know about you guys but i hunt my meat…african style.. like this guy:

    and of course i do the ritual at the end.

    but when i’m lazy i go to a restaurant and for some reason people look at me weird when i caress my steak.

    dam yuppies.

    Like


  113. True, the girl in that case wasn’t knocked up. But the whole world thought she was telling the truth. Men can be convicted of rape based on a woman’s words alone.

    Like


  114. Since even Germaine Greer stated that she would much prefer to be the victim of a non-violent rape rather than lose her pinky finger… and since when surveyed, the vast majority of women reported that they would rather be the victim of a non-violent rape than, say, have the government forcefully take custody of their children from them… it makes it kind of absurd that anyone could possibly suggest that the crime of rape should be deserving of the death penalty. The severity of this crime is mainly perpetuated because society constantly moans at women that they can milk the victim-gravy-train until the day they die – their lives are RUINED I tell you, because they were raped! (Oddly, we wouldn’t say that a woman’s life was “ruined” if they lost a leg in an auto accident, would we?)

    Like


  115. lurker–

    Patrick…abortion is infanticide.

    Not it’s obviously not. They are two different things.

    But regardless, I’m in favor of allowing abortion. Though if women are allowed that choice, men need abortion and give the newborn up for adoption rights too, in fairness.

    (Somewhat different abortion one’s as it’s true it’s not his body carrying the fetus, but ones which will like the woman’s choice, enable him to terminate his legal rights and responsibilities towards the child if he doesn’t want it.)

    Like


  116. “Not it’s obviously not. They are two different things.”
    —wrong dougie. they’re both infanticide. As roissy states above, they are just in 2 different locations.

    It is obviously infanticide.

    Like


  117. @doug
    “men need abortion and give the newborn up for adoption rights too”

    Really? I’ve always found this viewpoint intriguing (as I do quite a few of your ideas). Care to elaborate on that? I’m curious.

    Like


  118. on November 9, 2009 at 4:12 pm Cannon's Canon

    abortion is the lone ‘Siren of Sexual Dystopia’ that also holds some benefit to men with game (one of the Four Horsemen of stasis).

    for men without game, there is little intrinsic benefit to abortion free-for-all, apart from the occasional pity-fuck thrown their way by promiscuous, indiscriminate women.

    however, men can learn game; restricting abortions would disincentivize the pursuit of game, with lower utility to be gained.

    so i can empathize with both positions, but i remain “pro-choice”. like all complex issues, i am usually disappointed in the thought processes of my cohorts.

    Like


  119. And if in the course of being forced to carry the rapist’s child she dies in labor (as over 400 women in the US do each year), is she a 3rd party bearing an undeserved punishment at your hands, Lurker?

    Attention rapists!: Lurker is guaranteeing the integrity of his hypothetical wife’s womb to ensure your genetic lineage –albeit, begrudgingly!

    He’ll attend your lethal injection and hold his wife’s hand as your spawn exits her dragooned womb into his open arms and weeping eyes. Plus, your surrendered windowless van will make a much-needed contribution to his (your) beautiful new family!

    Like


  120. on November 9, 2009 at 4:14 pm gunslingergregi

    ”””’xxx
    “A woman should be forced to carry a child to term, even a rapists. But the rapist should get the death penalty and she should get all his property”

    – lurker

    Lurker, what do you think about the Duke Lacrosse Rape case?”””””

    Yea jesus christ 99 percent of woman would be filing rape charges every other day.

    Like


  121. Doug1,
    Yup-yup. The problem on the Male side is very simple: so many have been brainwashed for so long insofar as White Knighting is concerned, that they’re cool with a completely outmoded way of doing business on the Male side, but have no problem with Women having it both ways on the Female side. Again: the issue is simple. Either you’re for Reproductive Rights accross the board, or you’re not. If Women reserve the right to decide when and if they become a parent, divorced from sexual activity, then that same right has to be applied to Men as well; otherwise, in essence, your advocating a “seperate, but unequal” kind of deal here. All the “but what about the children” arguments are a red herring because that has already been addressed with the original Roe decision. Same deal wrt “keep it zipped up!” argument-the whole of the Roe decision said that a Woman had a “right to privacy”-so, they have that right, but not Men?

    As for an increase in welfare, etc, if we “let Men off the hook”-well, don’t Women make as much if not more than Men in America’s major cities when controlling for education, etc? In fact, we now know that Women are gaining college degrees more than Men. Also: Women already have a full menu of choices available to them, NONE OF WHICH INVOLVE MEN. So, again-if Women have a right to a sex life without consequence, why can’t Men?

    Personally, I think it has deep evolutionary reasons for this, for both Men and Women. For the most part, Women DO NOT WANT MEN ENMASSE to be able to have the tools and methods available to be able to gain sexual access, pretty much at will to Women. Why? Because Women have been wired to SCREEN MOST MEN OUT. Fixing it so that most Men can get what they want sexually seriously messes with the radar so to speak. Roe For Men would do that, as would Game, hence all the fervor against both, not just from Women, but from a goodly number of Men, too.

    Which brings us to the Menz-quite a few guys aren’t crazy about Game or RFM either, and again, EP explains why. First off, competition for the choice females has always been fierce, and just about anything has been fair game to knock each other out the box in that regard. Simply put, passing RFM removes the punitive measures toward more Men from getting the maximum amount of sex from Women-and thereby, be a potential threat to other Men. Unlike Women, who’s “place” in the social hierarchy is pretty much fixed, a Man’s position can move up or down, and is often subject to forces beyond his control. Keep potential competitors at bay is an important, crucial element in all of that.

    The Male “backlash” against Game can be seen here as well. Think about it-the very act of Men doing things to give them more advantages in the dating market creates a visceral reaction in a goodly number of Men and quite a few Women. When one understands EP, one understands why that is.

    Game and RFM gives more Men maximum options, something neither lots of Women, and a goodly number of Men, wants to see.

    And that’s why Game and Roe For Men, is so vociferously fought against.

    Learn to use Occam’s Razor instead of a butterknife, and you too shall cut quickly through Life’s Bullshittery.

    Now adjourn your asses. 😉

    The Obsidian

    Like


  122. on November 9, 2009 at 4:21 pm Cannon's Canon

    rape should not be a capital crime because it endangers women. if a man rapes a woman, he leaves a witness to testify at his death sentence. he benefits from escalating and killing her. what’s to lose?

    if a man wakes up with a hangover and the girl he brought home is feeling skittish that morning, he must weigh the risk of killing her against the risk of doing nothing and being accused of rape and sentenced to death.

    it’s primarily an economic dilemma.

    Like


  123. on November 9, 2009 at 4:23 pm gunslingergregi

    Perfect the lie detector test and womans tears become moot.

    Like


  124. Half of the Gamers have no problem with abortion. However, they split into two factions: those like you who admit its killing and don’t care, and those morons like Patrick trying this feminist-twisted wordplay to argue that its not really killing somehow la-la-la can’t hear you.

    I’m interested in what makes you think that it is an objective, observable, scientifically demonstrable fact that personhood begins at conception. It is an objective fact that a life form is created at conception. But the property of “personhood”–which entitles an entity to a certain inalienable rights– is a purely metaphysical construct. Scientific facts can inform the criteria of this property, but it is ultimately a matter of human decision, based on philosophical reflection, whether or not to assign the property to any given entity. Science can’t tell us something like “If this cell cluster has 1, 2, and 3, it is a person,” like it can tell us “if this cell cluster has and X and Y sex chromosome, it is a male.” Since the criteria for personhood is solely the domain of philosophical debate, there are a variety of very plausible views as to what constitutes it. Some of these plausible views entail that aborting a fetus is in no way morally equivalent to murdering a functioning adult human.

    So, it’s fine that you believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a person, that is one plausible view to take. How you could think that your view is something scientifically confirmed, or objectively true, however, is beyond me.

    Like


  125. on November 9, 2009 at 4:29 pm gunslingergregi

    I mean I just watched that show where the woman are sure its the guys baby and then it turns out its not. Woman I am 1 million percent sure. Then finds out its not then cries. Shhhiiiiitttt

    The guy every time its his is asked are you gonna take care of it?

    We all know it isn’t his choice.
    He is going to be paying child support.

    What they should have is a nice really large meat grinder to throw the bitches in who are 100 percent sure it is the father. When it is not where is there punishment for being lieing idiots.
    Let that meat grinder go to work on that ass when they lie. Shit throw the kid in too.

    Like


  126. on November 9, 2009 at 4:31 pm gunslingergregi

    Or I suppose could make it fair. When the dude is said not to be the father. The chick who accused him of being the father gets to pay him the equivelant child support he would have paid if he was the father for the 18 to 21 year life sentence. Lets really really equalize the playing field on this. Equal not beyond equal with special priviledges.

    Like


  127. I’m pro-abortion because I think it’s a necessary evil. But here’s my question for the pro-choicers who don’t even consider it a moral conundrum (“uh yea of course I’m pro-choice. what sane person isn’t it?”):

    Do these people only celebrate a pregnancy at three or six months? So they get pregnant, but of course, it’s not a “life” until the second or third trimester according to their abortion argument, it’s only a potential life. Thus, if they celebrate being informed they’re pregnant (basically celebrating the potential for life in their argument), they should also celebrate simply having sex with the same joy because it too represents a potential for life. And if the baby dies prior to three months, are they not sad? I mean, it’s not a life so why care that it’s no longer there?

    Of course pro-choicers celebrate when they’re informed they’re pregnant which implies they don’t believe their bullshit about when life begins.

    More germane to the post: I think this is why pro-lifers like to show those disturbing pictures of aborted fetuses.

    Like


  128. Yeah:

    “I’m interested in what makes you think that it is an objective, observable, scientifically demonstrable fact that personhood begins at conception.”
    —oh that *personhood* feminazi word play. Just another idea brought along by academics with nothing better to do than to justfy the unjustifable.

    “It is an objective fact that a life form is created at conception.”

    —your *personhood* or whatever bullshit feminazis want to call it begins when you are conceived.

    “How you could think that your view is something scientifically confirmed, or objectively true, however, is beyond me.”
    —to do otherwise is to allow exactly what is happening: slowly, evil forces will define away what is “personhood” until only those in power can decide if you are truly a person.

    The left has long done this. Hitler defined Jews as non-humans. Stalin defined “enemies of the state” and “rootless cosmoplitans” as not part of the collective revolutionaries—therefore not human and worthy of the gulag/death. Now Feminazis and Singer-animal-fuckers are tryign to define *personhood* away so that anyone below the age of 2, or anyone who dares to deny feminism or animalism somehow is inhumane.

    BY agreeing to the logically inconsistent personhood/conception dichotomy, you sign your own death warrant.

    Winston CHurchill said of the captured Nazis that it would have been more honest to merely line them up and shoot them rather than run through the fake trials at Nuremberg. But the US left and Stalin wanted to “prove” they were morally superior based on made up law.

    Churchill was forthright: there was no law against what they did, but what they did was an abomination. By the hypocrisy of the show trial, we put ourselves on both hitler and stalin’s plain.

    Same here. Better to declare it murder while we do it than hide behind this personhood fiction.

    Like


  129. Ps that is why roissy is respectable on this point.

    Like


  130. on November 9, 2009 at 4:53 pm Dark Wing Duck

    @ Dreamer
    “Really? I’ve always found this viewpoint intriguing (as I do quite a few of your ideas). Care to elaborate on that? I’m curious.”

    Google “Choice for men” or “C4M”

    It is basically a paper abortion for men who don’t want to be fathers or responsible in any way/shape/form for a child.

    In my dreams I’d demand 2 out of 3 conditions to put a man’s name on a child birth certificate.

    A) DNA test verifies paternity
    B) Married to the mother at the time of childbirth
    C) Surrogate contract with mother to deliver child

    If a man doesn’t meet 2 out of 3 of these conditions then the father’s name is left blank and the mother has 100% responsibility.

    Women have 100% control, they should also have 100% responsibility.

    Shalom,
    Dark Wing Duck

    Like


  131. on November 9, 2009 at 4:58 pm Dark Wing Duck

    @yeah

    “So, it’s fine that you believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a person, that is one plausible view to take. How you could think that your view is something scientifically confirmed, or objectively true, however, is beyond me.”

    How about brain activity equals personhood?

    You’ll still have about 6 weeks to make it to the clinic.

    Shalom,
    Dark Wing Duck

    Like


  132. —your *personhood* or whatever bullshit feminazis want to call it begins when you are conceived.

    What I’m talking about with regard to personhood is so incredibly far removed from feminism, liberalism, or politics in general, that it really makes you seem like a mentally unstable zealot to anyone a little familiar with the debates that have gone on about the topic. For what it’s worth, they start with John Locke about 300 years ago. Derek Parfit’s book “Reasons and Persons” is an authoritative contemporary source on the discussions.

    “How you could think that your view is something scientifically confirmed, or objectively true, however, is beyond me.”
    —to do otherwise is to allow exactly what is happening: slowly, evil forces will define away what is “personhood” until only those in power can decide if you are truly a person.

    Well, at least you do admit that your view isn’t scientifically verifiable or demonstrable.

    Now Feminazis and Singer-animal-fuckers are tryign to define *personhood* away so that anyone below the age of 2, or anyone who dares to deny feminism or animalism somehow is inhumane.

    Fwiw, Singer’s agenda (which I think is ludicrous) is also rather removed from feminism. He is interested in defining away personhood, and humanity in general, though.

    Like


  133. I just found out that feministx is just another “Libertarian Girl” hoax by Kantor. Thought some of the lonely men on this blog should know.

    Like


  134. Wendy Schwartz You can now stop crying yourself to sleep every night missing me

    LOLROF

    You have a lot of catching up to do. Femx has been working hard to claime your property. Your first step to reclaiming your man, take off you shirt.

    Like


  135. yeah, being dumb:

    “What I’m talking about with regard to personhood is so incredibly far removed from feminism, liberalism, or politics in general, that it really makes you seem like a mentally unstable zealot to anyone a little familiar with the debates that have gone on about the topic. For what it’s worth, they start with John Locke about 300 years ago. Derek Parfit’s book “Reasons and Persons” is an authoritative contemporary source on the discussions. ”
    —lol. exactly. an made-up academic concept that is used to justify the unjustifiable, by giving those in pwoer the right to define their enemies as non-persons.

    “Well, at least you do admit that your view isn’t scientifically verifiable or demonstrable. ”
    —fyou flaming eejit. You make up a concept that is undefined and vague deliberately, and then claim that because no one can prove it scietificially (because it was created to be unscientific) that some how that is a failure.

    Nice job owning yourself, son.

    “Fwiw, Singer’s agenda (which I think is ludicrous) is also rather removed from feminism. He is interested in defining away personhood, and humanity in general, though.”
    –Singer’s agenda is exactly linked with feminism: both seek to destroy clear distinctions by playing with language, inventing vague, abstract concepts that are unscientific in nature, and then trying to force the conversation into frames where they control the definitions minute to minute.

    Singer, feminism, abortion all hinge on NewSpeak, and DoubleThink: constantly shifting definitions sentence to sentence to obtain their ultimate goals: Singer, to place animals above humans; Feminists, to put women above men. Both are academic disciplines far removed from reality, and both are tripe by leftists to attack the “evil ones”, i.e. white straight males.

    Your fake concept of “personhood” is just another fake term used to divide scientific—life, conception—from reality, by claiming that merely being alive isn’t enough.

    Bitch, please.

    Like


  136. Dreamer; Obsidian

    I’d add to Obsidian’s arguments, most of which are similar on the Roe for men issue to my own, that it’s good in the same breath to advocate for men having the same right as women to give their newborn up for adoption as well. Why don’t they? How is it fair that they don’t.

    The fact is in many states a woman who’s given birth but doesn’t want to be a mother can drop her infant off at a firestation, no questions asked. In all states women have the option available to them to give their newborns up for adoption.

    In both cases, the choice of abortion and the choice of giving the child up for adoption, the woman can chose after coitus and conception to have no responsibilities as a mother thereafter.

    Why aren’t men given the same choice? How can it possibly be fair that they aren’t?

    Men should be able upon timely notice of a woman’s pregnancy presumably by them to notify that mother back in turn that they wish to abort all of their responsibilities, but therefore also rights (of visitation, etc.) if the woman takes the pregnancy to term. She can then make an informed decision about whether to do so, or chose to give it up for adoption right after birth.

    The one part of your argument above Obsidian that I do significantly disagree with is this:

    For the most part, Women DO NOT WANT MEN ENMASSE to be able to have the tools and methods available to be able to gain sexual access, pretty much at will to Women. Why? Because Women have been wired to SCREEN MOST MEN OUT. Fixing it so that most Men can get what they want sexually seriously messes with the radar so to speak. Roe For Men would do that, as would Game, hence all the fervor against both

    That is why many women (as well as some men) oppose game. They use words like “trick” and “fake” as their reasons for disapproval. That goes right to what you’re talking about.

    No the reason women don’t support Roe for men is pure and simply money. They WANT the option to be able to put a man into involuntary servitude for 18 plus years if the have an “oops” or decide they want an “oops” and want to go it alone without marriage at least for now, or are opposed to abortion. (But remember there’s the give up for adoption option.) Women want more options. If it’s at the man’s unfair expense, so what? Hey, he should have kept it zipped. (And never mind that he should have kept his legs close.)

    Many women girl think about this as being “unable to bear” either aborting or giving for adoption their baby, so of course the beastly and irresponsible man should step up. And no she shouldn’t have to marry him and keep on sexing him as the quid pro quo for getting his support for 18 years either. After all it’s just for

    Like


  137. on November 9, 2009 at 5:18 pm Biting Beaver

    I swear LURKER you are singularly one of the dumbest person on god’s planet. The funny thing is that you are oblivious to your own stupidity–You are too stupid to see just how stupid you are.

    Like


  138. at the same time i judge people negatively for each action. i wouldn’t want an abortion for my woman, and i personally wouldn’t forgo meat. both – abortions and meat abstinence – are an affront to human nature. we protect and nurture our young and have eaten meat to survive and flourish.

    How could abortion be an affront to human nature when we have such a thing as spontaneous abortion?

    Like


  139. BB, get raped.

    Like


  140. “How could abortion be an affront to human nature when we have such a thing as spontaneous abortion?”
    —and how could all death, since we have spontaneous heart attacks and strokes?

    Like


  141. oops. continuing.

    After all, it’s just for HIS BABY.

    Of course she doesn’t deal with the fact that he doesn’t want it, but she does. (If he does want the baby, fine. That’s not what Roe for men addresses. If he wants the baby and visitation rights without her agreeing to marry him, then yeah, he can pay child support as now.)

    Women on the way to evolving into homo sapiens became sexually receptive almost all month long instead of during a brief in heat estrus period in order to strengthen the human pair bond, to facilitate fatherhood and the raising of children, most scientists believe. I.e. it’s fundamental to being human that there’s a trade of female regular sexing of her mate in return for and to keep attracting male interest in his offspring. Which few to no other male mammals show. This is the bedrock of the institution of marriage, which the vast majority of the world’s peoples have since before recorded history socially embraced.

    Forcing a man to support at very high after tax levels (which include an alimony component) a child that he didn’t want, without getting the wifely services expected traditionally in marriage (regular sex at least while she’s young being fundamental) in return, is deeply oppressive.

    It’s indentured servitude.

    Like


  142. —and how could all death, since we have spontaneous heart attacks and strokes?

    I never claimed death was an affront to human nature.

    Like


  143. on November 9, 2009 at 5:33 pm gunslingergregi

    But what is the solution since guys are going to have kids no matter how oppresive laws will get.

    Solution is to make the woman work to help you and her aquire the resources needed to raise the kid before impregnation. Then if ya split up so what.

    Dangling the carrot of having your kid and getting married can be an extremely effective tool in getting the woman motivated to do what it takes to achieve the desired result.

    Like


  144. OK totally off topic.I just number closed a woman I met in a library.Been eyeing me for a while.I walked right up and asked for her number ( made a hash of it btw) she gave it to me unhesitatingly.Told her we might go for some coffee.How long should I wait tio call?

    Here’s what I found out about her: Likes movies.

    Favorite movie quote:”

    Like


  145. on November 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm gunslingergregi

    Purpose
    Direction
    Motivation

    Like


  146. on November 9, 2009 at 5:35 pm Biting Beaver

    lurker
    I just read your response to “yeah”…and your stupidity is amazing. You probably thinks that calling names and shouting and fighting proves something.

    There is dumb…and then there is “lurker dumb”.

    You obviously havent read any serious books on ethics or laws before, have you? Zero philosophical grounding or exposure to medical ethics/dilemma.

    Talking to you is like discussing Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory with a down syndrome patient.

    Like


  147. On Men’s reproductive rights:
    Men have no reproductive rights. If you get a woman pregnant, she can do whatever she likes with that pregnancy. The man can be forced into fatherhood against his will or a child he wants, can be aborted. A man has no say in the outcome either way.
    Women will indeed tell you that men indeed have reproductive rights. The man can abstain from sex or wear a condom. However, abstaining is not a reproductive right, it is what everyone, man and woman, is doing when they are not having sex. Wearing a condom is not a reproductive right; it is merely a contraceptive, a preventative measure against pregnancy….just like the pill.
    Reproductive rights only come into play when there is an actual pregnancy. In the States, Roe vs. Wade established it was a woman’s right to choose. Now, what legal precedent established that a condom protected a man from having fatherhood imposed on him against his will? If there were a law, men would be protected from the legal consequences of pregnancy, then wearing a condom would be a reproductive right. But there is no such law, so condom or not, if a woman falls pregnant you will be forced to pay child support if she has the baby. In other words, men have no reproductive rights.

    Like


  148. Sorry hit submit by accident.

    Fav quote:”I’ll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure.” Mae West

    Says she is most like Bette Davis (?!)

    Likes the Bridget Jones series.

    Any comments or observations based on the above info?

    Like


  149. @doug
    always interesting to hear your opinions, b/c currently it’s not mainstream or popular to advocate men’s rights regarding abortion.

    hopefully i’m not being “desperate,” but i find you appealing and would enjoy talking w/ you beyond this blog ;).

    Like


  150. Dreamer–

    btw, as a matter of political expediency, rather than what’s strictly fair, I’d be willing to compromise on Roe for Men by aggreeing that if and for so long as a single woman who has child qualifies for welfare, then the biodad but unwilling father who indicates he didn’t want the child can be made to pay her child support up to such amount only, rather than the state having to do so.

    It’s not strictly fair because the state doesn’t have to do so, it’s decided or it’s voters have that they want it to do so.

    Like


  151. on November 9, 2009 at 5:40 pm gunslingergregi

    ”””””’wow
    On Men’s reproductive rights:
    Men have no reproductive rights. If you get a woman pregnant, she can do whatever she likes with that pregnancy. The man can be forced into fatherhood against his will or a child he wants, can be aborted. A man has no say in the outcome either way.
    ””””””’

    There are choices in life wow that cannot be taken away no matter how many laws on this earth are passed.

    Like


  152. there was video on youtube asking a bunch of protesters at the abortion clinic “what should the penalty be for a woman who has an abortion?”

    none of those stupid christians would answer. not one of them would punish the woman getting the abortion, if abortion was illegal.

    it makes no sense.

    Like


  153. on November 9, 2009 at 5:41 pm gunslingergregi

    This is where woman fuck up in thinking the system always has the final say it doesn’t. Not for men or woman.

    Like


  154. on November 9, 2009 at 5:44 pm gunslingergregi

    ””””””’Doug1
    Dreamer–

    btw, as a matter of political expediency, rather than what’s strictly fair, I’d be willing to compromise on Roe for Men by aggreeing that if and for so long as a single woman who has child qualifies for welfare, then the biodad but unwilling father who indicates he didn’t want the child can be made to pay her child support up to such amount only, rather than the state having to do so.

    It’s not strictly fair because the state doesn’t have to do so, it’s decided or it’s voters have that they want it to do so.
    ”””””””’

    Yea Yea punish the poor guys. Except every woman qualifies for welfare lol

    Like


  155. Doug1 –

    How would you determine whether a man intended to be a father or not upon each sexual encounter, other than his own testimony?

    Like


  156. on November 9, 2009 at 5:48 pm gunslingergregi

    If we can send billions to africa for aids “help”

    Shouldn’t we be able to afford to take care of our babies without enslaving a gender?

    Like


  157. It is against a man’s free will to force him to pay for a child he never wanted, just like it is illegal to force a women to have a child. Men forfeited their reproductive rights.

    Upon unwanted conception, a man should be able to sign a document via a lawyer asking to not be named as father if she proceeds with the pregnancy.

    Of course, whether she proceeds with the pregnancy is directly proportional to how thick his…….wallet is. Ask an NBA player.

    Like


  158. Vegetarian girls love to eat my thick and tasty meat. They especially love the year’s worth of white protein I freely give to them in the end.

    Like


  159. BB, if you had a brain cell in your bald, raped head, it would be the first one, and kill itself out of lonliness.

    There is dumb…and there is “feminist” dumb.

    Glad to see that St. Pat came running back for more.

    Like


  160. Vegetarian girls are for guys with tiny dick who like to be bossed around.

    Like


  161. Doug1, Dreamer,
    I think my explanation of why both Game and Roe For Men creates such a visceral reaction in both Women AND Men, makes a heck of a lot of sense once one takes Evo-Psych into account. And, I plan 2 blog about this tomorrow at my place: theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com. Until then though, a quick recap:

    1. Game and RFM creates strong reactions in sizable segments of both the Male and Female communities because it threatens the age-old and evolutionarily informed “way of things”; it confuses the “Alpha Male Radar” of Females, and introduces more sexual competitors for the Males-particularly those deemed by Women to be Alpha Males.

    2. Women in particular, do not like for Men to have expanded sexual options. This is another reason why many of them dislike Game and RFM. Being able to determine when, if, and how sex and procreation takes places confers a tremendous amount of power on the Female; Game and RFM threatens both of these.

    3. Another reason why Women in particular dislike Game is because they see a mirror image to the very many kinds of “games” they play. For example, the very act of using makeup or bras are “games” designed to enhance their appearance-yet they see no problem in doing this, and in fairness, one is hardpressed to find a Man who will complain either. Some Women say they don’t like the word “Game” because it connotes using deception or trickery of some kind-but the truth is, that Women can and often are just as conniving and calculating, and not only will they do it, but they will either condone it being done by other Women, or fully and tacitly endorse it when other Women do it, too. The issue isn’t the word, it’s the very means for more Men to have and then exercise more sexual options in the dating and mating marketplace. If Women are the “sellers” of said marketplace, why would they be cool with more “consumers” (ie Men) being *educated* consumers?

    Again: use Occam’s Razor, not a butterknife.

    The Obsidian

    Like


  162. Roissy, great post. This is a good example of how primal responses only trigger in specific ways, ie visual observation, smell, and sound are the strongest pathways to disgust, an visceral idea wrapped in a opaque shroud of silence can be easily entertained. Domain dependent cognition/instinct.

    Like


  163. @Obs
    Interesting perspective, as always. You’re a great writer, as well, I’ll be reading the blog ;).

    Like


  164. Strangely, I glanced at the title of this post without much focus and registered “Conversations with a Vagina.”

    Like


  165. OK totally off topic.I just number closed a woman I met in a library.Been eyeing me for a while.I walked right up and asked for her number ( made a hash of it btw) she gave it to me unhesitatingly.Told her we might go for some coffee.How long should I wait tio call?

    Here’s what I found out about her: Likes movies.

    Favorite movie quote:”I’ll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure.” Mae West

    Says she is most like Bette Davis (?!)

    Likes the Bridget Jones series.

    Any comments or observations based on the above info?

    Cmon Roissy,WTF!

    Like


  166. Ovid Fav quote:”I’ll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure.” Mae West
    Says she is most like Bette Davis (?!)

    Both were known as rather sassy demanding women who didn’t suffer fools lightly.

    Likes the Bridget Jones series.

    Had a good handsome beta who wanted her but ran after the alpha instead.

    Dreamer to bhetti hopefully i’m not being “desperate,” but i find you appealing and would enjoy talking w/ you beyond this blog .

    *elbows bhetti*
    *nods head towards dreamer*
    See that chick right there, she is trying to move in on your man. You might need to handle that.

    Like


  167. Ovid – No one cares. Just assume from the quote that she’s been thrice-fucked in the ass and operate accordingly.

    Like


  168. Obsidian–

    Being able to determine when, if, and how sex and procreation takes places confers a tremendous amount of power on the Female; Game and RFM threatens both of these.

    Roe for Men would do nothing to diminish a woman’s right or ability to be sexually choosy. Rape does, which is why feminists focus so much on it, and on radically expanding the definition of it. They even want to make men criminally liable for rape if the girl’s been drinking but is still walking and talking, and consents to sex when tipsy, but has buyer’s remorse the next morning.

    What Roe for Men does do is diminish her right to get her baby and herself supported by a man who doesn’t want it. Evo Psych and your line of reasoning would suggest that would mostly be alphas’ babies women would want to keep. So what women are wanting is to force alphas into paying for babies the alphas didn’t want, and that’s why women so oppose Roe for Men. They want that backstop and that option. Options for women and total fairness for women, not balanced at all by similar fairness for men. That’s what so many American women want.

    Really whether women keep babies and don’t abort has to do mostly with 1) how opposed they are to abortion; 2) how good they think their prospects are for eventual marriage while they can still have children to a man they really want to be married to (her age factors into this heavily, as well as her looks and SES); and 3) how much child support he’s good for relative to her other prospects.

    Like


  169. “ME: So you eat fish but not delicious pig or cow?”

    That made my sides ache from laughter.

    Im a member of PETA.

    PETA= People who
    Eat
    Tasty
    Animals

    Like


  170. Patrick–

    How would you determine whether a man intended to be a father or not upon each sexual encounter, other than his own testimony?

    The idea is to give him the same post coital rights she has to terminate parental obligations. It’s not a pre pregnancy determination but a post pregnancy one, like she has.

    I think the practical default should be that he doesn’t want to be a father, if he hasn’t married her and hasn’t said he does post pregnancy (without changing his mind) in a manner that she can prove. A letter from him would prove it. Her sending him a form to check and his returning it with yes or no would prove it.

    But if you want the default to run the other way, then she should have the duty to inform him of his paternity to the fetus by registered mail. He should have three weeks after signing for the registered mail to make his decision and return it to her, by registered mail. If she doesn’t send such a letter, he can opt out at any time. If she does and he signs the mail received registered mail slip, then unless he timely responds no to her, he’s on the hook for child support.

    I think there’s a good deal of play for gotcha in the later and that the default assumption that he opts out of single fatherhood unless he in writing says he’s oped in is much fairer – to both. She can tell him that unless he opts in she aborting or giving up for adoption.

    Like


  171. PETP = People who
    eat tasty pussy.

    Like


  172. I wonder how many women would support abortion if men, not women, got pregnant?

    Imagine men killing their babies.

    Abortion is certainly killing. My only beef is men have NO abortion rights, or any reproductive rights, period.

    Like


  173. I wonder how many women would support abortion if men, not women, got pregnant?
    ==

    Pretty sure abortion would be a capital offense.

    Men harming innocent children!!

    Like


  174. Wow, has this blog ever fallen to shit. Vegans and abortion? This blog at one time had a lot of potential. Oh well. Next.

    Like


  175. Its great to be anti=abortion. But living in a country—as well as a world–where dependent races are breeding like flies,how can anyone be pure on abortion? Are you going to send doctors to jail for aborting a Mexican or Black woman baby?? Not me!

    Like


  176. Conversation I Had With An Ex Vegetarian Girl:

    There is a roast chicken in front of me. She is next to me.
    Bhetti: “Oh, look. Those are the little ribs! 1, 2, 3…” [What can I say? I was fresh from the dissecting room. Fascinating.]
    Cleo: “Oh, God. I’m going to go throw up. How could you do that?”
    Cleo becomes a vegetarian again.

    Of course, Cleo went on to have an abortion later in life.

    She was surprisingly a little more self-aware about her beliefs. She would explain why really cruelty to animals was unforgiveable to her: she hated human beings and loved animals instead. She didn’t believe any benefit to a human being derived from an animal was worth it as that human being is worthless.

    Conversation I Had With A Hesitating Omnivore In Front of A Butcher’s:

    Omnivore: “It is kind of cruel, the way they hang the animals up like that.”
    Bhetti: “We eat or be eaten.”

    I am pro-life.

    A mistake made in the abortion debate is that what’s significant is the logic of it. Logic matters not, practically speaking. It is the woman who is pregnant: it can become a life to her the moment she finds out about it. The science, the spirituality, nothing matters. The determinant is her perspective and how she feels about being pregnant. What kind of woman doesn’t automatically picture this life and want to nurture it? What was her experience with the father of this cell mass and how will she redefine it? For the conceptus to be meaningless, so must the father.

    How unnatural is she, as a female?

    What chaos is she wrecking against her own instincts?

    How unnatural will she become, once the path for her to become a person who disregards her nurturing instinct in favour of convenience and rationalisation?

    How messed up are her relationships?

    Where did she go wrong: in wanting to abort, or being in a situation where a pregnancy was unwanted?

    The evidence tells us little about what effect it has on mental health: either no effect or a negative one.

    Like


  177. Its the mothers baby, let her do with it as she wants.

    Why does the right babble about freedom, while attempting to remove said freedoms? Moralists, be they left OR right leaning, are akin to fascists, in that they force feed the masses their ideology. Tear this mother fucker down and cut it in two. One area for baby loving warmongers, and the other for baby killing pacifists.

    Like


  178. BB, after the boneheaded trollery of nearly all your posts here, in which you seldom got beyond lobbing insults at the blog and its commentators, it’s ridiculous for you to complain that Lurker knows nothing of ethics or argument or whatever accusations you tossed at him.

    Doug1, you write about a man’s right to terminate his legal rights and responsibilities towards the child if he doesn’t want it. I don’t think you’ve thought this through as a practical matter. It isn’t in the child’s interest, it isn’t in the mother’s interest, and it isn’t in society’s interest, the latter because society needs to be able to hold men responsible for the support of their offspring or take on the burden as a charge to the public purse. I do wish that more single women would give up their children for adoption, rather than choosing abortion or raising them as single mothers, which would effectively free men from financial responsibility for them. Perhaps that’s what you should be fighting for, instead of your impractical wish for men to be able to “sign away” paternal responsibilities unilaterally. Even in the Good Old Days before the women’s movement, men did not have this right, not ever. Of course, paternity was harder to prove then, but if there was half a chance that a particular man was the father of a particular bastard child, he was always responsible for supporting it.

    This may be one of those issues in which men just have to accept that life, and sex in particular, is not fair. Women have to do that too, often enough. Like accepting, for instance, that our youth and appearance count for more to men than our personalities and achievements. Or accepting that we can’t really have the same kind of sexual freedom as men, no matter how hard we try to pretend otherwise. Nothing to be done about either.

    Clio

    Like


  179. Consent to sexual intercourse is not consenting to fatherhood. Except in law…thanks to feminists and sexless beta manginas.

    If society views her burden of carrying the baby as “dangerous” and “difficult”…so be it. If she decides to have the child, she in effect is waiving her risk.

    Of course, this is still in direct proportion to how much the man can ante up monetarily….because its the law, and it’s unconstitutional.

    Black women abort like it’s an Olympic sport because the “baby daddy” brings nothing to the table financially.

    Like


  180. “This may be one of those issues in which men just have to accept that life, and sex in particular, is not fair.”

    Why should men have to accept anything…it’s a direct violation of my free will.

    Like


  181. You do not want to get a woman pregant (maybe at some point in the future) but have a strong desire for sex. You cannot trust women to take the pill. And using a condom is like licking a candy with its plastic wrapping on! What can a person applying game do?

    Like


  182. Would you yell “Jump!” if you could clearly see that man’s face, etched with pain and sadness?

    No, but I daresay roissy would, or would like to…..so’s he could prove his incredible alpha-hood. In his definition: all brains and no heart or soul.

    Like


  183. vasectomy, monogamy, condom, withdrawal, calendar method…employ them all.

    Like


  184. on November 9, 2009 at 8:53 pm gunslingergregi

    Make sure they have an implant.

    Like


  185. true story:

    -met a guy at a wedding who said he stole a goat from a farm with a buddy.
    -brought it back to the city (suburbs probably) and kept it in his backyard.
    -girls loved the goat (of all the pickup props nothing beats a live goat)
    -when food ran out (i think they preferred to buy booze over food) they had a rock-paper-scissors game to decide who will kill it, clean it, etc.
    -threw a bbq/party.
    -at the party some of the girls were asking about the goat
    -they told them some lie as to its whereabouts
    -only after the goat was eaten they announced to everyone that they were in fact eating the goat

    fin

    Like


  186. on November 9, 2009 at 9:09 pm unlearning genius

    Why are you engaging in an intellectual conversation with a woman? Just say things like “that is a very profound observation”, ” You are so unique in your thinking” .. when a woman starts to talk “intelligently”.. This not only makes the woman feel smart, she also associates smartness with you.

    Like


  187. on November 9, 2009 at 9:25 pm unlearning genius

    @clio,
    “our youth and appearance count for more to men than our personalities and achievements. Or accepting that we can’t really have the same kind of sexual freedom as men, no matter how hard we try to pretend otherwise. Nothing to be done about either…”

    That is a very profound observation, You are so unique in your thinking.

    Like


  188. Dude,

    You know you’re game. But you’re associating the messenger with the message. Just because a bunch of hippy multiculturalist chicks are vegetarians doesn’t mean that vegetarianism is stupid.

    I think blacks are less intelligent and if we wanted to we could easily enslave them and take away their rights.

    But we don’t.

    Now replace blacks with animals.

    Like


  189. In 2012, we’ll eat the Vegans first.

    Also, notice how many Vegans are total pussies. Eat some fucking animal protein and lift a barbell one in awhile, fag.

    Like


  190. unlearning genius, rest assured that I will not be associating smartness with you any time soon.

    p.s. Dude (ahem – not my usual mode of address but it seems to fit here), you gotta stop leaving your flank open this way.

    Like


  191. on November 9, 2009 at 10:32 pm unlearning genius

    @clio,

    what! I say something nice and i get this in return?

    Like


  192. on November 9, 2009 at 11:12 pm msexceptiontotherule

    Considering the fact that cows and other livestock are going to be slaughtered and their sole purpose for being to begin with is for FOOD; I’ll eat meat so that I don’t feel guilty about animals raised for consumption being slaughtered and then going to waste – much more tragic to think about.

    Like


  193. on November 9, 2009 at 11:33 pm theobsidianfiles

    Clio,
    W/all due respect, your reasoning wrt Roe For Men is seriously flawed. As I noted before, all of the notions of “Male responsibility” are outmoded, antiquated “social constructs” of Old British Common Law, something that’s easily hundreds of years old-and Women know it. This is another case of Women having it both ways. The issue is very simple-youre either for Equality, or you’re not. Period. If a Woman has a right to choose, then Men do, too-and here’s the thing:

    Just as Women who couldn’t get medically safe abortions resorted to the back alleys, Men who don’t want to be dads will resort to all sorts of measures to keep from paying for kids THEY DON’T WANT. Until Men have the same right to “abort” this issue will never, ever, go away.

    Women now earn their own money; many Women CHOOSE to be singlemoms, often going to fertility clinics or adopting. There is no issue here, only an intense desire by both Women and a goodly number of Men, to impose restrictions on the right of Men to fuck, there, I’ve said it. They don’t want Men who can, to Bun & Run, but the horse’s out the barn, now, which happened way back in the early 70s w/Roe. We said that Women have the right to screw without consequence-did we honstly think that would continue forever, that only one half of the country could decide but the other can’t? Come on. Roe For Men truly equalizes things, balances the scales, for everybody. Women get what they want, and Men get what they want.

    Full and complete Reproductive Rights-either you’re for it, or you’re not.

    Simple as that.

    The Obsidian

    Like


  194. Well, Obsidian, since I don’t believe in “a woman’s right to choose”, your argument doesn’t really apply to me. It’s the babies I’m more concerned about in these situations, not their mothers or their fathers.

    American law, as I understand it, is based on a mixture of English common law and “natural rights” theory as expounded in your Constitution and Bill of Rights. The first “natural right” is the right to life; get too far away from that, and many distortions and outright evils will follow, in the law and in society.

    In any case, to speak of “equal rights” in sexual matters, when the biological and sexual destinies of men and women are so different, and when a third party (a child or potential child, however you choose to see it) is involved, is disingenuous at best. I can’t think of a good analogy at the moment, but it’s a bit like saying that the rich and the poor ought to pay equal taxes – equal in absolute value, not as a percentage of income, since they have or ought to have an equal obligation as citizens to support the state and the services it provides. Or – perhaps a better comparison – it’s like saying it’s unfair for men and women to have separate divisions in sporting events like races, because if the sexes are equal they ought to compete as persons rather than based on their gender.

    Like


  195. on November 10, 2009 at 1:25 am unlearning genius

    @clio,
    “Or – perhaps a better comparison – it’s like saying it’s unfair for men and women to have separate divisions in sporting events like races, because if the sexes are equal they ought to compete as persons rather than based on their gender.”

    I have to admit again, These are very profound observations, Your thinking is so unique and beyound our times.

    Like


  196. The vegetarians were less likely to be obese , or to have high blood pressure , diabetes , rheumatoid arthritis , or colon cancer. G-Spot Sex

    Like


  197. on November 10, 2009 at 4:41 am aussie girl in australia

    So children are being killed at the request of their mother and the first thing you see wrong with this is that father’s should get to opt out of parenthood too.

    The selfishness of this world-view is appalling.

    What about the one person in this equasion who has no voice and yet has the most to lose?

    Like


  198. on November 10, 2009 at 5:45 am Sir_Chancealot

    Vegans are only vegans for two reasons: Their society cannot produce enough meat for large-scale consumption, or their society produces so much food, they they do not have to eat meat.

    Let a vegan who thinks it is “cruelty to animals” go without food long enough, and I guarantee you they will kill an animal without a pang of guilt.

    Case in point: Ted Nugent used to have a “survivor” type show a few years back. There was this girl who was a self-proclaimed vegan on there. After 3 or 4 days of going without food, Ted brought them live chickens. If they wanted to eat, they had to kill the chickens. This “vegan” girl (who was 3 days into hunger mode) picked up this live chicken, and bashed it’s skull against a rock to kill it. She then cleaned it, cooked it, and ate it. Later on, she went on a deer hunt with Ted, and killed a deer to feed the group.

    When the belly starts rumbling, cave-man (and cave woman) instincts kick in. Animal “cruelty” comes second place to “I’m fucking starving, and if I don’t kill that animal and eat it, I die.”

    Like


  199. In fact, the girl is more coherent than our pal Roissy. Roissy tries to imply that he is a true bad boy, and he makes ” evil” choices consistently.

    The problem is that Roissy doesn´t abide by any moral code. He is a nihilist. Saying that he is evil, means that he acknowledges some kind of superior moral code exists. This is bull in his case. There is no good or evil in Roissy´s world. In Roissy´s world, choices are dictated by power or feeling, since these are the only concrete directives in the lack of a divine moral code. Utilitarianism, the other possible directive, is in fact a mix of the former two.

    The girl guides her behavior by her feelings. She could have just said that she loved snails. It doesn´t matter. She is coherent with Roissy´s world, but Roissy is not.

    The case of abortion today is similar to the case of slavery. Most people with power supported slavery in the XIX century. Most people with power support murdering babies today. In any place where a superior moral code served as a guide, abortion doctors would have their brains sucked out in a public square. Through the anus.

    Read and Learn from a superior intelect, Roissy. I have told you before not to stray from your main humorous themes. Every time you do, you miss it. You are Miss Manners for men, nobody wants to read Miss Manner talking about metaphysics.

    Like


  200. I only read part of the responses here, but did modern science die off lately? Normally reasonable people like PA seem all into the “Life begins at conception” view, discounting the fact that until 4 weeks, an embryo looks or acts no more human than a chicken wing. It’s a belief that has no more basis in observable facts than saying a gob of your outer skin cells warrants some special treatment because it’s part human. It’s a small unrecognizable blob of dividing cells, and “belief” that it should somehow be treated as a human just doesn’t change the fact that it’s not.

    Embryos and fetuses develop in the order of evolution, so the spine comes first, and then the finer brain functions last and so on. The main part of the brain (cerebrum) develops at 12 weeks, so that’s one decent way of defining human life. Another is at the time of viability (when the child can live outside the womb), which starts at 21 weeks, after 27 weeks almost every fetus is viable. At least it makes some kind of sense to say a fetus should be treated like a human when it starts to resemble at least some kind of developing small creature, even though it might not look different than a developing crocodile or hamster. But then you could say it doesn’t make sense to call something with the brain capacity of a smart insect human. Personally I believe the limit should be around 8-12 weeks, and anything after 18 weeks should be treated as murder. But if you believe life starts before the embryo attaches to the womb (most don’t), then you can go sing along with the catholics in The meaning of life.

    The funny thing is many of the persons usually concerned about welfare and government expenditure don’t know the practical effect of allowing abortions is that the number of babies born from dumb mothers and dumb, irresponsible, violent fathers decreases markedly. Abortions do happen in every class, but in practice it usually happens much more often to those who are too stupid to reliably take birth control pills. These women instead end up having a string of stupid, violent and/or over breeding kids, instead of having a string of abortions. Of course the literature doesn’t actually say so right out, but it’s pretty clear to anyone who can read and think for themselves. In fact it’s probably the closest thing you have to eugenics in practice today, because it really does remove a lot of low IQ genes from the gene pool.

    Like


  201. “What about the one person in this equasion who has no voice and yet has the most to lose?”

    Thank you! I’m so glad that _finally_ someone is thinking of _me_!
    Took you long enough.

    Like


  202. I do believe that life and humanhood begin at conception but I also explained that I am not a pacifist: there are grim situations when aborting a child is better than carrying him or her to term.

    A home invader, an enemy combatant, or a man with 95% third degree burns are also human. But sometimes killing them is better than letting them live.

    Like


  203. I think implantation is a better benchmark than conception.

    Like


  204. Some people in the crowd below will yell “Jump!” as the poor guy stands high above them, lonely on the ledge, contemplating a suicidal leap. Would you yell “Jump!” if you could clearly see that man’s face, etched with pain and sadness?

    I don’t waste energy on those who haven’t wronged me.

    Like


  205. The main reason I spend the extra money on pastured meat, eggs, and cream is because animals eating the diet their digestive system is suited for (mainly grass for ruminants, fresh greens and insects for chickens, as opposed to corn and soybean meal) are healthier themselves in a variety of ways, and therefore much healthier for me to eat. But, it doesn’t hurt that they have better quality of life.

    I have zero problem with killing animals and eating them, though. For anything to live, countless other organisms must die. And all you self-righteous vegans and vegetarians out there, it’s the soy and corn monocultures that you love so much that is destroying entire ecosystems here in America as well as ruining the fertility of the Great Plains and poisoning everything and everyone with pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer run-off. Feedlots do very little in comparison. If it was up to me all that land would be used to graze animals and we would all be eating primarily animal products.. Then there wouldn’t be any fat people which would make everyone happier…

    Like


  206. reminds you of the women who talk about having actually witnessed an abortion firsthand….and become pro-life. abortion is something that i would bet very few girls have actually seen firsthand. as such, it’s easy to rationalize “my body” and all that….

    Like


  207. Here’s my latest conversation with a vegetarian girl:

    Me: So, you gettin’ the flu shot?

    Her: Well, I’m privileged in that – I shouldn’t say that, since I think it should be a right – I eat a lot of vegetables, and…

    Vegetables as human right.

    Like


  208. Hermes, I see she comes from the Bill Maher School of Medicinal Quakery.

    Like


  209. on November 10, 2009 at 1:28 pm notamoronunlikesomepeople

    “You don’t have a problem with third trimester fetuses getting torn limb from limb and sucked out of the womb?”

    What kind of a dumb question is this to ask someone, anyone, let alone a girl you want to have fun with?

    [editor: i had already had fun with her. still am.]

    Roissy, you’re a retard.

    [i enjoy making people face their id monsters.]

    Like


  210. “reminds you of the women who talk about having actually witnessed an abortion firsthand….and become pro-life. abortion is something that i would bet very few girls have actually seen firsthand. as such, it’s easy to rationalize “my body” and all that….”

    I think it’s safe to say that abortion is something very, very few people have seen first-hand. Male or female. The gory reality of natural miscarriage or the birth of a fetus too early to save, is something many more have.

    There are few big differences between them IMO – it’s either the uterus contracting to expel a fetus (often alive and in distress) or strong suction/direct slicing which kills it in short order. A medical abortion results in a fetus suffering for a much shorter time. Suction or curettage techniques are not used for late-term abortions – the baby is delivered whole, but usually killed beforehand with an injection.

    It makes me LOL that so many men here are all fucked-up in the head about 1st trimester jellybeans or amphibian-looking 2nd trimester fetuses being forcibly expelled from their mother’s wombs. It’s so not a big deal to me, even though it is technically the deliberate destruction of a human life and hence ‘murder’. There are different situations in which murder is acceptable in our country (war, self-defense of property, your person, or defense of someone else) many different charges which can be applied to individual murders(1st and 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, police action) they are somewhat different in other cultures (honor killings and crimes of passion have lesser or no consequences in plenty of places, for example).. so abortion is murder. Big deal. Nothing can stop women from getting abortions. It might was well be safe and legal.

    BTW, according to the best data “88.2% of abortions are conducted at or prior to 12 weeks, 10.4% from 13 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.” I find that 1.4% most disturbing to think about, personally, but it’s a pretty small amount of infants overall, and most of the time it’s not because the mother doesn’t want a baby. I know one woman who had a late-term abortion, and it was of an anencephalic baby which had developed with no upper skull or brain at all (sometimes they have a partial brain stem, but usually not), is incapable of feeling pain, and will live for a few hours at most with assistance if it survives birth at term.

    Like


  211. Bonnie opined:

    I know one woman who had a late-term abortion, and it was of an anencephalic baby which had developed with no upper skull or brain at all (sometimes they have a partial brain stem, but usually not), is incapable of feeling pain, and will live for a few hours at most with assistance if it survives birth at term.

    People – This is a shocking, pointless, senseless waste. They could’ve been like, totally saved and write for GirlGame!

    Like


  212. bonnie–have you ever been pregnant with a wanted 6 week old “LOL” “jellybean” and miscarried?

    just curious

    Like


  213. Aliasclio

    It isn’t in the child’s interest, it isn’t in the mother’s interest, and it isn’t in society’s interest, the latter because society needs to be able to hold men responsible for the support of their offspring or take on the burden as a charge to the public purse.

    Perhaps you missed where in a follow up post I said that I would agree that if the woman does decide to keep the baby that if and for so long as the woman qualifies for welfare, the man can be required to pay child support so long as she does in equal amounts.

    No it’s not in the woman’s interest to not be able to hold the unwilling father in indentured servitude for a child he didn’t want, when she had the ready means to not have it either, or to give it up for adoption. It wasn’t in slaveholders interest to have their slaves forcibly freed either.

    Keep in mind clio that the rate of single motherhood has exploded since feminism. The percentage of out of wedlock births was in single digits in 1960 and before and at 12% in 1972. It’s at 40% today. I have come to believe that a large majority of unwed births are actually intentional. It’s just in the girl’s interest to say otherwise, in getting sympathy etc. Lots of opps pregnancies. Lots of subconsciously intentional ones as well. If the consequences were greater the incidence would be much lower as it used to be.

    Even in the Good Old Days before the women’s movement, men did not have this right, not ever. Of course, paternity was harder to prove then, but if there was half a chance that a particular man was the father of a particular bastard child, he was always responsible for supporting it.

    That was by no means always true, if it was know that the girl slept around for example. Or if she were of a much lower class. As well the remedy in the first instance was generally that if she wanted support she had to be willing to marry the man. Which meant he had a right and she had a duty to go on providing him regular sex, without ready divorce and support available either. When child support was paid it was generally agreed at far lower levels than anything like the 30% after tax extractions today. Which are crippling, and when the man makes good money, a boon for women wishing to not be bothered by a husband in having a child.

    This may be one of those issues in which men just have to accept that life, and sex in particular, is not fair. Women have to do that too, often enough. Like accepting, for instance, that our youth and appearance count for more to men than our personalities and achievements. Or accepting that we can’t really have the same kind of sexual freedom as men, no matter how hard we try to pretend otherwise. Nothing to be done about either.

    The unfairnesses you give as examples are only arguably that. Youthful and pretty girls would regard men’s desire for such things as an advantage, not an unfairness. As for sexual freedom, in many ways or in fact most ways most women have more. They can have as much sex as they like, most of them and with reasonably attractive men. There are some consequences yes, but less than ever before at least at the hands of men, if they wish to go that way.

    As well it’s a statutory unfairness that Roe for Men wishes to overturn.

    Why clio shouldn’t a woman be forced to give her child up for adoption if the biodad wants that alternative? Or if she couldn’t afford to raise the child she wanted but he didn’t on her own? Why isn’t that much fairer than making him support a child for 18 years at levels that will often keep him from having one with a woman he wants to have a child with?

    Like


  214. The best thing is to just admit you’re a hypocrite or don’t claim not to be one.i

    Like


  215. …wait that doesn’t make sense….
    don’t claim to NOT be one.

    Like


  216. Cruel, Firepower.

    Like


  217. aliasclio

    In any case, to speak of “equal rights” in sexual matters, when the biological and sexual destinies of men and women are so different, and when a third party (a child or potential child, however you choose to see it) is involved, is disingenuous at best.

    Requiring that unwilling biodads so handsomely pay for those third party bastards means that far more of them are being born in that condition. If child support at high after tax percentage rates couldn’t be extracted from men who didn’t want to have a baby out of marriage by women who do, there’d be far fewer babies born outside of marriage. As there used to be, in the days before high level child support was extracted.

    Like


  218. double negatives
    don’t never make
    no sense

    mowt

    Like


  219. @doug
    i respect that opinion, if only because of the lower OOW birthrate aspect. measures should be taken to lower the rates, and women prob. won’t favor those measures. they’d take lots of freedom and choice from women, but at the same time, reintroduce much-needed stability.

    Like


  220. aliasclio-

    The practical reality is today that in many cases in the upper half or third, most probably, ambitious women at least will either abort or give a child up for adoption when that pregnacy comes at a bad time for them.

    But if it comes at a better time for them, or fits in better with their plans, then tough luck for the man, regardless of what kind of time it is for him.

    Lots of these are oops pregancies, directly intentional or subconsciously so.

    Women ought to have to convince a man to want to marry support her and her child, and offer him something ongoing in return, to get a man’s ongoing financial support. Now in 40% of births she doesn’t have to, because of sky high after tax percentage rates of child support for children the men didn’t want.

    This is new and it’s deeply oppressive.

    Like


  221. Abortion isn’t done so that women can avoid pregnancy. It’s done so that men can avoid responsibility. If you have premarital/pre commitment sex, then you should be okay with abortion.

    Whether the life expires in the womb or at the age of 100, you’re responsible for taking a life as soon as you create one.

    Like


  222. They must pretend:

    They’ve a whacking big problem. First, they must pretend not to know when life begins. They must pretend not to realize that life is an autonomous process, a continuum from zygote to old-age pension, a self-elaborating force that begins when it begins and keeps growing unless it’s vacuumed out first. They must pretend not to recognize something that a cat recognizes: the difference between things alive or dead, animate or inanimate. They must pretend not to see that if a fetus were not alive, it wouldn’t have to be killed.

    Like


  223. Clio,

    You are in a particularly feisty mood in this comment thread. It is really sexy.

    And as to your complaint that women cannot enjoy sexual freedom to the same degree as men, you can enjoy as much sexual freedom with me as you like…

    God, your so hot…

    Like


  224. I really hope none of the prolifers here are against paying taxes. After all, someone must pay for the orphanages, social workers etc.. to take care of so many unwanted children.

    Like


  225. Doug When child support was paid it was generally agreed at far lower levels than anything like the 30% after tax extractions today

    Yeah, I’ve heard of people getting about 10-20 bucks a month back in the 80’s before the system was changed.

    Doug1 to clio Lots of these are oops pregancies, directly intentional or subconsciously so.

    A man should never chance it with a random woman who takes the pill. wrap it up.

    Like


  226. That was by no means always true, if it was know that the girl slept around for example. Or if she were of a much lower class. As well the remedy in the first instance was generally that if she wanted support she had to be willing to marry the man. Which meant he had a right and she had a duty to go on providing him regular sex, without ready divorce and support available either. When child support was paid it was generally agreed at far lower levels than anything like the 30% after tax extractions today.

    Doug, only your last point in this list is unquestionably true. A woman who slept around might still be able to obtain support for a child if it was clear that she had been exclusively involved with one man at the time of its conception, and in the close quarters of pre-modern towns and households, this usually was quite clear.

    As far as being compelled to marry the father of her child – yes, if he and she were of equal social rank and especially if they were a long-standing couple and more or less betrothed. If not, she might well be married off, but not to the father of her child; more likely to some willing fall-guy who would certainly have to be bribed into accepting the woman + child, probably by a dowry from either the woman’s father or the baby’s father, or perhaps both. Unless an unwed mother was of the pauper class, and fatherless (not that rare 100 years ago, but not all that common either), it was relatively unusual for her to be left to face the consequences of her pregnancy with no help from anyone. What’s more, in some regions men faced serious consequences, like social ostracism or being beaten up by a woman’s male relatives, if they abandoned the women with whom they had conceived children.

    Society’s main interest was not to protect men’s rights, or for that matter those of women or babies, but to avoid having a child become a charge on the public purse, as I’ve said here before. Even men of Byron’s or Tolstoy’s rank, to name two well-known seducers, were expected to support their bastard offspring, though of course some did so more generously than others.

    Like


  227. chic…why a condom?….does a condom protect him from child support if it were to break? Is that a new law? It decreases the chance of pregnancy, but it still doesn’t protect HIM and his finances if she were to fall pregnant!

    It doesn’t do a great job against HPV or herpes either….

    Like


  228. clio…You’re quoting times of chivalry…chivalry is dead and feminism killed it….except when it favours them, such as reproductive choice.

    Like


  229. aliasclio–

    There was far, far greater incidence of men not having to support their bastard offspring if they didn’t want to than your retelling suggests. Most of the time not I’d suggest.

    When they did it was so as not to starve or be unsheltered and beyond that up to them generally.

    Further until recently few women could support themselves at all decently or often at all, other than through prostitution. Now women can well support themselves, and a child, without a man’s help, in the large majority of cases. Not as well as with another income of course. But they aren’t offering anything in return for that income are they? No ongoing wifely services, which are a bedrock of human pair bonding and how men became attracted to sticking around to raise children.

    The man by stipulation didn’t want the child. If he did, he would have been married most likely but in any event, he can certainly agree to parental rights and obligations under what I or any other Roe for Men advocate I’ve seen proposes.

    The prospect of bearing a child out of wedlock for all but the most fortunately situated women in the most tolerant families and communities was truly a dismal one, which contributed mightily to it’s rarity.

    Now under the feminist rules which you support in this area, bastardry is at 40%. It’s a right and fine option for many women.

    Who are now enabled to place men in indentured servitude to cough up a HUGE percentage of their after tax earnings.

    At a time when 50% more women than men graduate from American law schools and more 40% more women graduate college than men. At a time of equal or superior female earning ability, if they want to go that route instead of more yoking men.

    Through unwed mother mandatory child support, even when the mother doesn’t qualify for welfare, where I’ve said the man should have to pay to that extent.

    Deeply unfair and inequitable Clio. Gender discrimination. Women have post coital choices to terminate their parental obligations. Two of them. Abortion and adoption. Men have none. Gender discrimination by law.

    Like


  230. chicnoir–

    Yeah, I’ve heard of people getting about 10-20 bucks a month back in the 80’s before the system was changed.

    Yeah. From men earning nothing or nothing the system could find.

    But anyway that’s how it should be. Nothing for the slut. She ahd the choices. She wanted the baby and not just the sex. She bears the consequences.

    After all, women doing better in school and get AA to boot now. Can earn more if they want to instead of many yoking a man after awhile.

    So unless you’re exchanging something with the man he want to get, in return for you child support, you don’t get it. Not down the barrel of a gun anyway.

    Btw. I’d join a revolution over this and similar issues and shoot you if on the other side chic. (Clio too of course.)
    Join and then rise up to at least somewhat lead. No hesitation.

    I’m saying I have murderous feelings on this chic if it ever hit me, and even in theory.

    Like


  231. Wow chic…why a condom?….does a condom protect him from child support if it were to break?

    But it’s 80% effective when used effectively. Sort of like how crossing the street on a red (vs green)light, decreases the odds that you will hit by a moving car.

    Wow It doesn’t do a great job against HPV or herpes either….

    This is true but in life nothing is 100%. In life one should try to take big risks only when you’re comfortable the worst possible outcome. Sooooo strap up pal.

    Like


  232. Clio–

    Society’s main interest was not to protect men’s rights, or for that matter those of women or babies, but to avoid having a child become a charge on the public purse, as I’ve said here before.

    You seem to be talking about the period in England post it’s Civil War when the Poor Laws came into effect and became absorbed in social mores. Hardly a European much less world or civilized (urban, state level agriculture, literacy, etc.) universal.

    Like


  233. doug1 But anyway that’s how it should be. Nothing for the slut.

    huh??? what is your definition of a slut???

    Doug I’d join a revolution over this and similar issues and shoot you if on the other side chic

    😯

    Yikes!

    *chic noir runs behind whelmer and maurice*

    *yells to doug1 with the help of a megaphone*

    Well I’m in the middle actually, but I guess you would shot me anyway. Maybe I ought to get in good with the hardcore feminists just to protect my back anyway.

    *looks to al,lr,Marcus A,kim and femx*

    Ladies get me some alpha armor.

    doug Clio too of course.)

    *tupac and patrickh puff out chests giving doug the evil eye*

    *sigh*

    like most men, it’s your way or the highway with no room to compromise. I find that even most “betas” aren’t truly beta or even “Om” as defined here and can become boorish even when you’re only friends with them.

    P.S. A side note doug, I don’t think guys such as yourself and epoxy would do well in a gender war. After defeating the women, you all would turn on each other. Most betas would rub guys such as yourself out since you’re the e-type to have large harems of women. That makes it all the harder for betas to have even one woman, and that makes them very jealous of men like yourself.

    Like


  234. Doug, English poor laws existed before the English Civil War (1642-1651) and continued to exist long after it – in fact, until modern times. Here’s a wikipedia blurb on the subject:

    The English Poor Laws were a system of poor relief which existed in England and Wales that developed out of late medieval and Tudor laws before being codified in 1587–98. The Poor Law system was in existence until the emergence of the modern welfare state after the Second World War.

    I’ve deleted the footnote numbers but they are there in the article.

    I spoke of Britain because its laws and social assumptions were part of the common culture passed on to American laws and institutions, and that included its poor laws, at least until the creation of the Republic. (See link, here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/bortz.html)

    Of course, American family law developed rather differently from the English model over the years – it tended to be rather more favourable to women and bastard children, until very recently when English law caught up and then surpassed it.

    [editor: i like how you used the term “bastard children”. so very un-clio. are my wicked ways rubbing off on you? i sincerely hope so!]

    Like


  235. p.s. I made a mistake in writing out that link – I think you’ll need to delete the closing bracket to find it. I’ll try reposting it here without the bracket to see if it works:
    http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~natalieb/sociwelfare.htm

    Like


  236. Aargh. One last try. (Roissy, you can delete my first p.s. if you like.)

    http://www.ssa.gov/history/bortz.html

    Like


  237. Ok Chic, so are you proposing that a law be written absolving men of child support if a condom breaks?

    I mean, a women knows when a cock slides in her the chances of getting pregnant go up. She just gets the freebee get out of pregnancy card?

    Here are a woman’s choices:

    Pre sex:

    1. The pill
    2. Demand a condom+spermicide
    3. Deprovera shot
    4. IUD
    5. Tubal Ligation
    6. Diaphragm
    7. Demand he get a vasectomy
    8. Abstinence (say no IF PREGNANCY IS SO HARSH!)
    9. Withdrawal
    10. Calendar method
    11. Use some or all

    Post sex:

    1. Morning after pill
    2. Abortion (irrespective of whether he wants the child)

    Consent to sexual intercourse is not consenting to fatherhood, except in law…and this is so the government doesn’t have to look after single moms who fail at practicing my list above.

    How arrogant is it, from feminist corners, to call a man a “deadbeat dad”, when he never wanted to be a father in the first place? He just wanted to have sex, LIKE SHE DID….and a sperm met an ovum and boom…she has all the options and he has none..despite equally consenting to intercourse.

    Both of them participated in the same act, but only the male is labelled a deadbeat, the woman, who cannot afford to maintain herself and child without other people’s money, is not a deadbeat, but instead the victim of a deadbeat.

    Like


  238. on November 11, 2009 at 2:48 pm Wendy Schwartz

    Admittedly I didn’t read this post at all or most of the comments because the moment I saw abortion discussions mixed with the phrase “swine flu” I went blind with white-hot rage at human stupidity once again…..

    BUT if you are calling abortion a “birth control option” for women then you obviously consider a vasectomy a “birth control option” for men because they are both costly, somewhat dangerous, and a “surgical procedure” (even though I’m pretty sure they no longer consider Vasectomies as “surgery”).

    Any man/woman who says that “abortion” is an unfair birth control “option” for women cannot deny that one could just as easily say that any man who DOESN’T get a Vasectomy (just because it’s “available”) is deserving of getting slammed with Child Support from every single women he ever lets his sperm get near.

    It’s the same thing and you people are stupid if you try to use “a woman’s right to choose to have a major and expensive surgical procedure” as an option that men DON’T have. Vasectomy is YOUR option, so shut up and go pay for those and see if you still think that’s an “easy available option”.

    Like


  239. on November 11, 2009 at 2:59 pm Wendy Schwartz

    1. Do vegans swallow?

    2. Vegetarian girls’ vaginas taste better

    Ahem. I hope you’re aware that Vegans and Vegetarians are barely comparable?

    Vegetarians basically just think beef is nasty poison (screw you, Vegans that’s what it comes down to!)

    Vegans are practically psychotic against even eating something that contains “whey” that touched something that once touched an animal with a stick from 10 miles away.

    Dealing with a Vegan and dealing with a Vegetarian are two VERY different things. I dated a Buddhist Vegan once and I couldn’t even eat milk and cookies at night without brushing my teeth immediately and going in a different room to drink the milk because he was so disgusted by the mere sight of me drinking it and possibility of it lingering on/in my mouth and touching him……..

    Yeah. Fuck them, seriously.

    Like


  240. Wendy Schwartz

    Admittedly I didn’t read this post at all ….

    yep: so what else is new.

    the fact you are creeped out by submarines is so fucking cute its actually endearing, if, of course, just a bit Freudian. its so obvious, even i will refrain from harvesting yet another baby unicorn kitty while she’s distractedly, hazily, looking for auras, flush with joie de vivre from the Jimsonweed.

    Go Nautilus!

    Like


  241. “bonnie–have you ever been pregnant with a wanted 6 week old “LOL” “jellybean” and miscarried?

    just curious”

    Nope, never been pregnant.

    Like


  242. LR: A million abortions a year…sounds like pretty standard birth control to me.

    Like


  243. Firepower–

    yep: so what else is new.

    the fact you are creeped out by submarines is so fucking cute its actually endearing, if, of course, just a bit Freudian. its so obvious, even i will refrain from harvesting yet another baby unicorn kitty while she’s distractedly, hazily, looking for auras, flush with joie de vivre from the Jimsonweed.

    Go Nautilus!

    Believe it or not, if I see a post is something that’s going to make me insane with rage, I just block it out (and don’t read it) for my own sake.

    Try to tell me that submarines AREN’T creepy. Those dudes are like 7 feet from nuclear bombs with what??? Some steel and a foot or two of wall??? Hell no.

    I do love psychology, but I actually am a Freud-Hater and think he’s a douche compared to Jung and some others. I’m more a “behavioral conditioning” kinda gal, so NO!!

    Like


  244. Pro-choice doesn’t necessarily have to mean that they themselves would get an abortion. There are plenty of women who are pro-choice who would never take that step if they became pregnant. It just means that they believe that women as a whole should be able to have that choice.

    Like


  245. A lot of veganism is all hypocrisy. It’s shocking the philosophical inconsistency women allow themselves.

    I say women, because by and large, it’s all women who engage in this. They’ll also say – I have a right to be inconsistent. I’m X (Special, Extra, Different, A Snowflake). As if we’re not supposed to have contempt for them.

    Like