I'll try to make this quick and to the point, but this is something that just doesn't make sense to me.
On the subject of Abortion, I've always been of the notion that a father should have a say in if an Abortion can happen; this still allows unwanted pregnancies from ruining lives due to financial reasons or similar, but provides an additional safety net to protect the life of the unborn. This is usually shot down because of the following reaons:
- "It's her body, not his. The choice should be hers!" (By this logic, you could argue for the legalization of Meth, LSD, and Crack.)
- "What about Rape Victims; the Rapist shouldn't have a say!" (Agreed, see below)
- "Why should the father have a say?" (Because he had a say in making the baby in the first place [Barring rape])
I have always proposed that it should have to have yes votes from both mother and father, with a judge being able to rule in favor of the mother being able to ignore the father's wishes (In case of rape, a incompetent father, or some other mishap.) This has always been shot down as being too much of a hassle; it should be solely in the mother's choice to have an abortion, father should NOT have a say in it.
But does this mean that murder cases are too much of a hassle?
What I am saying, is that if someone's brother was brutally murdered, is it "too much of a hassle" for them to be dragged into a long, arduous and painful trial so as to see justice is done? What about a witness, they are asked to keep the brutal murder fresh in their mind and retell the tale over and over so as to allow the facts to be brought to light in court. Is that trial any less agonizing? Is a murder, a cessation of an old life, more important than an abortion, a stymieing of a new life?
Any sort of argument of an abortion not requiring a trial can be used for murder, as well; If a woman is raped, she should not have to wait for a trial for an abortion. However, if a man is killed, should his brother have to wait for a trial to imprison the murderer for 5-20 years? If a pregnancy is the result of a mutually consenting "good time" and doesn't require a trial, why do accidental murders (Such as a gun discharging at a firing range on accident and killing someone) require a trial and potentially bump the accidental death up into a Manslaughter charge?
Now, I'm not saying that Abortion is Murder. Letter of the Law, Murder is a human killing another, and a Fetus technically isn't classified as Human. I will fully state that I disagree with this, but that is not the point of this thread. This thread is about the Logical Jump from a Trial for Crime A and how it is too much of a hassle, but Crime B requires a judge, jury, and potentially executioner?
Thoughts, Dakka? I'm trying to open up a discussion, NOT a flame bait argument thread. Let's be civil, please.
The male commitment to a fetus is just a loving spoonful.
While there can be emotional investment involved, if the woman doesn't want a child, it's her body, and regardless of the feelings of her partner, she's the one forced to make the biggest commitment.
If you're with someone who doesn't want a child, and you do, and you consider that to be a major factor in your relationship, you might not be cut out for one another.
I agree, it takes 2 to make the life, it should take 2 to end it. (barring special cases of course). I already disagree with abortion, but it is up to people to decide. But i definately think the father should have a say. If my wife killed our kid against my will id leave her.
Before this thread crashes in a ball of fire. I think the father should not be entirely separated from the process, though the mother should have the largest influence in the decision.
Fafnir wrote: The male commitment to a fetus is just a loving spoonful.
While there can be emotional investment involved, if the woman doesn't want a child, it's her body, and regardless of the feelings of her partner, she's the one forced to make the biggest commitment.
If you're with someone who doesn't want a child, and you do, and you consider that to be a major factor in your relationship, you might not be cut out for one another.
Yes, but if a woman doesn't want to go to jail, she doesn't murder someone.
If a kid doesn't want to swatted with a wooden spoon, (s)he doesn't try to steal a cookie from the cookie jar.
Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.
Fafnir wrote: The male commitment to a fetus is just a loving spoonful.
While there can be emotional investment involved, if the woman doesn't want a child, it's her body, and regardless of the feelings of her partner, she's the one forced to make the biggest commitment.
If you're with someone who doesn't want a child, and you do, and you consider that to be a major factor in your relationship, you might not be cut out for one another.
Yes, but if a woman doesn't want to go to jail, she doesn't murder someone.
If a kid doesn't want to swatted with a wooden spoon, (s)he doesn't try to steal a cookie from the cookie jar.
Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.
If your first look at a child is as a punishment or a bad consequence, something's to be said that maybe you shouldn't be the one caring for it.
Because, in the end it is the womans body who is going to get wrecked, has to go through the pain of child birth and have to deal with some nasty stuff afterwords. And then suddenly, the baby she carried for nine months isnt hers? What if they are in the army, or a physical job?
Until men can carry the babies for the women lik in that episode of sliders, NO!!!!
Where I live... I had to get my (then) wife's signature/approval before I can get my vasectomy.
Is that right?
Several things I would have to ask about that:
1) Did you and your wife talk about it before hand, or did you just suddenly decide to get a vasectomy without talking to her?
2) Is getting a Vasectomy comparable to an abortion, or more along the lines of severing the Tubes of a female to prevent childbirth?
3) Should a mother not have a say in if she could have kids with her partner?
I would say that she should have a say in the fact that, Assuming happily married and going to be so for 30+ years, it will affect her just as much as it affects the male. However, I would disagree that a Vasectomy is not quite like an abortion in that a third life wouldn't be ended due to a vasectomy (Indeed, a male could even sperm back some of his.... sperm..... for when the time is to have a kid is right).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: What the actual feth do you care if somebody gets an abortion or not? Stop trying to control peoples lives and guilt trip women.
What the actual feth do you care about Meth, Crack, LSD, and general Drug Trafficking in the country? It's not right to try to control people's lives, if they want to do drugs, should they not be able to chose?
Fafnir wrote: The male commitment to a fetus is just a loving spoonful.
While there can be emotional investment involved, if the woman doesn't want a child, it's her body, and regardless of the feelings of her partner, she's the one forced to make the biggest commitment.
If you're with someone who doesn't want a child, and you do, and you consider that to be a major factor in your relationship, you might not be cut out for one another.
Yes, but if a woman doesn't want to go to jail, she doesn't murder someone.
If a kid doesn't want to swatted with a wooden spoon, (s)he doesn't try to steal a cookie from the cookie jar.
Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.
If your first look at a child is as a punishment or a bad consequence, something's to be said that maybe you shouldn't be the one caring for it.
A child isn't a punishment or a bad consequence (A consequence is a result of an action, winning the lottery is a consequence of buying a lottery ticket). My point is that if you (in general, not you in particular) aren't willing to take the time to realize "Hey, she could get pregnant if we have sex, what do we do if that happens?", why are you having sex in the first place?
Medium of Death wrote: What the actual feth do you care if somebody gets an abortion or not? Stop trying to control peoples lives and guilt trip women.
What the actual feth do you care about Meth, Crack, LSD, and general Drug Trafficking in the country? It's not right to try to control people's lives, if they want to do drugs, should they not be able to chose?
You have no Idea his ideas on drugs, you are assuming.
Also, Drug Traficking and rug using tend to be very violent crimes, with speed and crack making you violent
And sometimes precautions fail. Condoms break, prescriptions might not be perfect, or sometimes people make mistakes or might not even have the right education.
But the important thing, in relation to the OP, is that she could get pregnant. Not him. And that's a weight she has to carry. So forgive her if she holds more weight in the decision.
Where I live... I had to get my (then) wife's signature/approval before I can get my vasectomy.
Is that right?
Bingo, many places require then, but the men have no say the other way around.
My opinion is the man should have just as much say. Sure the gestation takes place in the woman, but that is a baby, a child, a son/daughter to the man. That is a life, a lifetime of memories, joys, fun, anger, hatred, whatever that the woman has sole discretion over. That is wrong in my eyes.
I see no reason why the woman gets total say over that much of my life. Especially when she made the same decision I did to engage in sex.
And now that I've put my opinion in, I will not visit this thread again, because nothing will have come of it.
Medium of Death wrote: What the actual feth do you care if somebody gets an abortion or not? Stop trying to control peoples lives and guilt trip women.
What the actual feth do you care about Meth, Crack, LSD, and general Drug Trafficking in the country? It's not right to try to control people's lives, if they want to do drugs, should they not be able to chose?
You have no Idea his ideas on drugs, you are assuming.
Also, Drug Traficking and rug using tend to be very violent crimes, with speed and crack making you violent
Their bodies, taking and selling/buying drugs are their decision. Yes, arrest them for doing violence to another person, but solely using, buying, or selling drugs? What does it matter to anyone else?
And most people are not fans of any of the major offenders with drugs. Marijuana is the only one with a majority backing, and it's starting to be legalized.
Where I live... I had to get my (then) wife's signature/approval before I can get my vasectomy.
Is that right?
Bingo, many places require then, but the men have no say the other way around.
My opinion is the man should have just as much say. Sure the gestation takes place in the woman, but that is a baby, a child, a son/daughter to the man. That is a life, a lifetime of memories, joys, fun, anger, hatred, whatever that the woman has sole discretion over. That is wrong in my eyes.
I see no reason why the woman gets total say over that much of my life. Especially when she made the same decision I did to engage in sex.
And now that I've put my opinion in, I will not visit this thread again, because nothing will have come of it.
WOOOOOHHHHHOOOOOOOOO
Don't make that assumption.
Some people have been raped and are stuck with pregnancy from someone that just came up to them and did that to them.
Thats blaming the victim right there. I advise you rewrite that please and withdraw your statement.
Fafnir wrote: And sometimes precautions fail. Condoms break, prescriptions might not be perfect, or sometimes people make mistakes or might not even have the right education.
But the important thing, in relation to the OP, is that she could get pregnant. Not him. And that's a weight she has to carry. So forgive her if she holds more weight in the decision.
To break it down:
Condoms Break: Dude was wearing a Condom, so he probably doesn't want the kid either. Not much of an issue.
Prescriptions aren't perfect: Again, they were taking birth control, so they probably don't want a kid. If it's the result of a drunken hookup, the father wouldn't even know about it half the time, again, no change.
People Make Mistakes: So because a guy now has a son he wants nothing to do with but the girl wants to keep, he is forced to pay Child Support/have a spawn of his running around, but if a girl gets pregnant, doesn't want the kid, but the father does, tough luck?
Right Education: So it is morally right to prevent people with poor education for not having high paying jobs, but not for allowing people to be born?
He could get her pregnant. She has the choice of spreading her legs or not, just like he has the choice of doing anything with it. Both are at fault/to be blamed/should have a say.
Where I live... I had to get my (then) wife's signature/approval before I can get my vasectomy.
Is that right?
Bingo, many places require then, but the men have no say the other way around.
My opinion is the man should have just as much say. Sure the gestation takes place in the woman, but that is a baby, a child, a son/daughter to the man. That is a life, a lifetime of memories, joys, fun, anger, hatred, whatever that the woman has sole discretion over. That is wrong in my eyes.
I see no reason why the woman gets total say over that much of my life. Especially when she made the same decision I did to engage in sex.
And now that I've put my opinion in, I will not visit this thread again, because nothing will have come of it.
WOOOOOHHHHHOOOOOOOOO
Don't make that assumption.
Some people have been raped and are stuck with pregnancy from someone that just came up to them and did that to them.
Thats blaming the victim right there. I advise you rewrite that please and withdraw your statement.
Which again, rape victims would get waivered through and have an abortion.
Where I live... I had to get my (then) wife's signature/approval before I can get my vasectomy.
Is that right?
Several things I would have to ask about that:
1) Did you and your wife talk about it before hand, or did you just suddenly decide to get a vasectomy without talking to her?
We discussed it because she chicken'ed out in getting her tubes tied after our 2nd child was born (C-section).
2) Is getting a Vasectomy comparable to an abortion, or more along the lines of severing the Tubes of a female to prevent childbirth?
Not comparable to abortion (tube tied, yes)... but that's what I wasn't talking about. I'm talking about the male/female making the decision together.
3) Should a mother not have a say in if she could have kids with her partner?
Of course... that's why I brought it up.
I would say that she should have a say in the fact that, Assuming happily married and going to be so for 30+ years, it will affect her just as much as it affects the male. However, I would disagree that a Vasectomy is not quite like an abortion in that a third life wouldn't be ended due to a vasectomy (Indeed, a male could even sperm back some of his.... sperm..... for when the time is to have a kid is right).
Seriously think this borderline misogynistic gak all the way through, fellas.
A woman is pregnant. Man wants baby, woman does not. Where do we go from here? A woman is forced to carry the baby to term and birth it? Against her will??? Fething nuts, man. Out to lunch. Totally fething bonkers.
If a man really wants a baby, then he first gets his gak together, finds a willing partner and commits to having a planned baby.
Or, oops! knock up your girlfriend, find out she's not the baby gettin' rid of kind, and sack the feth up and be an accidental father.
feeder wrote: Seriously think this borderline misogynistic gak all the way through, fellas.
A woman is pregnant. Man wants baby, woman does not. Where do we go from here? A woman is forced to carry the baby to term and birth it? Against her will??? Fething nuts, man. Out to lunch. Totally fething bonkers.
If a man really wants a baby, then he first gets his gak together, finds a willing partner and commits to having a planned baby.
Or, oops! knock up your girlfriend, find out she's not the baby gettin' rid of kind, and sack the feth up and be an accidental father.
Sadly the last one wraps up half my high school grade quite nicely.
feeder wrote: Seriously think this borderline misogynistic gak all the way through, fellas.
A woman is pregnant. Man wants baby, woman does not. Where do we go from here? A woman is forced to carry the baby to term and birth it? Against her will??? Fething nuts, man. Out to lunch. Totally fething bonkers.
If a man really wants a baby, then he first gets his gak together, finds a willing partner and commits to having a planned baby.
Or, oops! knock up your girlfriend, find out she's not the baby gettin' rid of kind, and sack the feth up and be an accidental father.
Which is pretty much what i think those kind of guys do. All the ones i know do anyways. Sorta thing you figure out before marriage. But the point is, even if its planned your wife/partner can win the lottery and get free tickets to fiji, decide the baby can wait, kills it then goes on holiday. Without the dads approval. (far fetched i know but there is nothing there for the father, who could love the kid, as fathers usually do)
feeder wrote: Where do we go from here? A woman is forced to carry the baby to term and birth it? Against her will??? Fething nuts, man. Out to lunch. Totally fething bonkers
A woman is a person with a full set of rights. Those rights don't allow someone else to trump them so she can become an unwilling uterus for an unwanted baby. That idea is pants on head insane.
Your rights end when they keep someone else from making their own medical decisions for their own body, in my opinion, whether it be a woman having the sole right to deciding if she wants an abortion or a man deciding he wants a vasectomy. I feel just as strongly about the latter as I do about the former.
If a man gets a vasectomy the spouse didn't agree to, she's free to seek a divorce. That's her right.
feeder wrote: Seriously think this borderline misogynistic gak all the way through, fellas.
A woman is pregnant. Man wants baby, woman does not. Where do we go from here? A woman is forced to carry the baby to term and birth it? Against her will??? Fething nuts, man. Out to lunch. Totally fething bonkers.
If a man really wants a baby, then he first gets his gak together, finds a willing partner and commits to having a planned baby.
Or, oops! knock up your girlfriend, find out she's not the baby gettin' rid of kind, and sack the feth up and be an accidental father.
Both parties agreed to have sex in the first place, no? Babies are a consequence (Not a BAD consequence) of having sex, is it not?
It wouldn't be "Man say woman have baby, woman have baby", but a judge would hear the case out.
And before anyone says "What if both parties didn't agree to have sex?" (Ergo, rape), than I would like to direct that person to read the original post; rape victims need not apply.
Mr Nobody wrote: Before this thread crashes in a ball of fire. I think the father should not be entirely separated from the process, though the mother should have the largest influence in the decision.
I agree with you, but I think the thread arrived as a ball of fire. Really like any other important decision the two should talk about it before it actually happens and make sure both sides have made their point clear.
Mr Nobody wrote: Before this thread crashes in a ball of fire. I think the father should not be entirely separated from the process, though the mother should have the largest influence in the decision.
I agree with you, but I think the thread arrived as a ball of fire. Really like any other important decision the two should talk about it before it actually happens and make sure both sides have made their point clear.
Slarg - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
feeder wrote: Seriously think this borderline misogynistic gak all the way through, fellas.
A woman is pregnant. Man wants baby, woman does not. Where do we go from here? A woman is forced to carry the baby to term and birth it? Against her will??? Fething nuts, man. Out to lunch. Totally fething bonkers.
If a man really wants a baby, then he first gets his gak together, finds a willing partner and commits to having a planned baby.
Or, oops! knock up your girlfriend, find out she's not the baby gettin' rid of kind, and sack the feth up and be an accidental father.
Both parties agreed to have sex in the first place, no? Babies are a consequence (Not a BAD consequence) of having sex, is it not?
It wouldn't be "Man say woman have baby, woman have baby", but a judge would hear the case out.
And before anyone says "What if both parties didn't agree to have sex?" (Ergo, rape), than I would like to direct that person to read the original post; rape victims need not apply.
It is like this. Someone walks into a bar the person drinks the beer, gets in their car, drives their car into the bar. They blame the Bar owner for giving them beer. Bar owner has no say in the matter and is arrested.
It is mostly that the woman has to go through the the massive problem of child birth. If they have to go through that much physical trauma, you bet your kiddies that her opinions matter more than yours. Your opinion may sway her to either her keeping the baby or killing it. Just know that.
Because that is the way it is ... and it will NEVER change. You are talking about changing a law for 100% of men that less than 1% would ever even think about, and only 1% of them would WANT to have a say in it.
The thing you need to realize is this: If you give the man an equal say in whether or not this child lives then it would only be a matter of time before someone would argue against having to pay child support because they did not want the child. Our government gets a percentage of the paid child support and that would be taking money out of their hands ... THAT they will not allow ... EVER.
hotsauceman1 wrote: And then a judge, who is most likely man says "You have baby" That is dangerously clse to using women as breeding machines
You could also say that having police is dangerously close to having martial law.....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OIIIIIIO wrote: Because that is the way it is ... and it will NEVER change. You are talking about changing a law for 100% of men that less than 1% would ever even think about, and only 1% of them would WANT to have a say in it.
The thing you need to realize is this: If you give the man an equal say in whether or not this child lives then it would only be a matter of time before someone would argue against having to pay child support because they did not want the child. Our government gets a percentage of the paid child support and that would be taking money out of their hands ... THAT they will not allow ... EVER.
Should a father have to pay child support if he didn't want the kid?
If a mother can say 'you can't have baby" to a guy, should he not be able to say "You can't have money" to a gal?
Of course there should be a discussion, it is a monumental decision, but to suggest a situation where the man has some kind of veto over a womans body is completely wrong in every sense of the word. Morally, ethically, legally and practically wrong. End of story.
hotsauceman1 wrote: And then a judge, who is most likely man says "You have baby" That is dangerously clse to using women as breeding machines
You could also say that having police is dangerously close to having martial law.....
No, not even close. Police are her to protect us from criminal. That is just a false analogy. you are saying women should be forced t carry a child she does not want.
Ok, would you also support this. Men saying that women should get an abortion because he doesnt want the child to live?
Should a father have to pay child support if he didn't want the kid?
Yes. If he engaged in the sex act, he knew the possible consequences. The fact that he didn't want a child doesn't make said child any less deserving of a nurturing, healthy environment, and both parents have a moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to see that their child gets one.
Ouze wrote: Slarg - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
I'm still waiting on an answer to this, did you just miss this post Slarg?
Oh yes. In a loving, trusting and mutually supportive couple both sides should have a say in such an important issue. Thing is, reality isn't always as idyllic and I can think of a dozen situations where having both parents' consent to perform an abortion could lead to injustice.
Certain things are better left out of the written law.
whembly wrote: While I pretty much agree with you... where I live and from what I know elsewhere... Urologist will refuse to perform Vasectomy w/o wife's approval.
I don't know if it's legal or malpractice requirement.
I guess the man could lie about being married... *shrugs*
I suspect this is a policy, rather than a legal requirement. It's an awful policy and I'd imagine you could get a referral to a urologist who didn't have such a policy.
whembly wrote: While I pretty much agree with you... where I live and from what I know elsewhere... Urologist will refuse to perform Vasectomy w/o wife's approval.
I don't know if it's legal or malpractice requirement.
I guess the man could lie about being married... *shrugs*
I suspect this is a policy, rather than a legal requirement. It's an awful policy and I'd imagine you could get a referral to a urologist who didn't have such a policy.
You're probably right...
I'm not too hung up about it, I just thought it was an interesting slant... ie, it's easier for a woman to get an abortion compared to married men getting a vasectomy.
That's just the way it is and we *men* just need to deal with it.
I wouldn't wish abortions to be made illegal... but, I do wish it's rare.
Yes, I'm also pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm like, stoked about abortions either. It's a very hard choice and I imagine it probably haunts most women in at least some way for the rest of their lives, but they are the best equipped to decide what their own circumstances are like.
feeder wrote: Where do we go from here? A woman is forced to carry the baby to term and birth it? Against her will??? Fething nuts, man. Out to lunch. Totally fething bonkers
A woman is a person with a full set of rights. Those rights don't allow someone else to trump them so she can become an unwilling uterus for an unwanted baby. That idea is pants on head insane.
Your rights end when they keep someone else from making their own medical decisions for their own body, in my opinion, whether it be a woman having the sole right to deciding if she wants an abortion or a man deciding he wants a vasectomy. I feel just as strongly about the latter as I do about the former.
If a man gets a vasectomy the spouse didn't agree to, she's free to seek a divorce. That's her right.
Ouze wrote: Yes, I'm also pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm like, stoked about abortions either. It's a very hard choice and I imagine it probably haunts most women in at least some way for the rest of their lives, but they are the best equipped to decide what their own circumstances are like.
Yeah...
I wished there's more education/programs available that NOT having an abortion is more viable.
*Public Service Announcement: Yes, whembly would be okay with government assistance, programs regarding this... please don't die of shock.
First of all, I only approve of abortion in the case of rape, forseen complications that could likely kill the woman and/or kid in child birth, or if signs show the kid will come out severely handicapped to the point of not enjoying life. Other than that, I'm against it. Accidents do happen, but if you want to be sexually active, you should be aware of all the risks. Abortions shouldn't be a form of birth control. Anyone doing that is disgusting and should just get their tubes tied. When I say "birth control" in this case, I mean girls who are having unprotected sex without legit birth control and are hitting the abortion clinic to clean out their mistakes on a semi-regular basis. Those are the disgusting people, not people who accidentally get pregnant on a one-off situation.
That said, if an abortion is necessary, it should be discussed between the two parents-it's really the woman's choice, but she shouldn't just up and do it without talking to her S.O. My ex did this-she got an abortion and never mentioned it to me until the night she broke up with me-told me "it was taken care of". Messed me up for a long time, because I loved her and I suspected she was pregnant and was looking forward to being a parent; especially sharing that with her. When she broke the news it was done and we were done at the same time, it just about broke me-it was rough. To this day, I wish her all the pain and suffering any human being could survive for what she took. Had it been discussed, it might have been different. But as in my case and others, the kid isn't just the mother's: it's also the father's. He might not get the deciding vote, but he should at least have his say.
I've been swayed in a couple of my thoughts on here by a decent opposing argument, but this is one thing I won't budge on. My opinion is set in stone.
timetowaste85 wrote: When I say "birth control" in this case, I mean girls who are having unprotected sex without legit birth control and are hitting the abortion clinic to clean out their mistakes on a semi-regular basis. Those are the disgusting people, not people who accidentally get pregnant on a one-off situation.
Do you actually think that women like that exist in any reasonable number? Considering both the emotional and physical ramifications that getting an abortion has, it's not something that any sensible person would take lightly.
I don't think a Man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion under any circumstances.
However, I do think that there should be an option for a Man to offer to pay for an abortion in exchange for being legally exempt from having to pay child support. Simply put, if the man fills out the necessary paperwork and submits the money to pay for an abortion, and the woman turns the offer down and chooses to have the baby, the man should therefore be free from having to pay child support.
Thus women get to retain their freedom of choice, while we simultaneously prevent dumb gak like women choosing to have a baby so that they can trap a dude and get paid every month for 18-years.
timetowaste85 wrote: When I say "birth control" in this case, I mean girls who are having unprotected sex without legit birth control and are hitting the abortion clinic to clean out their mistakes on a semi-regular basis. Those are the disgusting people, not people who accidentally get pregnant on a one-off situation.
Do you actually think that women like that exist in any reasonable number? Considering both the emotional and physical ramifications that getting an abortion has, it's not something that any sensible person would take lightly.
There are some really ed up people out there. It can happen, but it is not common place.
BlaxicanX wrote: I don't think a Man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion under any circumstances.
However, I do think that there should be an option for a Man to offer to pay for an abortion in exchange for being legally exempt from having to pay child support. Simply put, if the man fills out the necessary paperwork and submits the money to pay for an abortion, and the woman turns the offer down and chooses to have the baby, the man should therefore be free from having to pay child support.
Thus women get to retain their freedom of choice, while we simultaneously prevent dumb gak like women choosing to have a baby so that they can trap a dude and get paid every month for 18-years.
This. Or just submit paperwork stating you are the father, you didn't want to have the child and want nothing to do with it.
Ouze wrote: Slarg - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
This. I don't think OP has thought it through this far though.
timetowaste85 wrote: When I say "birth control" in this case, I mean girls who are having unprotected sex without legit birth control and are hitting the abortion clinic to clean out their mistakes on a semi-regular basis.
So what? You're talking about "killing" a blob of cells that has less "personhood" than the cockroaches you squish without hesitation. That kind of abortion-as-birth-control is probably stupid in that it's probably more expensive than conventional birth control and had a much greater potential for harmful side effects, but it's not like there's any moral issue involved here.
I would not have any qualms whatsoever if my partner decided she didn't want to go through with it, no matter how much I would want it myself. As a male, I don't have to go through the agony of pregnancy and childbirth, so my opinion is secondary, even if the responsibility is shared.
In the opposite, if I didn't want one, but she did... I don't know. With my current mindset, I would bolt from the situation and create a new life somewhere else. My entire family had kids before they wanted to, and although it all turned out okay, I don't want the same thing to happen.
Child support is such a pain though. I despise those who manage to escape responsibility, although every day of their lives must be waking paranoia and misery at the thought of that letter coming in the mail.
From my point of view, life is not precious at all. We've advanced to the point that we have the ability to prevent needless birth, quite easily, and the ability to change the lives of individuals to how they would like it. Moral obligations are holding that potential back.
I've met several women who have had not one or two, but several "abortions" of different types, and they seem perfectly fine with it. The regret that many imagine would accompany making the conscious decision to abort is not necessarily realistic.
It's the woman's body that carries the baby and her that has to undergo any procedure. A man cannot realistically be allowed to make that decision where she has an operation for her. Certainly he can make his wishes known but he cannot reasonably compel the woman to undergo an operation, or prevent her, thus forcing her to carry a child to term.
Sometimes someone suggests that if the man asks for an abortion and the woman refuses, it should excuse him of parental duties and support money. That's simply giving men a free hand to coherce women into abortions by rejecting any responsibility and essential support to a child they have fathered. So that won't wash either. Sorry, men have to take back seat on this issue.
feeder wrote: Seriously think this borderline misogynistic gak all the way through, fellas.
A woman is pregnant. Man wants baby, woman does not. Where do we go from here? A woman is forced to carry the baby to term and birth it? Against her will??? Fething nuts, man. Out to lunch. Totally fething bonkers.
If a man really wants a baby, then he first gets his gak together, finds a willing partner and commits to having a planned baby.
Or, oops! knock up your girlfriend, find out she's not the baby gettin' rid of kind, and sack the feth up and be an accidental father.
Both parties agreed to have sex in the first place, no? Babies are a consequence (Not a BAD consequence) of having sex, is it not?
It wouldn't be "Man say woman have baby, woman have baby", but a judge would hear the case out.
And before anyone says "What if both parties didn't agree to have sex?" (Ergo, rape), than I would like to direct that person to read the original post; rape victims need not apply.
Right, so how quick are these 'cases' going to be heard? The longer you wait for an abortion the worse it is psychologically and physically for the woman. Either you take the woman's word for it that it was rape or you need a full trial to prove it. Ideally an abortion should be done within weeks not months.
Say it's not a rape and there's a judge that will hear the merits of the situation from the point of view of the mother and father? How long will that take? Can you appeal?
Is this actually workable at all?
And finally, are you happy that a pregnant woman could be told by the father/court that she isn't allowed to terminate a pregnancy and be forced to carry it to term? Won't this just encourage people to look for other ways/places to abort outside of proper hospitals?
Search for the last 10 abortion threads to get everyone's opinion because this thread won't be any different.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Searching for threads also saves me time because I can just copy and paste my answer!
You do have the exact same rights as a woman, you can talk to your physician and decide what medical procedures you do or do not want done on you. You can decide what medications you want to take or what surgeries you want performed on you. You are 100% equal in rights to women. Both men and women have the right to make medical decisions for themselves.
Nothing you do should take away another person's right to decide what they happens to their own body. You should never have a legal right that forces another person to lose their rights to their own bodies.
Here is something you can try: keep a stack of Medical Power of Attorney forms in your pocket. Next time you want to feth somebody make sure that you sit them down before you stick it in and explain to them that you would like for them to sign away their right to make their own healthcare decisions and give you the legal right to determine what medical procedures they are allowed to have or what medications they are allowed to take. Ask them to give you medical ownership of their bodies so that you can feth them. See how many of them will spread their legs for you.
And
Abortion is bad. That's why the vast majority of people that are pro-choice are not actually pro-abortion.
Provide the incentives to actually have the child and raise it instead of passing unconstitutional law after unconstitutional law while also legislating away all benefits and programs to help these parents raise their child. Keep it pro-choice, and give these women all the help that they need so that they will choose life. Care as much about an actual living breathing human child once it is born as you pretend to care about while it is still a sack of cells.
Abortion: Keep it legal, keep it safe, provide all the resources they need to make it more rare.
Howard A Treesong wrote: That's simply giving men a free hand to coherce women into abortions by rejecting any responsibility and essential support to a child they have fathered.
Only if you live in a country with no real safety net and a belief that if you're poor it's because you deserve it. If the woman doesn't have to worry about being stuck in crippling poverty if they keep the child then the man doesn't have that power over her. The solution here is to fix the belief that "socialism" is the end of civilization, not to continue to promote the idea of "personal responsibility" as an excuse to avoid society's collective obligations.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It's the woman's body that carries the baby and her that has to undergo any procedure. A man cannot realistically be allowed to make that decision where she has an operation for her. Certainly he can make his wishes known but he cannot reasonably compel the woman to undergo an operation, or prevent her, thus forcing her to carry a child to term.
Sometimes someone suggests that if the man asks for an abortion and the woman refuses, it should excuse him of parental duties and support money. That's simply giving men a free hand to coherce women into abortions by rejecting any responsibility and essential support to a child they have fathered. So that won't wash either. Sorry, men have to take back seat on this issue.
I think that an issue like this should have a certain degree of compromise, and it should be based roughly upon how the pregnancy has progressed. So in a two week old foetus whereby ending the problem is just taking a few pills? The two should confer, and if the woman wishes for a baby and the man does not, then the man should be able to opt out. He signs a bit of paper saying he does not wish to be a father, and in turn is legally excluded from ever having any rights as far as the child is concerned for good.
On the flip side, if the father wants a child and the mother does not? The mother prevails 100% of the time on that decision. She is not a baby machine, she should not be forced to carry to term.
Once the foetus reaches a point whereby abortion is a surgical procedure though (about ten to twelve weeks in), that's where I would draw the line and say that the father no longer has any opt out. Why? Because an abortion is now large enough and problematic enough issue, and aborting it is no longer a simple procedure. You would have had two or three weeks at least beforehand in most cases to make your decision, and you've either procrastinated, or changed your mind. Neither of which is fair to the mother. If you procrastinated, it was your fault, and if you changed your mind, then you need to bear the responsibility, which is that the mother may not wish for a highly invasive surgical procedure and may instead prefer to carry to term.
Where I live... I had to get my (then) wife's signature/approval before I can get my vasectomy.
Is that right?
I did some searching on that and I couldn't find any laws that required this.
There are many physicians that require it to cover their butts in case the spouse sues for some reason, but it doesn't seem to be a legal requirement anywhere.
It seems more like a HIPAA violation than anything else.
We should kill all babies, way easier and gets rid of that damn noise.
Also, slarg, get your head out of your arse, men will have to pay for the upbringing of the kid, they won't have to sacrifice parts of their body that may never fully recover.
Soladrin wrote: We should kill all babies, way easier and gets rid of that damn noise.
Also, slarg, get your head out of your arse, men will have to pay for the upbringing of the kid, they won't have to sacrifice parts of their body that may never fully recover.
Because it's impossible for a man working two jobs/extra hours to pay for himself and child support to break his back/have a workplace injury/similar and never recover for that.....
Soladrin wrote: We should kill all babies, way easier and gets rid of that damn noise.
Also, slarg, get your head out of your arse, men will have to pay for the upbringing of the kid, they won't have to sacrifice parts of their body that may never fully recover.
Because it's impossible for a man working two jobs/extra hours to pay for himself and child support to break his back/have a workplace injury/similar and never recover for that.....
Well then stop living in a country with stupid laws and gakky wages.
feeder wrote:I do not support "opt out" fatherhood. Someone's gotta pay for the kid, it may as well be the father.
So we can screw over the father, but not the mother?
Mr. Burning wrote:
Ouze wrote: Slarg - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
This. I don't think OP has thought it through this far though.
Then I suppose yes.
There are all kinds of ways to enjoy quality time together, be it oral, anal, not to mention stacking birth controls (Condoms, pills, similar) that if someone does get pregnant while not using any of these methods, that kid deserves a chance at life.
Oral sex, anal sex, abstinence, fingering...... all 99.99% proven to not cause pregnancies.
Soladrin wrote: We should kill all babies, way easier and gets rid of that damn noise.
Also, slarg, get your head out of your arse, men will have to pay for the upbringing of the kid, they won't have to sacrifice parts of their body that may never fully recover.
Because it's impossible for a man working two jobs/extra hours to pay for himself and child support to break his back/have a workplace injury/similar and never recover for that.....
Well then stop living in a country with stupid laws and gakky wages.
Well someone has to bail out Europe next time they start in-fighting again
Soladrin wrote: We should kill all babies, way easier and gets rid of that damn noise.
Also, slarg, get your head out of your arse, men will have to pay for the upbringing of the kid, they won't have to sacrifice parts of their body that may never fully recover.
Because it's impossible for a man working two jobs/extra hours to pay for himself and child support to break his back/have a workplace injury/similar and never recover for that.....
Well then stop living in a country with stupid laws and gakky wages.
Well someone has to bail out Europe next time they start in-fighting again
Oral sex, anal sex, abstinence, fingering...... all 99.99% proven to not cause pregnancies.
I'm just going to NSFW and spoiler this reply, because it's going to get clinical up in here.
Spoiler:
Here is how your argument breaks down.
For all of them: You will be making out. Naked bodies will move around and at some point your penis will get near her vagina. While you are aroused during this making out you will have seminal fluids already leaking out of your penis, so there is always a very real chance that your semen will get near her vagina and result in pregnancy. To further break it down.
Oral Sex: The old "you can't get pregnant if you swallow his sperm or spit it out somewhere" trick. But while she is going down on you she will be using her hands, she will be using her lips, all areas that now have come in contact with your sperm. Afterwards she kisses you (or does the old snowball, I don't know what you are into) and then you go down on her. She has sperm on her mouth, transfers it to your mouth, you transfer it to her vagina. Or she has sperm on her hands that she got there while going down on you, she touches your hands which touch her vagina. Boom, transfer of sperm. Of maybe she uses her hands on you and then decides to stimulate herself a little bit. Straight transfer of your sperm from your shaft to her privates.
Anal Sex: You are going at it, slide all the way out, and accidentally stick it in the wrong (right) hole. Now your seminal fluids are in her vagina. You keep it perfectly in the two hole the entire time and finish. Now seminal fluids can leak out and drip into the vagina. Wonderful way to avoid pregnancy.
Fingering: Transfer of seminal fluids from penis to hands to vagina.
Abstinence: Works 100% as long as people practice true abstinence. That includes no fingering, no hands down the pants, no dry humping, no "just the tip, just a little bit, just to see how it feels". If you are aroused and leaking seminal fluids and either of you is touching your penis then there is a real chance that this seminal fluid can end up in her vagina.
Might have been a bit too much for DakkaDakka. But this is a grownup topic and I'm going to talk to you as if you were a grownup that can handle the responsibility of having your penis outside of your pants near a woman.
d-usa wrote: Might have been a bit too much for DakkaDakka. But this is a grownup topic and I'm going to talk to you as if you were a grownup that can handle the responsibility of having your penis outside of your pants near a woman.
There are laws making sure I have to handle the responsibility of having my penis outside of my pants near a woman
Ouze wrote: - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
Then I suppose yes.
And that's the point I stopped paying any attention to what you said.
Sorry. To advocate forcing women to go through birth against their will equates to fining/punishing people for daring to avoid extreme pain at the least, and forcibly restraining and operating at the most.
No man's right to fatherhood supersedes the right of a woman not to be tortured (e.g. to undergo extreme physical pain against their will).
Ouze wrote: - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
Then I suppose yes.
And that's the point I stopped paying any attention to what you said.
Sorry. To advocate forcing women to go through birth against their will equates to fining/punishing people for daring to avoid extreme pain at the least, and forcibly restraining and operating at the most.
This is why I advocate test tube babies. I'm slowly pushing for Huxley's Brave New World.
Ouze wrote: - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
Then I suppose yes.
And that's the point I stopped paying any attention to what you said.
Sorry. To advocate forcing women to go through birth against their will equates to fining/punishing people for daring to avoid extreme pain at the least, and forcibly restraining and operating at the most.
This is why I advocate test tube babies. I'm slowly pushing for Huxley's Brave New World.
Fafnir wrote: The male commitment to a fetus is just a loving spoonful.
While there can be emotional investment involved, if the woman doesn't want a child, it's her body, and regardless of the feelings of her partner, she's the one forced to make the biggest commitment.
If you're with someone who doesn't want a child, and you do, and you consider that to be a major factor in your relationship, you might not be cut out for one another.
Yes, but if a woman doesn't want to go to jail, she doesn't murder someone.
If a kid doesn't want to swatted with a wooden spoon, (s)he doesn't try to steal a cookie from the cookie jar.
Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.
'Simply don't do the thing if it has potentially bad consequences' - do not have sex with a woman who would have an abortion if she got pregnant. If you disagree wholeheartedly with the concept of abortion, find a partner who does likewise before jumping into bed with them. If people did this, one stage up the chain of causation for pregnancy from the bit where you get pregnant, then there would be no problem.
It is unfortunate that it is only women who have the potential to bear a child, otherwise this discussion would be immaterial. However, as it stands, it is a woman's body which goes through the substantial changes of pregnancy, and it should be nobody's right to force anybody to go through painful alterations to their body when an alternative exists. This is essential what happens when a woman's partner denies them the right to an abortion.
If any of the points that I have made here are unclear, feel free to offer counterpoints or ask for clarifications.
Ouze wrote: man gets a vasectomy the spouse didn't agree to, she's free to seek a divorce. That's her right.
While I pretty much agree with you... where I live and from what I know elsewhere... Urologist will refuse to perform Vasectomy w/o wife's approval.
I got a vasectomy in the army (so far it's worked... ) and the only involvement my wife had was when the Doc asked me, "does your wife agree to this?" to which, of course I said "yep" ... ohh and she drove me home, but thats about it
My own personal view:
Barring rape/incest/molestation, or risk to the life of mother, abortion should not be legal. Period.
Again, if someone makes the decision to open up, and there are consequences, they should deal with them. And for me, consequences could be a little as crabs, or herpes, or children. Certainly not all require the same level of commitment, but there are options out there for those who do not wish to take care of children. I have plenty of close friends who are physically incapable of bearing children, most of them have been able to adopt. Is it perfect? No, but then again, even kids who are born to a "happily married" couple arent going to come out perfect.
Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.
It should only be noted that this 'thing with potentially bad consequences' is only a thing with 'bad consequences' if other people insist on there being 'bad consequences'. An abortion is not a 'bad consequence' necessarily. You catch it early enough, it's just a few pills.
No, the 'bad consequences' only come about when other unrelated people start insisting that a woman should be forced to carry every single child to term. Otherwise, sex is just a 'thing'.
I've always thought that women being allowed to vote, be educated, drive, run for office, and have control of their own body was a wonderful thing. I've never understood why some men have this urge to repress and control half the human race.
Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.
It should only be noted that this 'thing with potentially bad consequences' is only a thing with 'bad consequences' if other people insist on there being 'bad consequences'. An abortion is not a 'bad consequence' necessarily. You catch it early enough, it's just a few pills.
No, the 'bad consequences' only come about when other unrelated people start insisting that a woman should be forced to carry every single child to term. Otherwise, sex is just a 'thing'.
I've always thought that women being allowed to vote, be educated, drive, run for office, and have control of their own body was a wonderful thing. I've never understood why some men have this urge to repress and control half the human race.
Aren't you a third party who represses and controls what people say online?
I honestly am not thinking about "repressing and controlling" women. I'm more worried about the child.
Aren't you a third party who represses and controls what people say online?
Not particularly. I'm a Swapshop Moderator, not a general one. Nice attempt at a sly and totally irrelevant ad hominem to divert from what I said though.
How about calling me an SS (SwapShop) Mod next time? Then you can break Godwin's Law as well!
I honestly am not thinking about "repressing and controlling" women. I'm more worried about the child.
At three weeks in, the 'child' is a lump less sentient than my pet venus flytrap. The 'child's' right to life only comes into play when it becomes a child (aka, capable of surviving independently). Then it becomes something of a stickier issue. But that wasn't the original scenario posited.
Slarg232 wrote: I'll try to make this quick and to the point, but this is something that just doesn't make sense to me.
On the subject of Abortion, I've always been of the notion that a father should have a say in if an Abortion can happen; this still allows unwanted pregnancies from ruining lives due to financial reasons or similar, but provides an additional safety net to protect the life of the unborn. This is usually shot down because of the following reaons:
- "It's her body, not his. The choice should be hers!" (By this logic, you could argue for the legalization of Meth, LSD, and Crack.)
- "What about Rape Victims; the Rapist shouldn't have a say!" (Agreed, see below)
- "Why should the father have a say?" (Because he had a say in making the baby in the first place [Barring rape])
I have always proposed that it should have to have yes votes from both mother and father, with a judge being able to rule in favor of the mother being able to ignore the father's wishes (In case of rape, a incompetent father, or some other mishap.) This has always been shot down as being too much of a hassle; it should be solely in the mother's choice to have an abortion, father should NOT have a say in it.
But does this mean that murder cases are too much of a hassle?
What I am saying, is that if someone's brother was brutally murdered, is it "too much of a hassle" for them to be dragged into a long, arduous and painful trial so as to see justice is done? What about a witness, they are asked to keep the brutal murder fresh in their mind and retell the tale over and over so as to allow the facts to be brought to light in court. Is that trial any less agonizing? Is a murder, a cessation of an old life, more important than an abortion, a stymieing of a new life?
Any sort of argument of an abortion not requiring a trial can be used for murder, as well; If a woman is raped, she should not have to wait for a trial for an abortion. However, if a man is killed, should his brother have to wait for a trial to imprison the murderer for 5-20 years? If a pregnancy is the result of a mutually consenting "good time" and doesn't require a trial, why do accidental murders (Such as a gun discharging at a firing range on accident and killing someone) require a trial and potentially bump the accidental death up into a Manslaughter charge?
Now, I'm not saying that Abortion is Murder. Letter of the Law, Murder is a human killing another, and a Fetus technically isn't classified as Human. I will fully state that I disagree with this, but that is not the point of this thread. This thread is about the Logical Jump from a Trial for Crime A and how it is too much of a hassle, but Crime B requires a judge, jury, and potentially executioner?
Thoughts, Dakka? I'm trying to open up a discussion, NOT a flame bait argument thread. Let's be civil, please.
When Men can have babies, they can have a say. Until then, off.
Medium of Death wrote: What the actual feth do you care if somebody gets an abortion or not? Stop trying to control peoples lives and guilt trip women.
These are strange days when the Libertarian agrees with the Brit...
Where I live... I had to get my (then) wife's signature/approval before I can get my vasectomy.
Is that right?
Bingo, many places require then, but the men have no say the other way around.
My opinion is the man should have just as much say. Sure the gestation takes place in the woman, but that is a baby, a child, a son/daughter to the man. That is a life, a lifetime of memories, joys, fun, anger, hatred, whatever that the woman has sole discretion over. That is wrong in my eyes.
I see no reason why the woman gets total say over that much of my life. Especially when she made the same decision I did to engage in sex.
And now that I've put my opinion in, I will not visit this thread again, because nothing will have come of it.
You're not the one carryign said baby to term, potentially endangering your life.
Father shouldn't make the final decisions.... its the woman's body, her say. A reasonable woman should take the guy's stance into consideration though.
feeder wrote: Seriously think this borderline misogynistic gak all the way through, fellas.
A woman is pregnant. Man wants baby, woman does not. Where do we go from here? A woman is forced to carry the baby to term and birth it? Against her will??? Fething nuts, man. Out to lunch. Totally fething bonkers.
If a man really wants a baby, then he first gets his gak together, finds a willing partner and commits to having a planned baby.
Or, oops! knock up your girlfriend, find out she's not the baby gettin' rid of kind, and sack the feth up and be an accidental father.
Both parties agreed to have sex in the first place, no? Babies are a consequence (Not a BAD consequence) of having sex, is it not?
It wouldn't be "Man say woman have baby, woman have baby", but a judge would hear the case out.
And before anyone says "What if both parties didn't agree to have sex?" (Ergo, rape), than I would like to direct that person to read the original post; rape victims need not apply.
Er no. Both parties are agreeing to make the beast with two backs. There is no agreement that both parties are having a child, unless there is an agreement for that.
If you go joyriding on a motorcycle you're not agreeing to have a wreck and end up in the hospital.
whembly wrote: While I pretty much agree with you... where I live and from what I know elsewhere... Urologist will refuse to perform Vasectomy w/o wife's approval.
I don't know if it's legal or malpractice requirement.
I guess the man could lie about being married... *shrugs*
I suspect this is a policy, rather than a legal requirement. It's an awful policy and I'd imagine you could get a referral to a urologist who didn't have such a policy.
You're probably right...
I'm not too hung up about it, I just thought it was an interesting slant... ie, it's easier for a woman to get an abortion compared to married men getting a vasectomy.
That's just the way it is and we *men* just need to deal with it.
I wouldn't wish abortions to be made illegal... but, I do wish it's rare.
Actually one could argue the operation itself violates the Hypocratic Oath (sp): do no harm. Of course that standard would kill most of the cosmetic surgery industry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlaxicanX wrote: I don't think a Man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion under any circumstances.
However, I do think that there should be an option for a Man to offer to pay for an abortion in exchange for being legally exempt from having to pay child support. Simply put, if the man fills out the necessary paperwork and submits the money to pay for an abortion, and the woman turns the offer down and chooses to have the baby, the man should therefore be free from having to pay child support.
Thus women get to retain their freedom of choice, while we simultaneously prevent dumb gak like women choosing to have a baby so that they can trap a dude and get paid every month for 18-years.
Sorry Charlie, do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
You cannot effectively sign away the rights of the child.
Ouze wrote: - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
Then I suppose yes.
I don't know you, Slarg. We haven't really gotten into it here, good or bad, that I recall. My feeling from your posts is you had an idea here - that a man having less rights to a baby he contributed to than a woman was in a way an injustice. I think most people would agree that's probably true, to a degree: it's not fair.
Then you went a little further and tried to right this injustice. The problem is that this is a binary choice - a little injustice for the man, yes, but the only other side of the scale is a vast injustice for a woman. I think you, as several others posited, didn't think things all the way through to the logical conclusion of your idea. You got called on it, and seeing no other choice - you created this thread, after all - decided the only option here was to double down and run with it. I can understand all of these things. I've said and done things that I realized were suboptimal and pride or embarrassment didn't at the time allow me to be honest and admit my idea wasn't so hot. I picked bad cards and it was a lousy hand, but screw it, maybe everyone else will have worse hands, right? Anyway, it's OK, it's human nature really. I certainly wouldn't think any less of anyone who expressed an idea, was shown it was poor, and admitted such. In fact, doing so is a sign of grace and intelligence, in my book. I always try to admit when I am wrong and have done so in these threads more than once.
Because the other option - that you really believe the ideas you are expressing - these repugnant, ugly ideas, that embrace a medieval view of women as chattels of men, life-support systems for a womb, who exist only to service a man's seed as he desires, or not - that would be more difficult for me to believe. I've been told on these very fora that I am naive, and I suppose at least sometimes it's true, but I just can't find it in be to believe a poster with a US flag next to their name, in the year 2014, honestly holds such horrifically ideas about the role of women that the civilized world has all but abandoned, save for fundamentalist pockets in tribal Pakistan and other Taliban controlled areas, and suchlike.
I guess it's a flaw, for me to be so optimistic about people, but here we are.
Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.
It should only be noted that this 'thing with potentially bad consequences' is only a thing with 'bad consequences' if other people insist on there being 'bad consequences'. An abortion is not a 'bad consequence' necessarily. You catch it early enough, it's just a few pills.
No, the 'bad consequences' only come about when other unrelated people start insisting that a woman should be forced to carry every single child to term. Otherwise, sex is just a 'thing'.
I've always thought that women being allowed to vote, be educated, drive, run for office, and have control of their own body was a wonderful thing. I've never understood why some men have this urge to repress and control half the human race.
Aren't you a third party who represses and controls what people say online?
I honestly am not thinking about "repressing and controlling" women. I'm more worried about the child.
Clearly you've never been around a pregnant woman or that whole childbirth thing.
You do know that women still die giving birth right? Since you forced her to carry the child to term can the state then prosecute you for murder?
I don't mean it in a dismissive way but I would say keep your opinions to yourself. I haven't told anybody whether I agree or disagree with abortion as I wouldn't want anybody I love to ever throw it back in my face. If a women chooses to keep or abort a child, that is her choice and her choice alone. Whether you agree or disagree the important thing is to be there for her.
Ouze wrote: - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
Then I suppose yes.
I don't know you, Slarg. We haven't really gotten into it here, good or bad, that I recall. My feeling from your posts is you had an idea here - that a man having less rights to a baby he contributed to than a woman was in a way an injustice. I think most people would agree that's probably true, to a degree: it's not fair.
Then you went a little further and tried to right this injustice. The problem is that this is a binary choice - a little injustice for the man, yes, but the only other side of the scale is a vast injustice for a woman. I think you, as several others posited, didn't think things all the way through to the logical conclusion of your idea. You got called on it, and seeing no other choice - you created this thread, after all - decided the only option here was to double down and run with it. I can understand all of these things. I've said and done things that I realized were suboptimal and pride or embarrassment didn't at the time allow me to be honest and admit my idea wasn't so hot. I picked bad cards and it was a lousy hand, but screw it, maybe everyone else will have worse hands, right? Anyway, it's OK, it's human nature really. I certainly wouldn't think any less of anyone who expressed an idea, was shown it was poor, and admitted such. In fact, doing so is a sign of grace and intelligence, in my book. I always try to admit when I am wrong and have done so in these threads more than once.
Because the other option - that you really believe the ideas you are expressing - these repugnant, ugly ideas, that embrace a medieval view of women as chattels of men, life-support systems for a womb, who exist only to service a man's seed as he desires, or not - that would be more difficult for me to believe. I've been told on these very fora that I am naive, and I suppose at least sometimes it's true, but I just can't find it in be to believe a poster with a US flag next to their name, in the year 2014, honestly holds such horrifically ideas about the role of women that the civilized world has all but abandoned, save for fundamentalist pockets in tribal Pakistan and other Taliban controlled areas, and suchlike.
I guess it's a flaw, for me to be so optimistic about people, but here we are.
Why is this so much different with Sex and pregnancies? If you don't want to live with the consequences, you just simply don't do the thing that has potentially bad consequences.
It should only be noted that this 'thing with potentially bad consequences' is only a thing with 'bad consequences' if other people insist on there being 'bad consequences'. An abortion is not a 'bad consequence' necessarily. You catch it early enough, it's just a few pills.
No, the 'bad consequences' only come about when other unrelated people start insisting that a woman should be forced to carry every single child to term. Otherwise, sex is just a 'thing'.
I've always thought that women being allowed to vote, be educated, drive, run for office, and have control of their own body was a wonderful thing. I've never understood why some men have this urge to repress and control half the human race.
Aren't you a third party who represses and controls what people say online?
I honestly am not thinking about "repressing and controlling" women. I'm more worried about the child.
Clearly you've never been around a pregnant woman or that whole childbirth thing.
You do know that women still die giving birth right? Since you forced her to carry the child to term can the state then prosecute you for murder?
Essentially making your penis the murder weapon :O
A woman's right to direct her healthcare via advanced directives is null and void as soon as she becomes pregnant in these states:
Right now a woman is artificially kept alive in Texas despite her previous wishes to the contrary and the fact that any event that left her brain damaged will also left the fetus damaged as well.
She is being kept alive, despite her legally exercised option to prevent this, all so that she can serve as an artificially breathing incubator.
Is this like a dream come true for you OP? A woman's medical rights reduced to zero and her body used as an incubator despite her will, just an extension of the machines keeping her alive?
Again its the interest of the child thing. I know it seems to throw people, but the State has an interest in the welfare of the child. Once the timeline hits a certain point the State has Compelling Interest in the rights of the child.
Again its the interest of the child thing. I know it seems to throw people, but the State has an interest in the welfare of the child. Once the timeline hits a certain point the State has Compelling Interest in the rights of the child.
As much as I am pro-choice I do agree that viability should be the line where things change (and pro-choice groups need to acknowledge that with medical advances, viability comes earlier than before).
This particular case is just BS because when this happened she would have been allowed to walk into a clinic and make the decision to abort because the pregnancy was not that advanced. She would have also had the legal right to decide not to be on life support. On the day of the incident she could have aborted without any problems. But not she is forced to be an incubator because the state will not honor her advanced directives because of a pregnancy that she could have terminated 5 minutes before she became unconscious.
Ouze wrote: - is your argument that if a woman gets pregnant and doesn't want it, and the man does, she is forced to carry it to term anyway? No long justifications, just a yes or no.
Then I suppose yes.
I don't know you, Slarg. We haven't really gotten into it here, good or bad, that I recall. My feeling from your posts is you had an idea here - that a man having less rights to a baby he contributed to than a woman was in a way an injustice. I think most people would agree that's probably true, to a degree: it's not fair.
Then you went a little further and tried to right this injustice. The problem is that this is a binary choice - a little injustice for the man, yes, but the only other side of the scale is a vast injustice for a woman. I think you, as several others posited, didn't think things all the way through to the logical conclusion of your idea. You got called on it, and seeing no other choice - you created this thread, after all - decided the only option here was to double down and run with it. I can understand all of these things. I've said and done things that I realized were suboptimal and pride or embarrassment didn't at the time allow me to be honest and admit my idea wasn't so hot. I picked bad cards and it was a lousy hand, but screw it, maybe everyone else will have worse hands, right? Anyway, it's OK, it's human nature really. I certainly wouldn't think any less of anyone who expressed an idea, was shown it was poor, and admitted such. In fact, doing so is a sign of grace and intelligence, in my book. I always try to admit when I am wrong and have done so in these threads more than once.
Because the other option - that you really believe the ideas you are expressing - these repugnant, ugly ideas, that embrace a medieval view of women as chattels of men, life-support systems for a womb, who exist only to service a man's seed as he desires, or not - that would be more difficult for me to believe. I've been told on these very fora that I am naive, and I suppose at least sometimes it's true, but I just can't find it in be to believe a poster with a US flag next to their name, in the year 2014, honestly holds such horrifically ideas about the role of women that the civilized world has all but abandoned, save for fundamentalist pockets in tribal Pakistan and other Taliban controlled areas, and suchlike.
I guess it's a flaw, for me to be so optimistic about people, but here we are.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I have a question. Does anyone here who does not support abortion also not support the Birth Control Pill?
They're different things entirely. One is a preventative, the other is an after-the-fact solution. One prevents, one cancels. Totally different things.
Interesting. I always considered WoW to be a big sex chat with nice minigame, I know a number of parents who would never have found together if not for WoW. But hey, different country, different outcome.
ed up people out there. It can happen, but it is not common place.
