Why are biological differences not considered valid arguments?

cloudydays84 · 2020-07-10T17:48:55+00:00

I'm not saying I disagree with your premise but if I were to play devil's advocate then I'd say the same can be implied to any person that has sex male or female.

The case your making here is that by having sex and ejaculating into a person you are consenting to the possibility of a baby, an NDA.

The same type of rhetoric is basically used by pro-lifers when the concept of abortion is brought up. Their oh so simple solution is "don't want kids, don't have sex, easy peasy". It kinda sidesteps the crazy idea that people have sex without the intent to get pregnant.

So I could make the argument that no abortions paper or otherwise should be allowed if pregnancy occurs because that's "part of the deal".

Now obviously there is nuance to this, women are the ones that have to carry the baby to term and have to deal with all the real word steess and consequences that might come with that. Trigger Warning: Also there are extreme cases where pregnancy can occur in situations that aren't consensual like sexual assault and rape. And all of that is valid evidence to why there is a difference.

But what you're implying here is that simple act of having sex implies a willingness to potentially have a child and to raise it, it's a kind of spit in the face to personal and sexual autonomy for both sexes.

Laws like the ones pro lifers want to make and the one you just described also affect people differently. Anti-abortion laws while fucked up across the board disparagingly hurt lower income and minority populations more.

The old waspy family that comes from old money can afford having their son get someone pregnant or their daughter getting pregnant.

The almost below the poverty line working class family that is basically living paycheck to paycheck legitimately could not afford to have one of their kids or family members get pregnant let alone afford another baby.

It's rhetoric that's actually been used before by the upperclass to bad mouth the poor. "Oh those ignorant poor people should stop having kids if they can't afford them, it's so simple" but once again they completely forget that people have sex for pleasure and unlike them they may not have access to viable contraceptives and in some cases may not have the knowledge available (so in a way they are ignorant but not in shameful way).

And even if you do everything "right" it's not always 100%, contraceptives fails, people misuse them which is easy enough given how complicated female contraception can be, hell even vasectomies aren't 100%. The idea that people that get pregnant by accident are just woefully incompetent is kinda part of that rhetoric as well.

The concept of a paper abortion is something that I as a guy really don't vibe with completely, right now in my life I don't want kids so I wear condoms, my current partner is also on birth control so the odds of us having a child is low. In the rare circumstance that she somehow gets pregnant and wants to keep the baby a part of me does feel responsible and I would want to support the child out of a sense of moral and personal obligation (and it's not like I hate babies/kids).

But I can understand the reason and emotions behind it. Some people are legitimately not willing or able to provide for a child and would not wish to do so, people like that in my opinion shouldn't be parents. And I'm not saying that accounts for all women but that is a reason some women choose to get abortions because they aren't ready or willing.

I made a comment on the post yesterday saying that if a person is willing to go so far as to want to opt out of taking care of a life they helped to create, forcing them to isn't the solution. Just like I wouldn't force a woman to have a baby.

I'm going off on a tangent here so I'll try to wrap it up.

Are there biological differences between getting someone pregnant and getting pregnant that need to be taken into account? Hell yes!

Does that mean the person getting someone pregnant is gonna be completely unaffected by the result of said pregnancy? No.

Are their fears and worries justified? Ehhhhh, understandable in theory less than righteous in action.

I'll be the first to say that something like this wouldn't be a one size fits all kind of thing and is something that probably needs to be understood case by case.

flowerfairy-1 · 2020-07-11T02:43:07+00:00

I’m gonna be honest, how is it that men have to listen to biology and “know the consequences” whenever they have sex, but for women they have a right to choose and can do what they want with their bodies. It seems incredibly unfair.

Aaren_Augustine · 2020-07-10T17:22:02+00:00

This concept as a concept shouldn't be too difficult for women to understand. Maybe difficult to accept, but not understand.

In government contracting, we have two types of contracts. Bilateral and Unilateral. Bilateral means both parties must agree. Unilateral means the government gets to decide without the contractors approval.

So having sex DOES NOT EQUAL CONSENT to starting a family. This is so obvious, I don't even know where to start. If this was truly the case with women, NONE of you would be having sex outside of marriage or with out the intent of getting pregnant.

Women's decision to keep the baby is a UNILATERAL decision that the guy is not given.

Now I know women are smart. This is so basic, that women in all their ability to empathize, should be able to understand this. And you can go straight to a skydiving abortion clinic and get a new parachute before you crash into the ground.

Edit: Thanks for the silver.

Karmanger · 2020-07-10T17:56:09+00:00

if you cum in a woman you are consenting because that is always gonna be a possibility just based off of the laws of nature.

Then if you believe that then women should not have the right to abortion since they consented to the mans Sperm and should bring the baby to full term regardless of their situation.

Die during Childbirth? Tough you consented to the kid through sex.
Kid will be born deformed? Tough you consented to the kid through sex.

Sperm + Womb = Baby, Hey the woman consented to it and forfeited her right to an abortion because she knew it was a possibility to get pregnant.

If I were to use your same logic.

TheBookOfSeil · 2020-07-10T20:29:49+00:00

Because they would have to apply in all cases, not just ones that were good for you. You think that women bearing children should mean that they get special privileges related to that biological difference. Show me where that argument makes sense.

Also, if women get those special privileges by virtue of their sex, I think that men can do the same. Since we are the stronger sex, that makes “the patriarchy” a totally valid thing that men can do because of our biological differences. However, women seem to have a problem with that because it’s not “equal.” Well guess what? You’re basically saying that it doesn’t have to be.

whichbladeN · 2020-07-10T17:24:08+00:00

[removed]

ifelsedowhile · 2020-07-10T21:17:37+00:00

there are reported cases of women raping unconscious or semi-unconscious men and getting pregnant. It's too big of a risk for men to be exposed to it. If you think it's just a rare occurrence that doesn't deserve legislative action, then it's because you can't empathize with men or most likely you hate men. you should reconsider your relationship with the male side of the world and overcome your hatred.

pablosito · 2020-07-11T03:37:51+00:00

Lol okay fine. Men consented to be fathers the moment they had sex and have no way to undo that. Fine. Same for woman. No more abortions. You no longer get to kill an unborn child just because it doesn’t fit well with you. Remember you consented to being a mother the moment you let a man cum in you. Reality is if we held women to a fraction of the standards we hold men you’d be rioting in the streets. Yes men and women have biological differences the real difference is that men are held accountable for their end of the bargain but don’t you dare expect a woman to be accountable for theirs because that’s sexist/s. If you truly wanted an equal world part of that means taking some shit. It’s not a buffet where you just get pick the nice bits you like and say no to everything else. Although given the level of entitlement around it seems many think that way.

Zippo-Cat · 2020-07-11T03:57:24+00:00

And if you cum in a woman you are consenting because that is always gonna be a possibility just based off of the laws of nature.

And if you leave your house you are consenting to being stabbed with a HIV needle by a crazy hobo because that is always gonna be a possibility just based off of the laws of nature.

Actually, that's a poor comparison; for it to be a good comparison we would also need the existence of a magical pill that makes HIV go away if taken within 24 hours of getting it; the existence of HIV-aborting clinics; and the possibility to just give HIV away after nine months no questions asked.

So there's your answer. Women have like half a dozen ways to get rid of unwanted pregnancy or children.

starplanet222 · 2020-07-10T19:55:50+00:00

The act of getting an abortion is the act of the woman not consenting to being a parent. Men should have the same right under the law. It's about equal rights and protections under the law for all individuals.

In this case, since there is a simple remedy, legal paternal surrender, biological differences are an irrelevant argument for perpetuating the inequality that women enjoy and that men don't.

It's not about "right to a man's sperm" or anything. I've never heard that, it's a stupid thing to say and not a reason to base a policy on.

akihonj · 2020-07-10T20:12:48+00:00

It depends on who's arguing the difference, for example, women ask and demand equality yet when that equality comes to serving in the front line they argue that they shouldn't be forced to go to war, yet when asked who is going to defend their country, life, liberty etc they will argue that the current draft system with a standing army is fine, that standing army of about, in most countries 90% male with 98% war deaths being men.

Yet demanding equal representation at the board room level regardless of skills and qualifications is a fair argument. The first being often cited that men are better equipped for fighting than women.

This is considered among feminists as a valid biological difference, even as the very reason why some terfs argue against recognising that there is no inherent difference between men and women, because if that argument actually gains ground then they have absolutely no argument to not serve on the front lines alongside men and die in the same numbers as men.

Now where it gets shot down is when a woman, solely the one with the right to choose, decides to be a parent, the male in so far as any choice is given just has to provide the sperm, in these cases it is argued that a woman shouldn't be held accountable due to biological difference.

So there is a double standard applied.

Now you ask how ejaculating in a woman doesn't mean consent to father a child, well it doesn't because she has the option of birth control every bit as much as a man does, however she has far more range of options available to her. So in that regard ejaculating into a woman does not mean consent to father a child as long as she has the option of birth control alongside the option of abortion. Of course it's a far more complex argument than just shooting and talking about the situation afterwards.

This is why consent to sex and a conversation before hand is so important, however what do you do when before you've had sex you, the man say you don't want a child, use protection, of course. You still don't get the choice though if that fails and she decides to keep the child. This itself is where the problem exists, that a man can say I don't want that, even before anything happens and still loses out.

However let's say that the conversation happens, the protection fails, she now decides that she's going to terminate the foetus, what then can the father do, maybe he does want the child. The father can do absolutely nothing, he has no rights.

That father has no rights but has to abide by any financial burden depending on what the mother decides.

icefire54 · 2020-07-11T07:20:30+00:00

The biological fact that women give birth and men don't is precisely the point. If men also gave birth, the argument wouldn't work. Men shouldn't have to take responsibility for women's choice to give birth since the man wasn't the one who gave birth, the woman was. And you can't use "having sex" as an argument for enforcing responsibility. That was done away with with the legalization of abortion.

woxmintari · 2020-07-10T17:56:46+00:00

There is too much female privalige in society to allow men to have equality with reproduction.

Any talk of financial abortions is 100% theoretical.

Barely-moral · 2020-07-10T18:19:19+00:00

can explain how cumming in a women and her getting pregnant, doesn’t mean you consented to having a child?

In the same way a woman allowing a man to cum in her and getting her pregnant does not mean she consented to having a child.

I will try to make things easier to understand.

Decision ----> Direct consequence.

Sex -------> Pregnancy.

A fair system would be like this.

X makes decision --------> X suffers the direct consequence.

X Signs a contract -------> X has obligations born out of said contract.

Now lets look at pregnancy.

Woman and Man decide to have sex ---------> Pregnancy

Pregnancy does not create any legal responsability for anyone. Pregnancy is a biological consequence. There is no point arguing with biology.

Now. Once pregnancy is real.

Woman decides to keep the baby -------> Baby is born.

And once the baby is born there are legal consequences for both the mother and the father. Even if the father does not make the decision that ends up in the baby being born.

Sex does not create obligations for anyone. The birth of a child creates obligations for the parents.

The one that has the decision on whether a baby is born or not is the woman. So she should be the one that suffers the legal consequences.

Men should have the option to decide if he wants to be responsible for a child or not because women have the same option. If that is not the case, then on that matter, there is one kind of citizen that has more rights than the others.

Yes, biological differences exist. The law should be there to take an unfair situation and make it fair. And if you are ok with the law ignoring a situation where biology is unfair, then I hope you are consistent and don't support any law that tries to help people with disabilities.

Market_Feudalism · 2020-07-10T17:44:41+00:00

No, they don't consent to provide for a child for 18 yrs in exchange for nothing. It should be obvious that this is such a bad deal that no reasonable person would consent to it. Have you heard of the legal concept of consideration?

Wrasserman · 2020-07-11T00:46:00+00:00

My issue with arguing about biological differences is how inconsistently it's applied by certain people.

lestratege · 2020-07-11T01:08:54+00:00

Pregnancy is a consequence of ejaculation. Ejaculation is a necessary condition for a pregnancy but it is not a sufficient one.

Saying that men agree to pregnancy as soon as they ejaculate because it is a necessary condition to it is a logical flaw. No sound reasoning can follow that sort of argument. You can argue that if you agree to a sufficient condition then you agree to the consequences, but only agreeing to a necessary condition that is not sufficient in no way means you automatically agree to the consequences.

Think about it, such an argument would make nonsense like: if you want to live then it means you want to die, since living is a necessary condition for dying.

The argument that if you ejaculate then you agree to the baby is of the same illogical nonsense. It's not surprising that it's purported by women.

Notsonewguy7 · 2020-07-11T01:39:45+00:00

Sex with women is almost always vaginal. Vaginal sex is a pregnancy risk, even with condoms. So unless you are suggesting more anal sex or oral sex you run that risk.

It's a hostage question.

2020-07-11T05:02:32+00:00

If everytime I have sex I consent to having a child then everytime a woman visits a guy's place she consents to have sex too. And she can not say no.

woxmintari · 2020-07-10T18:29:47+00:00

Instead of financial abortions I would prefer to see a change in how child support works.

Say a committee states (with research) that the cost of raising a child of a certain age is 500 a month then you would divide 500 by 2 and then the man would have to pay 250 per month. This way he is happy that he knows that all the money will be spend on his child.

If a man earns 1 million then he would still pay 250 a month because this is an accurate description of the minimum cost of raising his child and then he would be free to pay additional monies as he sees is appropriate.

A man who earns 1 million should not be paying say 250000 a year in child support as this is payment to the mother. This happens for example with professional athletes, the women prey on them for an easy passive income.

Now if a man is poor then the government steps in and pays the remaining difference as a loan. For example if the man is on unemployment benefit for a certain amount of time. Then a percent would be taken from wages with an option to pay the amount in full.

This system is more fair to men, the child and in some cases the mother.

No longer would men do everything they could to avoid paying or reducing child support (some men). For example, getting income that is not declared, purposely working a lower paid job, not paying and then moving jobs, leaving the country etc. This would greatly reduce under this system.

I imagine in some countries billions of child support is outstanding that will never be paid.

Most importantly any man who pays this amount continuously would have an automatic right up to 50/50 custody. The man would still pay monies to the mother as she would have the child more. A true 50/50 split would be no money payable.

This system discourages paternity fraud and men running away from or trying to mimialise child support. It also lessens the devastating impact of the man having an ops moment or a women trapping a man as she would realise there is no financial gain to be had and it most cases would therefore not do it.

starplanet222 · 2020-07-10T22:40:59+00:00

[deleted]

teramelosiscool · 2020-07-11T03:26:14+00:00

> Its like going skydiving, signing the non disclosures, and then suing when the parachute malfunctions

it's more like going sky diving, not signing anything, and then suing when the parachute malfunctions. in which case you'd probably win, which is why they make you sign stuff in the first place. if you signed a contract before sex saying "if there are any offspring generated through this act i'll be financially responsible for them" then that would be different, and more like your skydiving simile.

I-wanna-GO-FAST · 2020-07-11T07:16:48+00:00

Financial abortions are about men not consenting to paying child support. That has absolutely nothing to do with "biology".

Up until very recently, men could cum into whoever they wanted and there was no natural magical force that made them stick around to take care of their progeny, let alone know which kids were even theirs. THAT is biology. The government taking money from men is not biology. You must be trolling.

manbaby1769 · 2020-07-11T13:11:47+00:00

Based on the laws of nature I could just murder any woman who became pregnant with my seed

RepresentativeSwan1 · 2020-07-10T17:58:21+00:00

What the hell are you talking about? The men in your example aren't arguing that they should have a say in whether or not the baby is aborted, they're arguing they shouldn't have to pay 18 years of child support.

Nutting in a woman means you consent to the risk of her getting pregnant. It absolutely does not mean you consent to paying 18 years of child support.

Workaholiconew · 2020-07-10T19:53:00+00:00

The primary reason why financial abortion should be real thing in some jurisdictions... is because, (normal) abortion is a thing in these same jurisdictions. It is a way to equate the sexes in the law.

If a mother can choose to terminate her ties with a baby without legal repetitions, and without the consent of the father, then it follows the fathers, in order to have equal representation under the law, shall can have the exact same right to cut ties with the baby legally (which means he does not have to financially sustain this kid. That is why the name, financial abortion).

It has little to do with a woman's right to a man's sperm or that she can choose a man. It is that she can choose to terminate a contract unilaterally with the baby, while the other part doesn't. Leading to a unfair contract.

darksoldierk · 2020-07-11T00:55:09+00:00

But, there was no signature of anything. The man made the exact same decision as the woman did, and that decision was to have sex. The responsbilities for men are significantly higher than they are for women for that decision. And that is an inequality between the genders that women refuse to acknowledge or deal with. IN reality, it's more like, going skydiving with another person, both people signing the same non disclosure clause, and both parachuting malfunction, except, you find out that the other was given a second parachute that YOU were not given. You find out that despite you and that other person paying the exact same price, your agreement had less safety features than the next person only because you were, lets say in this case, a woman and the other person, the person who received the backup parachute, was a man. We live in a world where the physical requirements to be a firefighter are reduced to allow women to be included, risking the lives of those who need help. We live in a world where the disadvantages of women are constantly being rectified with legislation in order to ensure equality, so why is it so baffling for you for men to request that legislation be implemented to ensure equality for men?

Biological differences would be considered valid arguments, if they were valid arguments for both men and women. But even in YOUR example, you use biological differences to allow women the choice, but deny men the biological differences that allow THEM the choice.

You're right, our biology means that men don't get pregnant. However, that biological difference also allows men to simply not support the child. Not protect it, not provide it with resources. It's society that circumvents that biological difference that is advantageous to men, and forces men to, at the very least, financially support the child. Nature doesn't force men become fathers in any way other than biologically, it's society that forces men to support the child. As far as nature is concerned, men's involvement in the child life beyond insemination is that man's choice. It's society that forces that involvement onto men. Men are simply saying "if you are going to deny me my biological right to choose, then at least set my ability to choose at a level that is equivalent to the ability that women have".

So, the end of it is, if you want to use biological differences as arguments, then don't be a hypocrite. Either we, as a society, accept that biological difference provide the genders with certain advantageous, and allow the genders to enjoy those advantages, or we as a society, recognize that it isn't fair that some people enjoy advantageous that other can't because of biological differences, and implement legislation to circumvent that advantage in order to achieve equality for all.

Keep in mind, biology made men physically stronger than women. If you argue for the validity of biological differences as a means to obtain advantage, then in order to NOT be a hypocrite, you would also have to agree that men should have the right to rape. Rape is natural, it occurs in the animal world, and it is the advantage that nature gave men who don't have any other means of pro-creating.

Look, nature is ugly, it isn't moral or nice. I don't agree that men should have the right to rape despite the fact that it is a biological advantage that nature has given them, similarly, I don't agree that men shouldn't have the right to choose to be parents after insemination despite the fact that it is a biological disadvantage that nature has put on men. If we want to accept the disadvantages, then we also HAVE to accept and decriminalize/remove legislation that prevents or discourages men from utilizing their biological advantages.

In other words, either society wants equality, and uses legislation to circumvent all possible issues that create inequality, including nature, in which case society provides men the right to abort in some way or another after insemination, or society doesn't want equality, in which case, it wouldn't have the right to circumvent inequality using legislation, in which case, biological advantageous for women that hurt men, or for men that hurt women, wouldn't be criminalized.

Pontifex_Lucious-II · 2020-07-10T18:20:16+00:00

Meh. Women have the final unilateral decision whether to have a kid or not. If the man wants the kid but the woman doesn’t, the woman’s decision trumps the man’s. If the man doesn’t want the kid but she does, the woman’s decision trumps the man’s. In a pro choice environment, unmarried women have no claim to a man’s resources via “paternity”.

Fortunately for women who share your view it doesn’t matter. Civilization is going to hold men financially accountable because the only other options are massive welfare programs on the government’s dime.

The one consolation we have is to spit on the shoes of single mothers.

extrachromozomes · 2020-07-10T20:44:48+00:00

Bro just wear a condom

omgthaaanks · 2020-07-10T22:41:19+00:00

You are absolutely wasting your time trying to reason with men who think this way. Don't bother. Just marry a hot guy who shares your values and makes lots of money.

Worked for me!

FeniZio94 · 2020-07-10T17:27:42+00:00

Feminist rhetoric (aka a bunch of complete inconsistencies bundled into one)

To explain a problem that was caused by feminism? Wat lol

So it’s ok for women to undergo the trend of abortion (killing babies if you take metabolism into account)for entire multinational corporations to use the fetuses in borderline psychopathic/highly unethical ways (my body my choice / I guess my dick my choice doesn’t count either)

But it’s not ok for dudes to forgo the children they don’t wanna raise

I guess women having them inside their wombs means they can also become consequence-free murderers ? And that’s ok because “empowerment”? Geeeeeez idk Rick

astrobrah · 2020-07-10T21:19:43+00:00

You are entirely correct, as a man, if you have sex you are accepting the possibility of pregnancy. If the woman chooses to deliver your shared child, you should be expected to pay alimony. It's extremely simple, really.

DubsPackage · 2020-07-10T21:44:05+00:00

If we go by the "laws of nature" men can cum in women and disappear into the wilderness never to be seen again.

Everything surrounding modern pregnancy is a social construct.

Only it is constructed in a manner that benefits women and gives no choices to men.

So if there is to be a social construct, then it should be constructed equitably.

Women can have abortions, men should have financial abortions. "My body my choice" etc.

CatchPhraze · 2020-07-10T19:30:42+00:00

Don't have sex with A women you don't trust to be on the same page as you. Don't have unprotected sex, don't cum in a woman even wearing a condom.

Men don't get a choice after because they had several before.

AutoModerator · 2020-07-10T17:15:24+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

welcometothejl · 2020-07-11T01:04:07+00:00

I think you are exactly right. If a man cums in a woman he bears responsibility. But the way that responsibility is structured is unfair to men. Men should be able to choose 50/50 custody and 2 years of child support in lieu of having to pay 18 years of child support.

The way child support fucks up is it puts men on the hook for a lot of bad decisions a woman makes. If you went to art college and got some useless degree making no money, why should I pay you more in child support? It's 2020, be responsible, just like men need to be responsible. I shouldn't automatically have to pay someone for 18 years just because they chose the wrong career.

Expensive-Guitar3609 · 2020-07-11T08:24:30+00:00

We are well pass the time where the natural order dictated the order of laws, and when it comes to parental duties, the natural order ended by the time women were allowed to have abortions.

If women can go against the natural las then so do men. I mean... Motherhood is a biological and physiological fact right?

Fatherhood is a social construction.

I would argue fatherhood is the biggest social construction of all actually. The one that allowed civilization to arise, but one that isn't necesary anymore.

carlsberg24 · 2020-07-11T13:35:40+00:00

If the sex act was the final act of consent for having a child then abortions (real, not financial) would have to be banned.

Grave_Heresy · 2020-07-11T13:52:43+00:00

Based on the law, semen is considered a gift in the US i believe. This basically means that once you finish inside of her it belongs to her.

The issue that I have is with the spurglers who are grabbing condoms out of trash cans and folks who suddenly snatch off condoms and insert you into them before you finish. Finally, in the US a man who is raped by a woman or even a 13 who is molested by an adult woman is still on the hook for child support.

In addition, the law permits paternity fraud by putting a time limit on when a man can contest parenthood of a child. So basically, I think the max time that I guy has is two years.

These are the reasons why I support financial abortion.

That being said, the majority of these things will be eliminated in about a decade once the pill for men is approved.

My solution is to stop having sex with women or to have them sign a contract which basically states that you are not on the hook for CS if she does get pregnant. I believe that this will solve the majority of the issues.

Otherwise, if you are a guy GYOW.

InfidelCastro11 · 2020-07-11T21:57:09+00:00

If women can kill the baby because kids are a hassle, I should be able to refuse to pay, that simple

wtknight · 2020-07-10T17:54:25+00:00

It’s all about fairness balance, it’s not about logic. It’s not fair to these men that a woman can terminate responsibility but a man cannot. These men hate giving any power to a woman whatsoever, and the ability to physically abort a fetus while he can’t abort financial responsibility means that she has more power in this scenario.

gigababejfl · 2020-07-11T03:17:21+00:00

I want to say people are just trolling but it seems they really think this is a legit argument

What do you mean "people"

People who?

You mean men?

Yo. Men will look at you RIP your vag to asshole in shreds for the own progeny and say you're low value. They will find studies to show their paper cut hurts more than childbirth but equally moronic men with credentials.

Until they find self actualization, men are peak trolls. Absolutely with zero equivocation. And the few who are not like that just get called gay or soft by other men.

Waste your time listening to men, sis

Ordinate1 · 2020-07-10T20:23:55+00:00

Because women are tricking men into getting them pregnant just to get money, and financial abortion as an option would put an end to that.

Tyler_Gatsby · 2020-07-10T20:35:22+00:00

Why do women just assume they have a right to have a baby? Women complain here that men think they have a right to sex, to get something from a woman's body.

Women think they have a right to a baby, with sperm from a man's body. Same thing, women just think the biological need on her side of the question is more moral, or noble. She just spat out another little miracle.

Sperm banks are the true equivalent to brothels, or prostitutes. Both are just paying for a version of sex from the opposite sex.

FuckJanitors · 2020-07-10T21:46:40+00:00

Timothy 2:11-15

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Kaisha001 · 2020-07-10T22:30:26+00:00

Its not a valid argument because that wasn't the argument that was presented. See: https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-straw-man/

12112019 · 2020-07-10T21:48:04+00:00

The question is why said woman is entitled to child support in such a case, but if we are given a choice between having the father pay child support or the state then the choice is quite simple, let the dumb fuckers who fucked raw pay child support, I am much more pissed by tax payers money going to degenerate women than I am of stupid men who fuck raw.

Title	Why are biological differences not considered valid arguments?
Author	starplanet222
Upvotes	62
Comments	405
Date	July 10, 2020 5:15 PM UTC (6 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/hoswpy/why_are_biological_differences_not_considered/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-are-biological-differences-not-considered.717746 https://theredarchive.com/post/717746

Comments

Why are biological differences not considered valid arguments?