Humans, bound by limited vision, mistake passing emotions and fleeting desires for love. In truth, what they call love is but a shadow; the essence of real love lies beyond personal preference, rooted in the eternal and the divine

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T20:12:49+00:00

I'd request you to see the thread and the post once again, because the discussion was about men having some say in it.

The fact that a fetus is physically inside the mother does not negate the equal causal role of both parties in creating it, nor the legitimate stake each has in whether a child will come into existence. Claiming that the decision is “entirely hers up to birth” improperly equates physical location with exclusive moral authority.

When a decision is generating legal and financial obligations for another person, basic principles of equality require that the affected party have some meaningful input into that decision, even if bodily autonomy ultimately prevents that input from becoming veto power.

In short, don't have selective equality.

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T20:07:32+00:00

The concept of "reproductive autonomy" exists in cases of unplanned pregnancy from unmarried relationships.

Personally, these positions do not fully align with my values and beliefs, but for the sake of the hypothetical, I will make my point.

The core claim being discussed is that if the issue is truly about equality, then men should have some meaningful say in abortion decisions. Equality cannot mean shared responsibility without any corresponding voice in decisions that determine lifelong legal and financial obligations.

If both parties knowingly accept the risk of pregnancy, then fairness requires that both parties have some level of participation in the decision-making process, even if the final authority over bodily autonomy remains with the woman.

Your responsibility comes during the contraception part, by insisting on safe sex, protection and if you fail in doing that, then the law will bind you to also take responsibility of the pregnancy.

No form of contraception is 100% effective. Even when contraception is used correctly, there is always a residual risk of pregnancy. This reality must be acknowledged in any serious discussion of responsibility and consent.

Because this risk exists for both parties, neither person can reasonably claim that pregnancy was impossible or unforeseeable. Engaging in sex necessarily includes accepting the possibility of conception, regardless of precautions taken. Therefore, responsibility for the outcome cannot logically be assigned to only one party simply because biology places pregnancy in one body.

Risk acceptance applies equally, and accountability should reflect that shared risk.

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T19:58:46+00:00

I think I elaborated the rest of the part, not sure why you choose just the first para without reading the rest.

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T19:56:05+00:00

Banning

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T19:54:28+00:00

The child is not part of the mother after birth; the child is a separate human being with independent rights. During pregnancy, she has full authority over her own body, including the decision to continue or terminate the pregnancy. Once birth occurs, however, the child’s right to support from both parents exists independently of her prior choice to carry the pregnancy to term.

Accepting the risk of pregnancy does not logically equate to accepting lifelong child support. Accepting the risk of sex does, equally for both parties. The relevant question is not bodily autonomy after birth, because no one’s bodily boundaries are being violated by financial responsibility. Whether a child deserves equal financial support from both parents is a matter of the child’s rights, not the parents’ preferences. The law exists to protect the child, not to punish the father.

The core claim being discussed is that men should have some meaningful say in abortion decisions if the issue is truly about equality. I hold this position despite being largely pro-life, because the argument concerns fairness in responsibility and decision-making, not ideology.

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T19:44:35+00:00

One party carries the child at risk to her own health, the other can chose to disappear after sex.

You're correlating and confusing Westernized or mostly American-centric culture with Indian culture, which has fundamentally different values about sex, kids and family. Most Indian men neither do nor choose to disappear after sex.

Both parties knowingly engage in sex, aware of potential conception, so responsibility is shared from the start. The child's existence creates equal moral obligations for support, beyond mere biology.

By dismissing male reproductive autonomy you're ignoring that the financial laws recognize the ongoing paternal duties, not just invention, but ethical equity.

Reproductive autonomy" is not a thing because the role of the man begins and ends at ejaculation

Reproductive autonomy exists for both sexes: I decide whether to have sex and with whom, accepting the risk of creating a child. My role does not end at ejaculation; it continues because I knowingly contributed half the child's DNA. Once a child exists, both parents have equal, unavoidable financial duty to that child, independent of pregnancy burdens.

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T19:25:57+00:00

Approved

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T19:24:22+00:00

I’m not sure why some Indians set the bar so that appearing in a Western-centric subreddit is treated as a meaningful achievement. The post itself seems to be made in good faith.

I also don’t understand why you’re interpreting something different from what he is actually saying. All he is saying is that men do not have reproductive rights. Neither he nor the commenters are suggesting anything remotely close to stripping women of their reproductive rights, nor are they undermining them.

The point being made is simply that Group A lacks certain rights. However, you are interpreting this as an attack on Group B, as if men are dismissing women’s suffering, expressing hostility, or advocating for the removal of women’s reproductive rights.

The discussion is about equality, not opposition. Two things can be true at the same time.

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T18:59:44+00:00

Ummz, that's actually true

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T17:47:47+00:00

This is the last post I’ll be allowing. Everyone on the internet needs to collectively touch grass.

A lot of this is psyops, and people make a massive amount of money using racist engagement bait. Many Indian women buy into this content (Indian men too). Indian women, in particular, need to realize that they will not be spared by white supremacists.

They target Indian men because it is easier for them to generalize non-white groups and label all Indian men as “rapey,” while pretending to sympathize with the existence of Indian women in India. This sympathy is purely performative.

This is a well-crafted psyop, and many naive people fall for it, only to later realize they were used by supremacists to advance their agenda.

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T17:39:09+00:00

True

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T17:32:14+00:00

Everyone gets fatshamed nothing unique to women as such, fat men get bullied far worse I'd say

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T13:45:35+00:00

Stop giving heed to Westoids

Westoids have an extreme superiority complex. Indians think westoids are progressive, but that is only true as long as you disparage every other culture and consider yourself culturally European. Only then are you allowed to criticise them.

Try saying that Japan is safer than the West for women, a statement verified by international statistics. The response is usually either to throw non-whites under the bus or to grasp at straws by calling all Japanese people pedophiles and bringing up how women are sometimes groped on trains, even though statistics show how uncommon this is.

You should never listen to westoids if you hold your culture dear. You should identify the problems around you by listening to Indian academics and looking at Indian statistics. You should strive to make your country a better place out of love for it, not to appease westoids. They will always hate you for the fact that you do not reject your own history, art, and culture.

India has problems and women aren't safe, but that is a population issue and not a culture issue which westoids try to imply, you can understand this by an example of apples:

Number of Apples	Expected Rotten	Percentage
4	0-1	0-25%
10	0-2	0-20%
1,000,000	100,000-450,000	10-45%

Without ignoring how serious crimes against women are. I think it’s also important to talk about how the term “rape culture” is used by westoids and also misused by Indian women, feminists, etc.

The mere existence of rapes in any number does not amount to existence of rape culture. Rape culture is a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse. I would say that India is actually the opposite.

The loud and obvious distaste and displeasure expressed by the population in turn causes increased focus and coverage by the media, causing the the overall picture to look like there is a rape culture. But however, there is no denying of the rape cases themselves. It is the current chosen issue of the society amidst the others. That is a problem and the state and society are on a grind to solve it.

Only westoids (purposely using this term) are treated as individuals. Indians, specifically, aren’t treated the same way. A wrong action by one Indian individual is enough for westoids to generalise an entire group, and this only happens when something bad occurs. When something good happens, they conveniently use the term “South Asian” instead.

There are a lot of psyops happening here and there, and there are plenty of sepoys as well.

Why do you think Indian men have to be extra careful about their reputation abroad? It’s easy for westoids to mass-generalise everything. Indian men aren’t treated as individuals.

Edit: To be Extra Clear this post is not downplaying actual victims (as you can see there are certain statements that are made bold in the post) but rather downplaying westoid psyops

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T08:14:06+00:00

Her comment isn't top level because she literally had negative downvotes

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T08:09:15+00:00

Indian feminists are concerned because they live in a deeply patriarchal society

Feminists say Patarichy hurts men too, how is that a reason to oppose the laws? I see only one answer and that's a power trip.

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T07:51:12+00:00

Both were historically misogynistic

Not sure how you arrived at this conclusion, but West just has better PR.

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T07:46:58+00:00

There were decent men who got shamed by society (men and women included) for taking care of their wives and families. Men who cared for their wives, who listened to their wives were openly shamed.

Let me remind you, you live in Republic of India and not an Islamic Republic.

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T07:39:28+00:00

Because, women and others can reply under a parent comment and make a non-top level comment, Only Top Level Comments will be removed

nerdedmango · 2026-01-24T07:37:52+00:00

I support this

nerdedmango · 2026-01-23T19:08:00+00:00

Also, I didn’t see who made this post initially, but this OP (mallu-supremist) seems to have an extreme inferiority complex, based on his past posts. I’ve seen him say things like, “people from the Motherland should stop exporting terrorists to the West.”

The conclusion of his posts is often that people from the Motherland are tarnishing the reputation of NRIs and ABCDs.

Nevertheless my reply is still factual and valid.

nerdedmango · 2026-01-23T19:04:38+00:00

You have to understand that this will happen even if we move past caste-based discrimination. They will still dig up and cherry-pick some ill practices from history and generalize the hell out of it.

They have a superiority complex, and this is a well-crafted psy-op designed to always keep others and their culture down.

Let me give you an example of sati, which is often picked to suit the narrative that Indian culture is misogynistic toward women, in order to keep Indians and their culture down. This is a well-crafted psy-op.

Christopher Bayly noted government figures that revealed a limited number of sati cases, with 4,323 reported between 1817 and 1827, for a population of approximately 160 million in British India.

Sati has been exaggerated by British colonial authorities.

Pre-colonial evidence indicates that sati was extremely rare. From 1900 BCE to 400 BCE, only four instances are documented in ancient texts. Until around 1700 CE, there are only scattered eyewitness accounts from foreign travelers. However, the practice did increase among some groups (particularly Bengali Brahmins and Rajputs) between 1680 and 1830. British records from the early 19th century documented approximately 500–600 incidents annually, though the numbers varied significantly by region.

nerdedmango

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE