BangkokReady

We're talking more about "legal rights". What people are either allowed or compelled to do by law. We use "rights" as a kind of place holder for that. Once you move to saying "women have an inalienable right to do whatever they want with their body and always will" it doesn't really allow for much debate when it comes to the law, especially when it is joined by "...but men have no choice but to pay."

I'm very extroverted and I enjoy talking to women. It doesn't need to be leading to anything more than polite conversation. I know this seems weird to many people, but that's life. ????‍♂️

It's the stance that you are putting forward through your comments. ????‍♂️ Rights don't actually exist, there are only really laws or "things that people are allowed to do". "Rights" can change over time.

It's feelings based because you cannot really say that the man suffers any impingement of his bodily autonomy. With being forced to have a baby, or being forced to work for 18 years to support a baby, you can make the argument that bodily autonomy is being impinged.

It does nothing of the sort. Saying that a man makes physical effort to earn money is in no way cancelled out by the fact that "women earn money too". It has nothing to do with what I am saying. I'm not discussing deadbeat dads, so, of course, their existence is irrelevant here. I haven't said anything about women staying at home, working, being a housewife, etc.. It literally has no relevance in this at all. I could say the same about you completely disregarding the effects working for 18 years might have on a man.

So your stance is that, no matter what, the man's effort involved in working to pay for a child until they turn 18 can never be as great as the woman's effort in carrying and birthing a child?

You asked and I answered...? "Do you believe that the prospective father should have to right to veto an abortion?" "I think it's harder to make a "bodily autonomy" argument in those circumstances. Isn't that more of a feelings based deal? "I want the baby.""

Yes, of course, that is why I asked you a question directly relating to what you said. This is quite standard for a conversation

How does that change the effect that working has on a man? I think you have misunderstood my comment.

I think it's harder to make a "bodily autonomy" argument in those circumstances. Isn't that more of a feelings based deal? "I want the baby."

Are you saying there are no health issues, no strain, no stress, no damage to the body, from a man working for 18 years to financially support a child to adulthood?

Interesting, but how do things change after the meal has been consumed? After the baby is born, things are very different. I'm not sure your analogy works once you consider that carrying and birthing the baby is not the only part of child birth or rearing. It is very much a two course meal.

I think you should be polite and considerate, but if you spill over it isn't your fault. You didn't make the seat or decide how much space each passenger gets.

I wonder if the reason that some people might be annoyed by a tip is that they don't associate the tip with the service provided but rather think that it means the guy will want something in return later on. There seem to be a few examples in the news where men use women owing them money as leverage to demand sex. In my experience, even being being friendly and passing the time of day with a woman seems to be an indicator of sexual or romantic interest. It wouldn't surprise me if giving money was seen as something similar.

If you pay for a seat, you're entitled to that seat. If the seats are too small, that's on the airline.

So why does that man not have a say, given the fact that his body, his health, his time at work, his emotional state is affected?

It has nothing to do with pity. If a woman has the right to choose whether a baby is born due to the effect the baby has on her body, why is the man not allowed any say based on the effect it has on his body?

That may be why he was filming me in the first place. ????‍♂️

I wouldn't say that she necessarily does. She of course consents to the risk of pregnancy, but, since abortion was invented, she does not need to consent to the risk of carrying a baby to term as she knows that she can stop the pregnancy. The person I was responding to, suggested that the reason that a woman has the right to abortion is that she has to use her body to carry the baby to term. It is therefore a question of autonomy over a person's body. I wanted to know the views on this of the person I was replying to, as this would then lead to my next question. People suggest that the man has no right to say whether a woman that he has had sex with and impregnates keeps or aborts the baby, but he is generally held responsible for paying for the raising of that baby until it is 18 years old. Now, if we consider that a man must work to provide money to support this baby, and that a man uses his body to earn that money, it means that his bodily autonomy is not considered in this. What I mean is, a woman has the right to choose to carry or abort a baby, due (according to the person I was replying to) to the fact that it is her body that is used to carry that baby, but a man has no choice in the matter, even though it is his body that is used to earn the money that he must pay to support the baby. Any strain that the man's body, sanity, health, etc., might go through to support the baby, is completely ignored in favour of the strain on the woman's body, simply because she is the one who carries the baby.

How what?

You've already made it clear that we've reached an "intellectual impasse" where you are not wiling to answer a simple question. ????‍♂️

Of course. Logically if you are concerned that answering a question will expose you in some way, you avoid the question. I understand that fully.

That's quite the escape plan I've handed you, huh? It's fine. We'll just pretend you didn't want to answer because of how right you are. ????

I know this is very childish, but I think it's actually quite a good response if you don't like being filmed. Sure, they might have the right to film you in public, but you have the right to stair into the camera and wave, totally ruining that "take".

You lose your right to privacy if you're doing something immoral? Or the fact that you don't want to be filmed should make you question the morality of your actions?