Douchebag tricks his girlfriend into taking abortion pills

[Metahive]

You kept making veiled excuses for the asshole in the OP ("well yeah, because the system is sooo unfair, what's a man gotta' do?") throughout. It's not my fault that every other argument you make looks like mere window dressing in comparison, especially when you only barely or not at all elaborate on it.

[Jub]

You kept making veiled excuses for the asshole in the OP ("well yeah, because the system is sooo unfair, what's a man gotta' do?") throughout. It's not my fault that every other argument you make looks like mere window dressing in comparison, especially when you only barely or not at all elaborate on it.

You're reading into this a lot. I said I can sort of see why he did it and suggested that alternatives might make these sorts of acts even less common than they already are. I also said that it's a horrible thing and stated that he should be tried harshly for his actions.

I think people need to read less into what they think I'm saying and more into what I've said. If this happened I might have more time and will to bother elaborating. As it stands people won't listen to any further refinement from me anyway as evidenced by the lack of response to the changes my position has already gone through.

[Metahive]

In case you haven't noticed it, but quite a number of people do not agree on the "It's unfair" part of your apologia or think this particular unfairness matters. You haven't changed your stance on this at all only tweaked your response based on how you think this unfairness should be averted when, as I said, so many people don't even agree on it being an issue.
Also, I twice asked a question about which men could be "fairly" expected to bear the costs of childraising, but unlike Terralthra you didn't give any reply. You didn't even comment on his elaborate reply.

So excuse me when I don't see you making any effort.

[Jub]

In case you haven't noticed it, but quite a number of people do not agree on the "It's unfair" part of your apologia or think this particular unfairness matters. You haven't changed your stance on this at all only tweaked your response based on how you think this unfairness should be averted when, as I said, so many people don't even agree on it being an issue.
Also, I twice asked a question about which men could be "fairly" expected to bear the costs of childraising, but unlike Terralthra you didn't give any reply. You didn't even comment on his elaborate reply.

So excuse me when I don't see you making any effort.

Any man that has a willing part in making a child - eg. not coerced, forced, or otherwise tricked against his will. There should just be options for men who otherwise have none after their short part is done. What these options should be is open for debate and which people should get said options as well.

I found the question of if all men should pay for the action of one man to be stupid, more so after I suggested that the state recoop any portion that they outlay at a later date. It seems people missed the fact that I stated that even men that get aid should still have to pay it back later. This sort of policy is already in place for other sorts of funding and I even gave an example of this when referring to Australian post secondary education.

Again, it seems people aren't reading what I have to say and assuming that I feel that all men should have no responsibility for their role. I object to the lack of any options after the fact and the way the system handles certain things. I also object to pinning greater pre-coital responsibility on the male due to his lack of options. Somehow this has been misconstrued to me thinking men shouldn't need to bother with birth control or that all men should expect women to be on the pill so they can go bareback.

[Metahive]

I found the question of if all men should pay for the action of one man to be stupid, more so after I suggested that the state recoop any portion that they outlay at a later date. It seems people missed the fact that I stated that even men that get aid should still have to pay it back later. This sort of policy is already in place for other sorts of funding and I even gave an example of this when referring to Australian post secondary education.

My question was however specifically about men that do have the means to pay for child support. If you think it's "unfair" that men are obligated to contribute something to unwanted offspring without their say, then you have to justify why you're making special exemptions.

There should just be options for men who otherwise have none after their short part is done.

Said "short" part which can have actually quite intrusive health repercussions for the woman, and really only for the woman, that participated in it. You know, this is what I mean, you throw in all these little thoughtless tidbits that come off as privileged micro-aggression. Is it a wonder that people react to you with perhaps more hostility than warranted?

[Jub]

I found the question of if all men should pay for the action of one man to be stupid, more so after I suggested that the state recoop any portion that they outlay at a later date. It seems people missed the fact that I stated that even men that get aid should still have to pay it back later. This sort of policy is already in place for other sorts of funding and I even gave an example of this when referring to Australian post secondary education.

My question was however specifically about men that do have the means to pay for child support. If you think it's "unfair" that men are obligated to contribute something to unwanted offspring without their say, then you have to justify why you're making special exemptions.

"Any man that has a willing part in making a child - eg. not coerced, forced, or otherwise tricked against his will." That is the subset of men that should help contribute to raising a child. My cases have always been focused on cases outside of the normal range.

There should just be options for men who otherwise have none after their short part is done.

Said "short" part which can have actually quite intrusive health repercussions for the woman, and really only for the woman, that participated in it. You know, this is what I mean, you throw in all these little thoughtless tidbits that come off as privileged micro-aggression. Is it a wonder that people react to you with perhaps more hostility than warranted?

Yes it does, but they both knew - at least hopeful they did - before engaging in the act. I've never denied that on the physical health side of things that the woman has it worse off. My entire objection is that she has options, however crude and often limited, that a man has no counterpart to. She can choose to abort for reasons many men might wish they could get out of things. This doesn't absolve them of anything, it just means that work could - possibly should - be done to improve the state of things in certain cases.

Wording and possible insensitivity aside how is this objectionable?

[Lagmonster]

I'm a father, so I tend towards the idea that kids really want parents that love them. It's easy, when you're male and also an asshole, to forget that your kids are your responsibility no matter how they were created. If you have a kid - and note that to the kid, it does not matter why - a man's only decision should be to find his balls and work his ass off to the point of personal exhaustion caring, providing, educating, loving, and protecting it. If you can't hack responsible fatherhood, even when 'unfairly' thrust upon you, you are a whiner and a poor example of a person.

[Jub]

I'm a father, so I tend towards the idea that kids really want parents that love them. It's easy, when you're male and also an asshole, to forget that your kids are your responsibility no matter how they were created. If you have a kid - and note that to the kid, it does not matter why - a man's only decision should be to find his balls and work his ass off to the point of personal exhaustion caring, providing, educating, loving, and protecting it. If you can't hack responsible fatherhood, even when 'unfairly' thrust upon you, you are a whiner and a poor example of a person.

Lag, I agree with all of that and I've never stated otherwise. My focus is on finding more options for all involved to try and improve things. I focused on the male side because it came to mind first and seemed most relevant to the OP.

Trust me, I was raised by a single Mom who didn't get child support. I don't have a relationship with my Dad to speak of and can't find it in me to try and form one given his past acts. I have a greater respect to the couple who were my mentors in the Big Brothers and Sister program than I do for him. I still think men should have some options, I also think the system as a whole - starting with effective sex ed. - needs serious rethinking and better funding.

[Metahive]

That is the subset of men that should help contribute to raising a child. My cases have always been focused on cases outside of the normal range.

So it's not "unfair" for them that they have no say in whether or not a woman aborts an unwanted child?

[Jub]

That is the subset of men that should help contribute to raising a child. My cases have always been focused on cases outside of the normal range.

So it's not "unfair" for them that they have no say in whether or not a woman aborts an unwanted child?

It still can be unfair, it's just that other factors outweigh this fact. I said it back on the first page that the opt out had many obvious reasons for being a poor way of doing things. I just see the current system as broken and I'm trying to think of ways to fix it.

[TheHammer]

You sound more and more like a pro-lifer, or more accurately a pro-no-choicer. Everything you just said could be applied to women as a reason for denying abortion.

Don't want to carry the child? Too bad, that's what biology dictates.
If pregnancy occurs, she's on the hook for carrying that child to term. It's her responsibility.
Didn't want a child? Fucking deal with it. You should have thought of that before you had sex.
Too many women have the attitude that they can have no-strings-attached sex and if they get an unwanted pregnancy that they can have an abortion. No, they can't.

How's my Broomstick impersonation?

Calling me a pro-lifer is not merely a distortion of my position but it's an out-and-out lie. Cease doing this immediately.

I said you SOUND like a pro-lifer. The fact is that many of your statements would be right off a pro-lifer website if you subsituted the word "woman" for "man". You want me to cease calling you out on it, then I suggest you cease making those statements.

A bunch of guys are whining and pissing because they dont' get to control someone else's uterus. That's the key difference you are willfully ignoring - the man doesn't decide because the man is not the one who is pregnant. End of story.

I am in no way advocating abstinence, either. What I am saying is that if you're adult enough to fuck you're adult enough to deal with any unwanted consequences, yes, even if you used birth control and it failed you still have to deal with the conception. And if you're a man, sorry, you don't get to decided whether or not the pregnancy is aborted or carried to term, because it's not your body.

In the grand scheme of things the pregnancy aspect is rather minor. You're talking about 9 months of directly affecting a woman's life and body vs 18+ years of affecting both parent's lives - yet only one parent had a choice in the matter. Most women who choose to get abortions aren't doing so because they fear the nine months of labor. Its because they don't want a child at that point in their life for whatever reason. And thanks to pro-choice people out there she has a choice in the matter in most circumnstances.

The best thing for you to do would be to at least acknowledge that it's not a fair balance even if you don't have a better solution. Something along the lines of "Well yeah, it sucks for the guy, but this is one of those cases where women have the upperhand". Continuing to co-opt pro-lifer slogans, and saying things like "Tough shit, you shouldn't have had sex if you didn't want a kid!" and "Should have used protection, now accept responsibility for raising the child!" makes you appear to be a hypocrit. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

[Alyrium Denryle]

In the grand scheme of things the pregnancy aspect is rather minor. You're talking about 9 months of directly affecting a woman's life and body vs 18+ years of affecting both parent's lives

I knew you to be an ignorant sack of human waste, but damn.

1) Pregnancy is not minor. There is a not-insignificant chance of death and serious health complications involved. Not inconsiderate disability as well, given the extra mass and other side effects of pregnancy directly. That is not minor.

2) A father can pay child support, and otherwise get out of raising the child. It is much more difficult on statistical average for a mother to do this. Barring adoption. When a father has a kid, he is less likely to have a short-changed career than the mother is. And even when she does not, gender roles in our society largely have a working mother coming home and doing most of the housework. In effect, she works a double shift. So even those 18+ years are harder on mom than they are on dad. Hell a just BEING a woman who can get pregnant at all is a problem for women, because the prospect of a woman getting pregnant makes employers less likely to hire them.

"Should have used protection, now accept responsibility for raising the child!" makes you appear to be a hypocrit.

Only because you are an idiot. On the other hand, this comes as a shock to exactly zero people in this thread with the possible exception of Jub. The woman has a wider option set when it comes to taking responsibility for a pregnancy. SHe can abort, she can become a parent, or she (with the consent of the father) can adopt out the kid. Men have an option set that is dependent on the woman's initial choice (unlike most other aspects of life). Namely, they get to become a parent--or not--based on whether the woman (who most of the time is the primary care-giver anyway, irrespective of what we feminists think of that particular social inequality) elects to carry to term and may or may not consent to adoption. If the answer is Yes to carry to term, and No to adoption they then have the option of whether they will take more responsibility by way of actually parenting, or not. In rare cases (and they are rare) single fatherdom may result. However, that is not the topic under consideration.

[Scrib]

I'm a father, so I tend towards the idea that kids really want parents that love them. It's easy, when you're male and also an asshole, to forget that your kids are your responsibility no matter how they were created. If you have a kid - and note that to the kid, it does not matter why - a man's only decision should be to find his balls and work his ass off to the point of personal exhaustion caring, providing, educating, loving, and protecting it. If you can't hack responsible fatherhood, even when 'unfairly' thrust upon you, you are a whiner and a poor example of a person.

So..if someone steals my condom from the trash or lies about being on the pill when I was perfectly willing to use contraception otherwise/some other dastardly deed it is now my lifelong duty to become not only a money-machine but a care pumper as well and care for a child I never wanted and went out of my way to avoid because it shares a part of my DNA?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm a father, so I tend towards the idea that kids really want parents that love them. It's easy, when you're male and also an asshole, to forget that your kids are your responsibility no matter how they were created. If you have a kid - and note that to the kid, it does not matter why - a man's only decision should be to find his balls and work his ass off to the point of personal exhaustion caring, providing, educating, loving, and protecting it. If you can't hack responsible fatherhood, even when 'unfairly' thrust upon you, you are a whiner and a poor example of a person.

So..if someone steals my condom from the trash or lies about being on the pill when I was perfectly willing to use contraception otherwise/some other dastardly deed it is now my lifelong duty to become not only a money-machine but a care pumper as well and care for a child I never wanted and went out of my way to avoid because it shares a part of my DNA?

Lie about being on the pill? Fuck yes. Steals a condom from the trash? Um. The legal decision is yes. I would say that the provisions for sperm bank donors should go into effect in those cases, given the lack of consent.

[Scrib]

I'm a father, so I tend towards the idea that kids really want parents that love them. It's easy, when you're male and also an asshole, to forget that your kids are your responsibility no matter how they were created. If you have a kid - and note that to the kid, it does not matter why - a man's only decision should be to find his balls and work his ass off to the point of personal exhaustion caring, providing, educating, loving, and protecting it. If you can't hack responsible fatherhood, even when 'unfairly' thrust upon you, you are a whiner and a poor example of a person.

So..if someone steals my condom from the trash or lies about being on the pill when I was perfectly willing to use contraception otherwise/some other dastardly deed it is now my lifelong duty to become not only a money-machine but a care pumper as well and care for a child I never wanted and went out of my way to avoid because it shares a part of my DNA?

Lie about being on the pill? Fuck yes. Steals a condom from the trash? Um. The legal decision is yes. I would say that the provisions for sperm bank donors should go into effect in those cases, given the lack of consent.

So consent doesn't depend on factors beyond the desire to have sex? Haven't people already been charged when they lied about wearing a condom -or an effective one anyway? What if I pretended to be my twin and had sex with a woman who was specifically consenting to sex with him? It seems that consent to sex == consent within a particular range dependent on certain conditions already.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So consent doesn't depend on factors beyond the desire to have sex?

Even with birth control active, a pregnancy can result. There is still the assumption of risk. That they lied does not mean you did not accept that risk in the first instance.

What if I pretended to be my twin and had sex with a woman who was specifically consenting to sex with him?

That is typically considered to be rape by impersonation, though that varies by jurisdiction.

[Scrib]

So consent doesn't depend on factors beyond the desire to have sex?

Even with birth control active, a pregnancy can result. There is still the assumption of risk. That they lied does not mean you did not accept that risk in the first instance.

What if I pretended to be my twin and had sex with a woman who was specifically consenting to sex with him?

That is typically considered to be rape by impersonation, though that varies by jurisdiction.

And this goes both ways right? Why should I get charged when I poke a hole in my condom then? I'm doing the exact same thing with the exact same rationale right? After all,just going off the wiki here, plenty of people apply it wrong so the failure rate is significant.

[Terralthra]

Scrib, what you may be missing here is that a male whose female partner sabotages a condom (e.g.) can try to press criminal charges of contraceptive fraud, sexual assault, etc., just as a female whose male partner sabotages a condom can pursue said charges.

What a male can't do under the current system - even with a successful prosecution for rape (as cited above) - is get out of child support.

[Lagmonster]

I'm a father, so I tend towards the idea that kids really want parents that love them. It's easy, when you're male and also an asshole, to forget that your kids are your responsibility no matter how they were created. If you have a kid - and note that to the kid, it does not matter why - a man's only decision should be to find his balls and work his ass off to the point of personal exhaustion caring, providing, educating, loving, and protecting it. If you can't hack responsible fatherhood, even when 'unfairly' thrust upon you, you are a whiner and a poor example of a person.

So..if someone steals my condom from the trash or lies about being on the pill when I was perfectly willing to use contraception otherwise/some other dastardly deed it is now my lifelong duty to become not only a money-machine but a care pumper as well and care for a child I never wanted and went out of my way to avoid because it shares a part of my DNA?

I'm going to be even more severe and say yes, it's your responsibility until someone else volunteers to take on said responsibility (say, via adoption). If that's harsh to you, try to imagine things from the perspective of the individual who cannot get a job, feed themselves, or even get very far in life without you, the much maligned daddy. Only a heartless bastard would look at an infant who is arguably a victim as well in the 'conniving mother' situation you invented, and say that he feels no obligation to defend his offspring.

This is partly because I'm a father myself, but also because I subscribe to the idea that good people are made by good parents, and that we ought not be repulsed by the idea of taking on responsibility just because we don't like responsibilities thrust upon us.

[Terralthra]

Lagmonster, I'm not disagreeing with you on the idea that taking the responsibility that is thrust upon you, even if it's thrust upon you by a crime, is the mark of a high ethical standard.

But similar arguments apply to a raped woman who becomes pregnant, don't they? They're not identical, but they're similar. The crime of the father shouldn't erase the fetus's right to become an infant, have a life?

I think the issue here for me personally is that while in most of the situations described, I would support the child (accidental pregnancy, etc.), the reminiscent rebuttal to the pro-life/rape-pregnancy applies: a person of high moral or ethical standards would support the innocent life, rather than punish the innocent third party for the crimes of another, being compelled to do so by law is not the same thing. It's no longer about having an ethical code which causes you to choose to support a dependent being, because you don't get a choice. There can be no ethical implication if there is no choice.

If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, it might be a mark of a very high ethical code and respect for life if she chooses to keep the child regardless of the circumstance of its conception, but that doesn't mean it's a great idea to remove her choice in that situation. There's a significant chance the children borne under such a system would grow up knowing that their mothers could not overcome their feelings from their rape and resent/dislike their children. You can't make them more ethical by forcing the ethical outcome you want; you're removing their ethical agency to do so.

Perhaps along the same lines, I feel that sort of ethical obligation not just towards my hypothetical unwanted child, but towards all the actual unwanted and accidental children who already exist, none of whom are helped by my willingness to support a hypothetical child. My desire to create a better system to support needy children of single parents - regardless of the father's ability to support them financially - would help all of those children, and would also help my hypothetical accidentally-created child should that happen down the road at some point.

[TheHammer]

In the grand scheme of things the pregnancy aspect is rather minor. You're talking about 9 months of directly affecting a woman's life and body vs 18+ years of affecting both parent's lives

I knew you to be an ignorant sack of human waste, but damn.

1) Pregnancy is not minor. There is a not-insignificant chance of death and serious health complications involved. Not inconsiderate disability as well, given the extra mass and other side effects of pregnancy directly. That is not minor.

Nice lack of context. Namely the fact that it was minor in comparison of the 9 months of pregnancy vs the 18 years thereafter. I stand by my assertion that most women who choose to have an abortion do so because of reasons other than because they have concerns about the 9 months of pregnancy.

If the chance of death (In the US, that's about 650 per year out of 4 million live births or 0.016%), or other health complications are truly the primary driver, then I expect you'd support a law limiting abortions only to cases where the mother's health is a risk correct?

2) A father can pay child support, and otherwise get out of raising the child. It is much more difficult on statistical average for a mother to do this. Barring adoption.

The woman can opt out of raising a child by choosing to have an abortion. If she chose not to do so, obviously, she most likely wanted to keep the child. That makes the statistics in this case wholly irrelevent. If you are unable to comprehend this, let me know and I'll try to go slower.

And even When a father has a kid, he is less likely to have a short-changed career than the mother is.
when she does not, gender roles in our society largely have a working mother coming home and doing most of the housework. In effect, she works a double shift. So even those 18+ years are harder on mom than they are on dad. Hell a just BEING a woman who can get pregnant at all is a problem for women, because the prospect of a woman getting pregnant makes employers less likely to hire them.

So what's your point? That Women get a raw deal in other aspects of society? I'm not defending the inequality of that situation. No statements from me saying "Tough shit! She should get her tubes tied if she wants to be paid like a man" or "Well it sucks she's not paid like a man, but life isn't fair!". If society's ultimate goal is gender equality, then the "Tough shit! Life isn't fair" statements shouldn't be tossed around like they have been in this thread.

"Should have used protection, now accept responsibility for raising the child!" makes you appear to be a hypocrit.

Only because you are an idiot. On the other hand, this comes as a shock to exactly zero people in this thread with the possible exception of Jub. The woman has a wider option set when it comes to taking responsibility for a pregnancy. SHe can abort, she can become a parent, or she (with the consent of the father) can adopt out the kid. Men have an option set that is dependent on the woman's initial choice (unlike most other aspects of life). Namely, they get to become a parent--or not--based on whether the woman (who most of the time is the primary care-giver anyway, irrespective of what we feminists think of that particular social inequality) elects to carry to term and may or may not consent to adoption. If the answer is Yes to carry to term, and No to adoption they then have the option of whether they will take more responsibility by way of actually parenting, or not. In rare cases (and they are rare) single fatherdom may result. However, that is not the topic under consideration.

No shit she has a wider option set dumbass. Woman can choose to take responsibility, men have it thrust upon them regardless of what they would choose. Which is precisely the point. The woman has those options now because pro-choice groups consisting of both men and women fought to give her those options. Which makes watching you and broomstick RAGE at the thought of changing anything absolutely fucking hilarious to me. But then I do enjoy irony...

[Scrib]

I'm a father, so I tend towards the idea that kids really want parents that love them. It's easy, when you're male and also an asshole, to forget that your kids are your responsibility no matter how they were created. If you have a kid - and note that to the kid, it does not matter why - a man's only decision should be to find his balls and work his ass off to the point of personal exhaustion caring, providing, educating, loving, and protecting it. If you can't hack responsible fatherhood, even when 'unfairly' thrust upon you, you are a whiner and a poor example of a person.

So..if someone steals my condom from the trash or lies about being on the pill when I was perfectly willing to use contraception otherwise/some other dastardly deed it is now my lifelong duty to become not only a money-machine but a care pumper as well and care for a child I never wanted and went out of my way to avoid because it shares a part of my DNA?

I'm going to be even more severe and say yes, it's your responsibility until someone else volunteers to take on said responsibility (say, via adoption). If that's harsh to you, try to imagine things from the perspective of the individual who cannot get a job, feed themselves, or even get very far in life without you, the much maligned daddy. Only a heartless bastard would look at an infant who is arguably a victim as well in the 'conniving mother' situation you invented, and say that he feels no obligation to defend his offspring.

I guess I'm a heartless bastard then? Because frankly, at this point, I am unable to support a child and have an education at the same time. If I was financially secure it'd be one thing, but here, where I'm not and have to choose I'm choosing my own education. Having seen what happens to people back home who don't have a degree and what does to those who do-marginally better- I'm pretty certain that I simply couldn't live the former life.

I have personally taken the precautions necessary to prevent this situation from happening. Now that it has, it's either ruinous for me financially (which would be of limited value to the child), or not. I choose not. I did not create the situation, I did my part to prevent it. I feel bad for the kid, I really do, but I know what I can do and what I can do well.

But then,I guess I'm not in the same position as most of the people this hypothetical is dealing with.

This is partly because I'm a father myself, but also because I subscribe to the idea that good people are made by good parents, and that we ought not be repulsed by the idea of taking on responsibility just because we don't like responsibilities thrust upon us.

I don't see responsibility as something being thrust upon us but something we take upon ourselves, generally in some sort of contract. All the other things are considerations (which will often be reframed as responsibilities by interested parties).

[Broomstick]

I said you SOUND like a pro-lifer. The fact is that many of your statements would be right off a pro-lifer website if you subsituted the word "woman" for "man". You want me to cease calling you out on it, then I suggest you cease making those statements.

Bullshit, you dishonest little asshole. Saying I "sound like a pro-lifer" is like saying the Big Bang Theory "sounds" just like Genesis 1:3. What resemblance there is, is entirely superficial. Unless you want to stand up and say "scientists sound like creationists" every time the BBT is brought up shut the fuck up and go sit in the back of the room.

[TheHammer]

I said you SOUND like a pro-lifer. The fact is that many of your statements would be right off a pro-lifer website if you subsituted the word "woman" for "man". You want me to cease calling you out on it, then I suggest you cease making those statements.

Bullshit, you dishonest little asshole. Saying I "sound like a pro-lifer" is like saying the Big Bang Theory "sounds" just like Genesis 1:3. What resemblance there is, is entirely superficial. Unless you want to stand up and say "scientists sound like creationists" every time the BBT is brought up shut the fuck up and go sit in the back of the room.

There is nothing dishonest about anything I've said. Everyone in this thread can go back and read your words. Substitute "man" for "woman" and in many cases you've got a pro-lifer sign slogan. I've already illustrated it more than once. If you've got a problem with the alternative ideas some people have offered, then fine debate the points of those alternatives. But running your mouth about how a man just needs to take responsibility, or how he should have been more careful before having sex, and your general "life isn't fair, tough shit" attitude is very hypocritical when you consider yourself to be pro-choice. Otherwise, as I said, the absolute best thing for YOU to have done would have been to simply acknowledge that yes it's an unfair situation, and then politely kept your mouth shut.

[Dread Not]

Only because you are an idiot. On the other hand, this comes as a shock to exactly zero people in this thread with the possible exception of Jub. The woman has a wider option set when it comes to taking responsibility for a pregnancy.

No shit she has a wider option set dumbass. Woman can choose to take responsibility, men have it thrust upon them regardless of what they would choose. Which is precisely the point.

No, you totally missed the point, shit-for-brains, which is that abortion is also a form of taking responsibility. And ya know what that means? It means that men don't have responsibility "thrust upon them" any more than women do.

You seem to think that you have a "check and mate" silver bullet caliber of argument on your hands with your appeal to hypocrisy, when it simply sound like:

Hammer: Hey, how come I have to walk all the way across the parking lot and that guy can park right next to the door?

Guy: He has cerebral palsy. He gets to park in the handicapped spot.

Hammer: But I want to park next to the door!

Guy: Then you should come earlier when it’s less busy.

Hammer: Are you going to tell him to come when it’s less busy?

Guy: No, because he has access to handi-

Hammer: HYPOCRITE! HYPOCRITE ALERT!

Yes, because if “Do/don’t do X if you don’t want Y” is an invalid solution under one set of circumstances, it’s clearly invalid under all circumstances. That’s not fallacious at all.