Avatar image for deactivated-5c60ecae36801
#702 Posted by deactivated-5c60ecae36801 (745 posts) - - Show Bio

I wouldn't want an abortion if I to get someone pregnant but, I know its not my choice and believe that the woman has final say in what happens and I Believe she deserves the right to choose.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#703 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6087 posts) - - Show Bio

I prefer to eat yiros

Avatar image for hyiena
#704 Posted by hyiena (5326 posts) - - Show Bio

Do what you want.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#705 Posted by jagernutt (16331 posts) - - Show Bio

Murder

Avatar image for straight-fire
#706 Posted by Straight-Fire (27269 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-choice.

Avatar image for probot
#707 Posted by Probot (12 posts) - - Show Bio

Common sense, if the woman's life is in danger or if it was rape or incest then the woman has the right to abortion. But if it was some 14 year old who got knocked up first date or a 38 year old woman who decides just not financially right to raise a child then the woman should be forced to raise the baby to term. And then that child will you put up for adoption for a family who cannot have a kid

Avatar image for just_sayin
#708 Posted by just_sayin (3412 posts) - - Show Bio

I believe we should protect rather than kill innocent human life.

Avatar image for faradaysloth
#709 Posted by FaradaySloth (9268 posts) - - Show Bio

Over the past week, past life. New York and Virginia are disgraceful.

Avatar image for doofasa
#710 Posted by Doofasa (2007 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-choice. When it comes to cases of sexual assault, threat to the mother's life or serious medical issues for the child an abortion should be an option throughout the pregnancy. For socio-economic and non-health reasons up until 12 weeks it should be an option.

If you don't like abortions, don't get one, but you have zero right to attempt to enforce your beliefs on other people.

Avatar image for benjamin_poindexter
#711 Posted by Benjamin_Poindexter (928 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-choice. Overpopulation is a real thing.

Avatar image for darkonast
#712 Posted by darkonast (769 posts) - - Show Bio

@probot: have you seen the foster care system? .... 9/10 the kid is never getting adopted , not like what the media portrays. Foster kids often live in overcrowded, underfunded homes

Avatar image for whyzoserious
#713 Posted by WhyZoSerious (1722 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for theamazingspidey
#714 Posted by TheAmazingSpidey (17571 posts) - - Show Bio

The issue with discussions revolving around abortion is the "you want to control a woman's body" argument from pro-choice people, who habitually ignore the fact that pro-life people view an embryo as being no less than a human life.

It's the same reason why the "overpopulation" argument doesn't work. Right, overpopulation is a thing. Does that mean I get to kill you in the name of decreasing the population?

Personally, I support abortion in instances such as rape, and instances where the process of carrying a child and giving birth poses a threat to the mothers health. However, I disagree with abortion being abused.

Avatar image for yousufkhan1212
#715 Posted by YousufKhan1212 (2263 posts) - - Show Bio

@doofasa said:

Pro-choice. When it comes to cases of sexual assault, threat to the mother's life or serious medical issues for the child an abortion should be an option throughout the pregnancy. For socio-economic and non-health reasons up until 12 weeks it should be an option.

If you don't like abortions, don't get one, but you have zero right to attempt to enforce your beliefs on other people.

Pro-choice. Overpopulation is a real thing.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#716 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6087 posts) - - Show Bio

@yousufkhan1212:

In those cases the mother should die and the baby should live. It's a kindness.

Avatar image for pipxeroth
#717 Posted by Pipxeroth (9227 posts) - - Show Bio

I really don't understand how people who are against abortion normally can support it in cases of rape. Doesn't seem like a logically consistent position in the slightest to me.

Avatar image for sc
#718 Posted by SC (18146 posts) - - Show Bio

I really don't understand how people who are against abortion normally can support it in cases of rape. Doesn't seem like a logically consistent position in the slightest to me.

My general considered guess, from discussions/arguments, is, that its a matter of morals, moral duties, moral responsibilities. A pregnant woman is a victim of circumstance. She didn't get a choice. A 20 year old woman hooking up with a random guy, made a choice, so she should be responsible for her actions and decisions and consequences of such. Also, a rapist is evil, and so children he might have, might also be evil too.

Simple version. Some individuals I've discussed with, have been 'pro life' even in cases of rape, or had more nuanced views but yeah. I can see a little bit of logical consistency, just its too simplified as well. A few 'pro life' people I've talked to, have also been a bit... skeptical to certain other groups of human's and concerned about their "growing birthrate" you know, I never figured to ask them about their views on abortions for "those" people.

Moderator
Avatar image for pipxeroth
#719 Edited by Pipxeroth (9227 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc: I haven't really delved into this topic a lot (certainly nowhere near enough for me to form a strong opinion on it), but I thought the pro-life movement was all about the idea that the foetus counts as a life and thus abortion = killing a living human = murder? If I'm correct about that then does it not logically follow that these people then believe it's ok to murder an innocent life because of the unfortunate circumstances of their conception? That to me is an inconsistent and totally indefensible position to hold.

Originally I thought that people on the pro-choice side who claim that the pro-life side are just opposed to women having autonomy of their bodies are, to put it bluntly, pretty dumb and totally missing the argument of the pro-life side, but perhaps I was a bit too quick to dismiss them if what you're saying about there being many pro-life people who maybe don't really care about whether the foetus is a life or not and believe it just has to do with 'taking responsibility for your actions' is true.

Avatar image for helloman
#720 Posted by Helloman (29712 posts) - - Show Bio

Politics still looking good.

Avatar image for paragonnate
#721 Posted by ParagonNate (4620 posts) - - Show Bio

The issue with discussions revolving around abortion is the "you want to control a woman's body" argument from pro-choice people, who habitually ignore the fact that pro-life people view an embryo as being no less than a human life.

It's the same reason why the "overpopulation" argument doesn't work. Right, overpopulation is a thing. Does that mean I get to kill you in the name of decreasing the population?

Personally, I support abortion in instances such as rape, and instances where the process of carrying a child and giving birth poses a threat to the mothers health. However, I disagree with abortion being abused.

Pretty much this

Avatar image for sc
#722 Posted by SC (18146 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc: I haven't really delved into this topic a lot (certainly nowhere near enough for me to form a strong opinion on it), but I thought the pro-life movement was all about the idea that the foetus counts as a life and thus abortion = killing a living human = murder? If I'm correct about that then does it not logically follow that these people then believe it's ok to murder an innocent life because of the unfortunate circumstances of their conception? That to me is an inconsistent and totally indefensible position to hold.

Originally I thought that people on the pro-choice side who claim that the pro-life side are just opposed to women having autonomy of their bodies are, to put it bluntly, pretty dumb and totally missing the argument of the pro-life side, but perhaps I was a bit too quick to dismiss them if what you're saying about there being many pro-life people who maybe don't really care about whether the foetus is a life or not and believe it just has to do with 'taking responsibility for your actions' is true.

I do think, that for a lot of 'pro life' individuals, that is the primary priority. Life, the innocence of such life, so on. Here's the problem... someone saying a a 13 year old who is raped, should be forced to have a child, carry it around for 9 months, and then give birth... that sounds really really bad. Even in comparison to appeals to emotion, around dead babies. So bad, that, when that actually happens, more abstract ideas about values and 'innocence' start to sound a little... flimsy. So there are a few ways to... deal with this issue.

1. Some individuals, including a few infamous politicians, have tried to argue that the female body, has certain biological defenses, to "shut down rape" or avoid getting pregnant. So you know... maybe the woman wasn't actually raped... 2. How often it occurs. Its extremely rare and so not really something that needs to be addressed with too much energy or effort. Exceptions will occur sometimes in different areas of life. The important idea and message is how we as a whole, and society view and value life, for the majority and normal situations. Something that should be taken seriously. 3. Have you seen these images of dead babies being thrown into trash bins? Actually this is worse than raped woman, they should still have children even with rape.

I'd say 2. is generally the strongest position, the more we go into it. It introduces a little nuance, and complexity, and acknowledges certain difficulties and makes concessions. The idea of common sense might be floated around.

Taking 'responsibility' is a pretty powerful argument to many. Well not even argument, just an intuitive sense/feel of reality. It directly relates to our own agency and sense of free will. Its why, we, as a broad generalization tend to overestimate how much hard work actually achieves, versus variables we don't control. Why people often overlook economic mobility as a concept, and like to point at certain celebrities, as proof that poor or normal people can be rich if they are talented and try hard enough. "Its sad when someone is homeless, but maybe they are a little bit responsible for that eh? Maybe they could have worked just a little harder... and thats why I won't end up homeless..." and ideas like that.

So woman who aren't raped, choose to be lazy, and irresponsible, and promiscuous, having sex out of wedlock or "a stable, healthy, normal relationship, with a deserving responsible young man" and they are of 'dubious moral character, and we shouldn't yet innocent babies suffer for her mistakes, and maybe the pregnancy will teach her some responsibility, dignity and moral character, and make her realize she can't just go around sleeping with strangers like an animal'! Or something... just to be clear, for people not familiar with me, thats not what I personally think, just my experiences with arguments.

Moderator
Avatar image for sc
#723 Posted by SC (18146 posts) - - Show Bio

who habitually ignore the fact that pro-life people view an embryo as being no less than a human life.

It's the same reason why the "overpopulation" argument doesn't work. Right, overpopulation is a thing. Does that mean I get to kill you in the name of decreasing the population?

Also to quickly touch on this. I can definitely believe that some 'pro choice' people ignore that many pro-life people view an embryo as being no less than a human life. I see some odd arguments and views from all types of people on this subject.

Myself and individuals i know who are okay with abortion, we can or do view an embryo as being no less than human life. Well specifically, I view an embryo as having as much potential as a human life. I view sperm and eggs as having potential as well. We are getting closer and closer to where we have to start (well, depending on what circles you run in, this might already be an ongoing discussion) having serious discussions around cloning. Specifically human cloning. Potential life, is vast, and always has been vast.

The crux, is when/where people start to project certain ideas and characteristics on that potential life. When we start to view it as "human life" or "proper life" or for some, when it gets "its soul" and for some, that is later than for others. This is why sometimes, a parallel is drawn to two adult humans, and thinking about potentially odd medical situations, where one, for some reason, is vitally dependent on the other, and only, specifically them. A certain organ they may need, that the other person can live without/not need, blood transfusions. Ethically, or legally, should such an individual be forced to save the life of the other person. Both are viewed as humans, but autonomy is so important and laws/ethics typically reflect this.

More so, we also have large realms of ethics/philosophy dedicated to how we value life, and situations where we have to weigh it and make decisions around it. Compare the trolley problem with hospital/transplant problem, and issues, contradictions that can be had. I don't use the overpopulation argument personally, for a few different reasons, but in good faith, the idea isn't that people are expendable so casually. It doesn't ignore human agency, or rights. It tends to focus on the fact, most people aren't so very, specifically dependent on a singular individual for life, and then that, that person, gets certain rights in regards to both. Which distinguishes that, from say a birthed child, where in many countries with have the societal infrastructure to take in and relocate child, elderly, and other types of people who depend or rely on help from other humans. We rarely force certain people to have to look after someone who is so dependent on them. Generally thats a bad idea...

Hope that helps shed context.

Moderator
Avatar image for solar_nerd
#724 Posted by solar_nerd (2625 posts) - - Show Bio

Murder, fair and square.

Avatar image for scottyhawkeye
#725 Posted by ScottyHawkeye (412 posts) - - Show Bio

I see it the same way I see putting an animal to sleep. You'd never in good conscience put a perfectly healthy animal to sleep, you'd only put it to sleep if it were dying. The same goes for abortion you'd never in good conscience abort a perfectly healthy child, you'd only abort if the child were dying, or putting the mother's life at risk. If this is the Pro-Choice position then I'm Pro-Choice, if it's the Pro-Life position then I'm Pro-Life.

Avatar image for scottyhawkeye
#726 Posted by ScottyHawkeye (412 posts) - - Show Bio

The issue with discussions revolving around abortion is the "you want to control a woman's body" argument from pro-choice people, who habitually ignore the fact that pro-life people view an embryo as being no less than a human life.

It's the same reason why the "overpopulation" argument doesn't work. Right, overpopulation is a thing. Does that mean I get to kill you in the name of decreasing the population?

That goes in the other direction when the Pro-Life camp argues "Abortion is murder" or their new term "Infanticide" and it should "never ever be done" to paraphrase Matt Walsh, they habitually ignore that the Pro-Choice movement sees an embryo as part of a woman's body and not a human being. They make the assertion that the left is amoral without actually hearing the other side out.

The rights focus on saving the a human life is ultimately defeated by their disregard for that life once it exits the womb. Just look at the Right Wing Hero Ben Shapiro's views on civilian casualties. They shoot themselves in the foot way too often when it comes to gun violence casualties and those killed in war. I like to say the Right only opposes "Infanticide" when it's done by doctors, but supports it when "infanticide" is carried out by soldiers

Personally, I support abortion in instances such as rape, and instances where the process of carrying a child and giving birth poses a threat to the mothers health. However, I disagree with abortion being abused.

That's basically where I stand. I will say the abortion rates right now are at an all-time low, and that the best way to reduce abortions is to allow women access to contraception.

Loading Video...
Avatar image for alavanka
#727 Edited by Alavanka (2585 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro Choice. As in, my choice.

If the kid is mine, then I'm probably pro-life all the way. That's my kid, and he is going to outlive all you losers. Wife gets no say, or divorce.

If childbirth is endangering my wife's health, then sorry kid you gotta go.

If the child isn't mine, then screw the kid. I'll bury it right beside where I bury the dad.

And if the child isn't even coming out from my girl, then I really don't care. My policy in this scenario is generally pro-abortion because it's better for our collective gene pool if you lot don't breed. But like, my kid needs people to bully and chicks to bang when he grows up.... So you can't all stop.

Online
Avatar image for coolguy18
#728 Posted by COOLGUY18 (1023 posts) - - Show Bio

Murder.

Avatar image for removekebab
#729 Posted by removekebab (3790 posts) - - Show Bio

Absolutely evil and unethical. I love how subversive the laguange around it gets too, calling infanticide "reproductive rights".

Avatar image for pipxeroth
#730 Posted by Pipxeroth (9227 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc: So to simplify it right down, they think that the foetus is a life and that abortion is murder but also think that it's justifiable/acceptable murder if the woman didn't choose to have sex initially? I'm still not sure I'd call that a logically sound position to take but alright.

Avatar image for abstractraze
#731 Edited by AbstractRaze (2642 posts) - - Show Bio

@yousufkhan1212 said:

It’s all good. Women who are pregnant as a result of sexual assault really need to have that right.

There is no need for abortion, what are you talking about?

It takes up to 6 days for the sperm and the egg to form a fertilized egg, there is enough time to avoid such a thing.

The woman has enough time, one thing is the lack of personality those stoping the woman to avoid pregnancy after being raped, possibly:

-Because we're talking about feminist tough women, believing she can walk around ghettos or no-go areas during the night alone.

-Shame about her naivety or neglect, pride after acknowledging or realizing her own vulnerability.

- Trauma.

When one of those options happens, the woman is clearly valuing her feelings over a living being, what do we obtain from such a thing?

Selfishness, there is no real equality at all.

Avatar image for heroup2112
#732 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18259 posts) - - Show Bio

Except in cases of rape, serious threat to the life of the mother, or severe life long, torturous deformity to the child abortion should not be legal. Basically I do not believe abortion should be a form of birth control. I also believe that all other forms of birth control should be MUCH easier and cheaper to access than the currently are.

Avatar image for sc
#733 Posted by SC (18146 posts) - - Show Bio

@pipxeroth: Well, there are quite a few users posting in the thread now, who probably actually hold those beliefs, rather than myself having to speaking on their behalf. I don't know why none of them are addressing your post or question. Perhaps they overlooked it or didn't read others replies.

You might have to reply, address and just otherwise ask some of them more directly. Its probably better this way too, I wouldn't want to unintentionally strawman their views. I wish you luck!

Moderator
Avatar image for theoneabovelife
#734 Edited by TheOneAboveLife (893 posts) - - Show Bio

It's wrong. Just inhumane and unnecessary.

Avatar image for zr0c00l
#735 Posted by zr0c00l (3143 posts) - - Show Bio

My response to either side of this argument is where the hell are my rights as a man? Some people may roll their eyes at the question but in my opinion that is part of the problem. I hear the phrase "my body, my choice" being bandied about by women marching through the streets ad nauseam but what does that even mean?

Firstly why are my only options as a man if i wish to have complete autonomy of my future abstinence or a vasectomy? this probably garnered yet more eye rolls so let me explain. The pre conception options for women are as follows. They can practice abstinence,have their tubes tied or use protection knowing that in the rare case of condom/pill failure she has complete control of what to do next. She can get a plan b pill if shes aware of the failure (eg. condom break) But if not and she gets pregnant and wants the baby her options are. She can have it, she can abort it, or she can give it up for adoption.

Males choices completely cease to exist upon conception yet not their responsibilities. The ONLY option a man has in regards to having children or not is to remain abstinent. Were the condom to fail or the pill not work resulting in pregnancy the male has lost all autonomy over his future. And a common thing we tell our young men in these situations is "You shoulda kept it in your pants!" While women may incur some similar sayings (eg. Shoulda kept your legs closed") We've already established the full range of options she has to choose what she wants to do while the only negative outcome for her is the possibility someone might say something negative to her about it. While for men there are actual negative consequences to deal with.

If a father wants the baby and the mother does not then she can have it aborted(killed) or given up for adoption without his consent regardless that its made from half his dna and a part of himself. There is no recourse for the father.

If a mother wants the baby and the father does not she can have the baby against his wishes and regardless of whether he gets shared custody of that child or never sees it again he is financially responsible for it until they are an adult even though they never wanted one in the first place if he refuses payment then he faces legal action. Again No recourse for the father. is it because of "My body, my choice" or "It's gonna grow in her body you privileged cis scum" etc?

Well we are speaking of a completely separate entity then the womans (unique dna from conception) Wheres the reverence for the childs body? the woman didn't get impregnated by the wind and as we know the fathers dna constitutes half of that baby's dna, and came from a piece of his body(sperm) meeting with a piece of the mothers (egg) basically the mother is currently holding inside of herself a piece of that mans body and is saying she has full autonomy over it and the resulting choices regarding what to do with it. which in my opinion is BS.

Why such a double standard in our society on the issue?

I propose a more equitable solution would be that if were going to continue giving women all choice in regards with having/not having the child then the fathers should be able to opt out and not be responsible nor should the government help the women who go through with having the baby despite the father saying no.

As a man who has never had an option in these matters i find women complaining about their perceived lack of options to be distasteful.

Avatar image for sc
#736 Edited by SC (18146 posts) - - Show Bio

@zr0c00l: Those are some great questions and important topics to consider.

I think, you briefly touched on an answer in your own post, except it was presented in a weak way "It's gonna grow in her body you privileged cis scum", whoever would say this, is antagonistic and looking for a cheap argument/fight. That being said, it doesn't adequately represent the ethical and legal issues present, in the idea/facts, of one parent being under great physical, emotional and mental burden than the other, traditional speaking. The person carrying the child, is having it grow and nurtured in their body, to various risk, imposing certain various limitations on them. This part is important, legally, medically, and ethically and can't be understated and shouldn't be glossed over. Its not that the other partner involved in the situation, shouldn't have rights, or shouldn't be considered for, just that there are degrees and differences present.

Also its not necessarily a matter of mens rights vs womens rights. Traditionally its viewed that way, but in modern times we have more options/accessibility for surrogate mothers, traditional surrogates and even gestational surrogates. Which means we can have different combinations of sex/gender among the legal parents, biological parents, individual who is pregnant. The legalities vary and differ, based on variables, like country (different laws), state, formality, legal agreements, but generally speaking, the pregnant individual will carry greater rights. We could end up with a situation, where two woman, identify as lesbians, one 'donates' her eggs, they have a anonymous sperm donor, and they opt for a gestational surrogate for health reasons. In that situation, gender/sex is irrelevant, its the pregnant woman (who might actually be a trans man) who still gets more rights, legally and ethically. The two woman, in the situation, don't. In some countries/states, parental rights aren't necessarily guaranteed either. A criteria should be required/emphasised for couples looking for a surrogate, to ensure a smoother process.

Also, in the future, we may have technology that will allow a man without the ability to become pregnant, become pregnant, and be the host to the embryo and thats going to add another depth and layer to all of this discussion. So its not really about mens rights vs womens rights, but that of the individual who is pregnant, and that traditionally has been woman. The reason this is important is because some people have a social or political agenda and like to rally others around them. Whether its those that like to mock men and exclude them from the process, or those that view woman as breeding tools designed to pop out life, but only as controlled and dictated by men.

Yes, its unfortunate, when situations arise, between a couple, when they disagree over an outcome and one individual gets more legal rights than the other, or society seems to lean towards one individuals rights more. This is where personal responsibility and ethics become relevant. If a woman, wants to date a guy she likes, but then he decides he wants to do military service and fight in a war overseas. She can't force him to stay. Emotionally, mentally, she may be invested in his life, but she doesn't get to overrule his autonomy. He may even sympathise and feel conflicted, if he loves her, but still chooses to go to war, where he may die, but thats his decision. In such a situation, where can tell the woman, well, maybe you don't want to be involved with this person anymore, and you have to choose a different person to be romantically interested in. Such a conflict of interests can occur on the first night of those two individuals meeting!

The take away being, that if you are a male, who is concerned with the rights you have, versus the rights of a woman you might have sex with, when it comes to reproduction, don't have sex with them, if you don't trust and know their attitudes around abortion. Do everything in your power to minimise a situation that you are ethically opposed to, if the law favours the woman you are thinking about having a relationship with. If you are willing to take the risk, because you are horny, feel entitled to sex without consequences that may not fall in line with your assumptions, then thats your choice. Its a similar path to individuals (including woman) looking for potential surrogate mothers. Don't choose a random homeless teenage girl, go through a legal and professional agency with vetting, consider the possible complications, like the ability for a surrogate to change their mind, even if it is your DNA (Egg or sperm) inside them.

Moderator
Avatar image for spareheadone
#737 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6087 posts) - - Show Bio

Marvellous!! Many happy returns

Avatar image for purpleperson
#738 Posted by PurplePerson (907 posts) - - Show Bio

@zr0c00l:

I propose a more equitable solution would be that if were going to continue giving women all choice in regards with having/not having the child then the fathers should be able to opt out and not be responsible nor should the government help the women who go through with having the baby despite the father saying no.

I think you raise some good points but I'm not sure this solution would improve the situation. By taking responsibility away from the man you leave the woman vulnerable. What's to stop me from saying to a woman that I'll be a good dad, contribute financially, etc. and then just leave the woman with the baby?

The reason it's the woman's choice is because she's the one who has to suffer the pain and the sickness and who's most vulnerable to loss of earnings. Yes, the man contributes half the DNA but the woman contributes far more than just DNA. Even if you just compare the gametes this is clear. Males (in many animals, not just humans) have evolved to produce many, "low quality" gametes and in turn females have had to compensate by producing a much smaller number of "high quality" gametes - this is why the egg is the largest cell in the human body while the sperm is the smallest. Add that to the whole development process and childbirth that occurs in the woman's body and depletes her resources and the difference in biological investment is obviously huge.

What I'm getting at is that while I can sympathise with your argument, I don't really see a better alternative. Having the child or not is either the woman's or the man's choice, in the case of disagreement one party has to have the final say and I believe that has to be the woman for the reasons above. In my opinion your proposed alternative causes at least as many problems as it solves. SC's post outlines what to do if a man is worried about his rights in this matter very well so there's no need to repeat that.

Avatar image for zr0c00l
#739 Posted by zr0c00l (3143 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc said:

@zr0c00l: Those are some great questions and important topics to consider.

I think, you briefly touched on an answer in your own post, except it was presented in a weak way "It's gonna grow in her body you privileged cis scum", whoever would say this, is antagonistic and looking for a cheap argument/fight.

This was actually said to me in person. its not a fantasy example. But i agree they were looking for a cheap fight.

That being said, it doesn't adequately represent the ethical and legal issues present, in the idea/facts, of one parent being under great physical, emotional and mental burden than the other, traditional speaking. The person carrying the child, is having it grow and nurtured in their body, to various risk, imposing certain various limitations on them. This part is important, legally, medically, and ethically and can't be understated and shouldn't be glossed over.

Thats a drawn out way just to say you agree with the "her body her choice"

My point is the woman has every choice and option and the man only has responsibilities a regardless whether he wants the child or not. Im saying either give men a choice or exempt them from responsibility.

Its not that the other partner involved in the situation, shouldn't have rights, or shouldn't be considered for, just that there are degrees and differences present.

But we dont have any unless the woman allows us to have them and our futures can be greatly impacted by the choices of others... this is not true freedom.

Also its not necessarily a matter of mens rights vs womens rights.

Yes it is.

Traditionally its viewed that way, but in modern times we have more options/accessibility for surrogate mothers, traditional surrogates and even gestational surrogates.

All of those options are women so its still women v men rights. Though in surrogate situations its more likely that both partners are in agreement about having the child so at least in these cases the man has some say though he would still have the same challenge in family court that every other man faces if he ever wanted custody and he certainly would have no say if the surrogate wanted to terminate the pregnancy for any reason neither would the mother of the child but A woman would still be in control of the proceedings while the father has none. therefore still mens v womens rights.

Which means we can have different combinations of sex/gender among the legal parents, biological parents, individual who is pregnant. The legalities vary and differ, based on variables, like country (different laws), state, formality, legal agreements, but generally speaking, the pregnant individual will carry greater rights.

The pregnant individual is a woman. Why leave it vague?

We could end up with a situation, where two woman, identify as lesbians, one 'donates' her eggs, they have a anonymous sperm donor, and they opt for a gestational surrogate for health reasons. In that situation, gender/sex is irrelevant, its the pregnant woman (who might actually be a trans man) who still gets more rights, legally and ethically.

So the woman who is actually related to the child aka the mother (egg donor) would have the rights over the woman who is not related? im not getting your point. there are no men involved in this scenario.

The two woman, in the situation, don't. In some countries/states, parental rights aren't necessarily guaranteed either.

Like where? First ive heard of this. it's definitely not the case in most western civilization as far as im aware.

A criteria should be required/emphasised for couples looking for a surrogate, to ensure a smoother process.

Sure though this is pretty far off topic now yeah?

Also, in the future, we may have technology that will allow a man without the ability to become pregnant, become pregnant, and be the host to the embryo and thats going to add another depth and layer to all of this discussion. So its not really about mens rights vs womens rights, but that of the individual who is pregnant, and that traditionally has been woman.

Yeah and maybe well have matrix style birthing pods...... non existent science or theory has no place in a discussion centered around reality its super easy to play the "in the future we may" game. Its definitely still about men vs womens rights back in the here and now.

The reason this is important is because some people have a social or political agenda and like to rally others around them.

Pretty sure men and women are on both sides of this making mens rights a bi partisan issue.

Whether its those that like to mock men and exclude them from the process, or those that view woman as breeding tools designed to pop out life, but only as controlled and dictated by men.

LOL where is this shadowy cabal of men planning to forcibly breed women like livestock id love to read that article for a chuckle.

Yes, its unfortunate, when situations arise, between a couple, when they disagree over an outcome and one individual gets more legal rights than the other, or society seems to lean towards one individuals rights more.

Agreed though id be hard pressed to name a situation where women are at a disadvantage in rights. can you name any in the western world?

This is where personal responsibility and ethics become relevant.

I feel like this is where you'll begin to shunt the responsibility to men though youre framing it as unbiased.

If a woman, wants to date a guy she likes, but then he decides he wants to do military service and fight in a war overseas. She can't force him to stay. Emotionally, mentally, she may be invested in his life, but she doesn't get to overrule his autonomy. He may even sympathise and feel conflicted, if he loves her, but still chooses to go to war, where he may die, but thats his decision. In such a situation, where can tell the woman, well, maybe you don't want to be involved with this person anymore, and you have to choose a different person to be romantically interested in. Such a conflict of interests can occur on the first night of those two individuals meeting!

What the heck does this have to do with anything...... are you intentionally trying to conflate these two situations? If the women doesn't want her man to go to the military and he does she can leave him and it no longer affects her life in anyway she is not responsible for him financially nor can she be jailed for not upholding that responsibility. completely different.

The take away being, that if you are a male, who is concerned with the rights you have, versus the rights of a woman you might have sex with, when it comes to reproduction, don't have sex with them,

Here we go. So you couldve just said keep it in your pants or quoted my other post where i said thats a mans only legitimate option. what was the point in responding if you just agreed with the societal injustices i was pointing out in the first place?

So I'll pose the question why arent women held to the same standard? THEY are the ones who are vulnerable in this situation THEY should be held to at least an equal responsibility. I didn't see you say they should keep their legs closed or use the multitude of contraception options that they have. No they are mentally incapable of being held to the same standard as men cause to people like you, they are like children right? must be if you dont see them as equal meaning equally responsible for their actions.

if you don't trust and know their attitudes around abortion. Do everything in your power to minimise a situation that you are ethically opposed to, if the law favours the woman you are thinking about having a relationship with. If you are willing to take the risk, because you are horny, feel entitled to sex without consequences that may not fall in line with your assumptions, then thats your choice.

Why are you talking about how to avoid consequences of an unjust law rather than how to change it?

Did the woman not take even more risk because she was horny since she is the one who gets pregnant?

shouldn't the woman be held to an even higher standard in that case rather than a lower one?

why aren't we judging the woman for her actions like we are the man?

Its a similar path to individuals (including woman) looking for potential surrogate mothers. Don't choose a random homeless teenage girl, go through a legal and professional agency with vetting, consider the possible complications, like the ability for a surrogate to change their mind, even if it is your DNA (Egg or sperm) inside them.

Ok but not really important to the discussion

Avatar image for zr0c00l
#740 Posted by zr0c00l (3143 posts) - - Show Bio

@zr0c00l:

I propose a more equitable solution would be that if were going to continue giving women all choice in regards with having/not having the child then the fathers should be able to opt out and not be responsible nor should the government help the women who go through with having the baby despite the father saying no.

I think you raise some good points but I'm not sure this solution would improve the situation. By taking responsibility away from the man you leave the woman vulnerable. What's to stop me from saying to a woman that I'll be a good dad, contribute financially, etc. and then just leave the woman with the baby?

Id say if the man agrees to it then hed be responsible for the child until it becomes of age regardless of whether he stays or not. Im not trying to give men a license to be deadbeats. If a woman gets pregnant she and the father should get a legal document to sign that outlines each of their wants in regards to having/ not having the baby. if they both want it then theyre both responsible if one does and the other doesnt then the person thatwants it sshould get the child while the one who did not (mother or father)0 should have no further responsibilities to that child.

The reason it's the woman's choice is because she's the one who has to suffer the pain and the sickness and who's most vulnerable to loss of earnings. Yes, the man contributes half the DNA but the woman contributes far more than just DNA. Even if you just compare the gametes this is clear. Males (in many animals, not just humans) have evolved to produce many, "low quality" gametes and in turn females have had to compensate by producing a much smaller number of "high quality" gametes - this is why the egg is the largest cell in the human body while the sperm is the smallest. Add that to the whole development process and childbirth that occurs in the woman's body and depletes her resources and the difference in biological investment is obviously huge.

Couldve just said her body her choice and saved yourself some typing.

What I'm getting at is that while I can sympathise with your argument, I don't really see a better alternative. Having the child or not is either the woman's or the man's choice, in the case of disagreement one party has to have the final say and I believe that has to be the woman for the reasons above. In my opinion your proposed alternative causes at least as many problems as it solves.

No it doesn't your misunderstanding of what i said does, and hopefully you see my clarification above.

SC's post outlines what to do if a man is worried about his rights in this matter very well so there's no need to repeat that.

SC neednt have said anything either as his post on a mans rights was exactlywhat i said society tells men which is "keep it in your pants" while women are babied and treated as they are not just as responsible for their actions as men are.

Avatar image for sc
#741 Edited by SC (18146 posts) - - Show Bio

@zr0c00l: Hey there.

Where did I say the example was fantasy? I said it was presented in a weak way. I hear all sorts of bad weak arguments and points in real life, but they don't necessarily reflect an idea or position well. If someone said... "hey bozo, the Earth is round because globes are round. If the Earth was flat, then globes would be flat, duh" that doesn't mean that the Earth isn't round. Just the aforementioned argument/reason presented is weak.

I don't think its a long drawn way to say "her body her choice" and the rest of my reply explains why.

Men do have choices and rights, give me an example where a man is forced to have sex with a woman? A conflict of interests between a woman and a gestational surrogate is still women's rights vs mens right? Or do you simply try to side step that because it undermines your point?

Regardless of your personal beliefs, or even my beliefs, in many countries today, trans individuals are legally recognized. So it might not be a woman, also yes, my entire point is that some scenarios aren't playing out where the man isn't the one with lesser rights. Also the situation I gave you (one of), depending on the legal status of the area (country or state) as well as other legal factors, the rights would either be with the surrogate or the individuals wanting a child, one of who, could have been the supplier of eggs, so no, the woman who donated the eggs may not actually be the one with more rights, it would be the gestational surrogate.

Quick question, are you familiar with gestational surrogacy? I think its important to make sure we are both on the same understanding here, before I start talking about various countries and states stances with more nuance. Its also pretty easy to Google surrogate parents and combinations of countries and then law beside it. From what I've read, a place like Alaska has no laws around surrogacy so specifically, but are "generally favorable", Arizona, leans towards the surrogate, in other states it depends, different states have different points of reference as to when legal transfers can occur.

Also, I don't really think so, as far as being off topic, because like I said before, its important to understand why woman, currently, are given greater legal rights than men when it comes to pregnancy choices, but also why its not a mens rights vs womens right per say. Adequate context and understanding is important, lest we seem to have some sort of agenda or just not really understand why the law is framed this way.

I disagree, the point illustrates that in the framework of law, and ethics, its really more about which individual is under greater physical, mental and emotional burden, as well as more limited in terms of education, career, financial and social development. If that individual happens to be a woman, then sure.

Oh but thats not a fantasy example, I have heard people tell me that woman should exist to pop out more life, under mens control and direction. Ah see how that loops around nicely? Of course I don't take those people seriously, but there are man MGTOW/Alt Right individuals who try to make this a simpler issue than it really is to rally men to their cause. Just like I am sure there are extremists who as I said, want to exclude and mock men, just for being men. They both make bad arguments, we want to address good arguments.

Yes, if the woman doesn't want the man to leave, she can choose to leave him. If a man doesn't want to wind up in a situation where he is paying child support, he can choose to not have sex with a woman. Is that such a heavy burden on men? Oh no, its his only legitimate option? As opposed to what? Being able to force another human to endure pregnancy? What about that woman in the earlier scenario? Is her only "real" option to leave? Well here we go again, ol Sally wants a magical scenario where she can somehow keep Gary from going overseas to fight in a war... without forcing him... if only there was some way... she could force him... without you know, forcing him and robbing him of his autonomy and agency... hmmm.

The point in responding is that you seem to think pregnancy is some exclusive example, where a conflict of rights/desires exist and 'unfairly' favors one individual over another. Specifically woman over men, but in life and law, lots of conflict occurs, and the context of the situation, determines certain approaches and sets certain standards.

Also yes, I agree, woman, should be careful about who they choose to have sex with, and be responsible. I kind of figured this would be assumed. The emphasis on men generally in this thread, because unlike woman who may become pregnant, men can't legally find ways to prevent pregnancy after the act of sexual intercourse, without consent/permission with the woman. So while she should be as responsible and careful, she has options. The man doesn't, so he should keep that in mind, no?

Also when you say "why aren't women held to the same standard?" by who? The law? Random hypothetical people? The Jews? Society? Same standard in the context of above paragraph I addressed? Well if I started talking about "woman keeping their legs closed" it would start to sound a lil weird, like I was too invested and hung up on female sexuality... like men, I'd rather, you know, put the emphasis on their ability to reason and engage in informed and educated sexual activity, and not implicitly judging their sexual habits and behavior. If men and woman want to spread anything and everything, if they do it with informed, educated, consent (and safe as far as check ups etc), I say, hang the "Open for Business" sign up.

Also some individuals have less options to contraceptions than others, also, they may have been practicing safe sex, but the type they used, was ineffective. Also woah woah, when did this start becoming about rhetoric about "people like you?" no need for that kind of attitude. I don't view woman as children or mentally incapable and I also think woman should practice safe sex practices, and be careful in selecting a sexual partner, for a lot of different reasons. Just when it comes to abortion and contraception specifically... she factually, and legally had more options then a man generally speaking. Do you deny this, or are you just looking for ways to victimize men in this situation?

How about this? If there was a legal and ethical way for a man to use contraception to avoid making a woman pregnant after the act, then he should still be careful about who he chooses to have sex with... but at least he has that option, for after the fact, if he is worried. Until then though, a man, has to do what he can before the act of sex. Or during, like condoms, but even then, actually being in agreement with a sex partner, should be important, condoms don't work 100% of the time. Trust is still important.

I don't think its an unjust law. In some ways the woman is taking more of a risk, but due to various contraceptive pills that can be taken after the act, in some ways, her risks are different to a guys, generally. Not necessarily a higher standard, it depends what you mean by standards, but the fact that she has more contraceptive options in the thereafter, means the risks she is exposed to are different. Regardless, both/all individuals engaging in sex, should be considerate, safe and informed. Why aren't we judging the woman for her actions like the man? You mean negatively?

Personally, I am not judging anyone. My advice to men, is similar to my advice for woman, and its a little bit different, sure, but not for negative or positive judgmental reasons. Its just practical. My general advice, is be safe, and careful. For men, your options for contraceptions post sex are much more limited. If you are going to have sex with a woman, keep that in mind. You know? Its the same advice I personally keep in mind. I only have sex with woman I feel a kinship with, trust. Also woman I sleep with, know I don't want children, and in those specific instances, they don't either, and I believe them. If I didn't believe them, or I was a bit suspicious of them... then I won't have sex with them. If the man is going to be only having sex with men who are incapable of getting pregnant? My general advice changes again too! Not because I am "judging CIS men" and being a big meany... gay men should also be very careful and practice safe sex habits... but they specifically will not have to worry about getting certain men pregnant then thats not a worry they face.

People looking to surrogacy parenting, is very relevant to the discussion. We are talking about rights and responsibilities and ethics and legalities. A man or a woman, both have to be careful and informed about the process, because at certain points, the surrogate mother will have greater legal rights than them, if conflict occurs. The best way to deal with the conflict... is to avoid conflict at all, by being careful beforehand. Not because the law "unjustly favors" the surrogates. Unfortunately its harder to turn this issue into a mens vs womens right issue... so yeah sure, in that light, I can see why its nor relevant...

You know what I think should be looked at more carefully? The laws around situations where men are raped, and may be liable for child support. Thats messed up. Or situations where mens sperm are stolen and used without their consent for pregnancy. You know, actual situations, not just vague generalizations about the 'femoids' getting more rights, cuz she can just spread em with no repercussions. Slut! Men can't act that way, freaking society and its double standards... I tell ya... (also yes, this last part is satire and a strawman, but it goes well with my steel man I presented last post)

Moderator
Avatar image for dshipp17
#742 Edited by dshipp17 (5481 posts) - - Show Bio

After considered reflection, a bit more, I'd have to say, put yourself in the legs of the unborn person; do most people choose to live? My previous, more politically correct answer was that the woman should have a choice, but I'd prefer that baby live. And, I thought about what God's view is likely to be; and the answer goes back to the birth of Joseph's brother, Benjamin; that presented the one justifiable case, perhaps, that being the life of the mother. This unborn person can't help the social implications of how they were conceived, they just want a chance to at least experience life, however long that may be. But, with lots of subsequent and modern developments, even the New Testament, since that time, the question becomes whether the government has a right to compel the woman to make the right choice.

Avatar image for theonewhopullsthestrings
#743 Edited by TheOneWhoPullsTheStrings (2746 posts) - - Show Bio

No abortion past a point where the baby can live outside the womb, period. The virginia bill horrified me of post birth abortion alone - but so many people are happy with third trim, wtf? That is the third trimester phase, just emergency cesarean it and put it on whatever it needs to, to grow into a healthy baby - that is a better option, after which - the mother forfeits any rights to the baby, option the father to keep it, if not next of kin willing; unless this was an actual medical need to have this done, then default stands.

Second trimester is a bit trickier than third (where all life supporting things have developed, and the baby just gains mass essentially in the third). The closer it gets, the harder I have seeing it get allowed. Take for instance some procedures in places like NY, where they inject things to kill the baby (not 100% either) - and in some cases have to rip it out peace by peace because of inducing the stillborn labor didn't work out - and it was very close to being a viable baby. I have severe issues with these sorts of procedures.

Even mid-2nd term is my cutoff, but I would rather just say first trimester fetal stage only barring ACTUAL medical emergency.

Avatar image for zr0c00l
#744 Edited by zr0c00l (3143 posts) - - Show Bio

@sc: Hey. been awhile since I've been posting, kinda strange this being the thread that i got back on but was having this conversation with friends recently and thought id share my thoughts.

@sc said:

@zr0c00l: Hey there.

Where did I say the example was fantasy?

Never said you did. was informing you of where that argument came from.

I said it was presented in a weak way. I hear all sorts of bad weak arguments and points in real life, but they don't necessarily reflect an idea or position well. If someone said... "hey bozo, the Earth is round because globes are round. If the Earth was flat, then globes would be flat, duh" that doesn't mean that the Earth isn't round. Just the aforementioned argument/reason presented is weak.

I don't think its a long drawn way to say "her body her choice" and the rest of my reply explains why.

Men do have choices and rights, give me an example where a man is forced to have sex with a woman?

Are you saying male rape victims don't exist or are you talking about consensual situations? If the latter then i would say there are none but would counter with the same applying to the woman so i'm confused as to why you'd ask

A conflict of interests between a woman and a gestational surrogate is still women's rights vs mens right? Or do you simply try to side step that because it undermines your point?

Didnt side step anything youre fixating on the fact that a woman is getting rights over another woman while disregarding that there is a man who gave his sperm and he has no options while at least one woman does. the point being, while women may find themselves with less rights than another woman. Men NEVER get these rights.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, or even my beliefs, in many countries today, trans individuals are legally recognized. So it might not be a woman, also yes, my entire point is that some scenarios aren't playing out where the man isn't the one with lesser rights.

Somehow you dont find it silly to use someone born as a biological female as a case for mens rights? Even putting biology aside as they are such a small portions of the populace that they would also be such a small percentage of cases that its almost insignificant. So why point to this? seems like a reach.

Also the situation I gave you (one of), depending on the legal status of the area (country or state) as well as other legal factors, the rights would either be with the surrogate or the individuals wanting a child, one of who, could have been the supplier of eggs, so no, the woman who donated the eggs may not actually be the one with more rights, it would be the gestational surrogate.

A woman

Quick question, are you familiar with gestational surrogacy?

yes.

I think its important to make sure we are both on the same understanding here, before I start talking about various countries and states stances with more nuance. Its also pretty easy to Google surrogate parents and combinations of countries and then law beside it. From what I've read, a place like Alaska has no laws around surrogacy so specifically, but are "generally favorable", Arizona, leans towards the surrogate, in other states it depends, different states have different points of reference as to when legal transfers can occur.

you bring up a state that leans towards the surrogate (woman). Do any of those countries/states lean toward the father?

Also, I don't really think so, as far as being off topic, because like I said before, its important to understand why woman, currently, are given greater legal rights than men when it comes to pregnancy choices, but also why its not a mens rights vs womens right per say.

I disagree.

Adequate context and understanding is important, lest we seem to have some sort of agenda or just not really understand why the law is framed this way.

I disagree, the point illustrates that in the framework of law, and ethics, its really more about which individual is under greater physical, mental and emotional burden, as well as more limited in terms of education, career, financial and social development. If that individual happens to be a woman, then sure.

Those criteria seem pretty subjective how do you rate the fathers mental or emotional burden of having his child murdered (aborted) with no legal recourse? How about a man who goes to prison and has violence (possibly sexual) done on him by his fellow inmates due to not paying child support for a child he never wanted and could never afford?

What limitations are these? How are women limited due to pregnancy? They get maternity leave, child support if the fathers not in their lives and at least in my country a woman cannot be fired from her job due to taking maternity leave and her position at work is legally protected.

Sure having a baby is expensive for the woman but the man having to pay child support for a child he never wanted is financially impacted too but the difference is he never had a choice past contraception while she did.

Oh but thats not a fantasy example,

Never said it was i asked where you saw that cause i wanted to have a laugh at hearing/reading people legitimately make those claims.

If my telling you that it was a factual quote came out different then intended i apologize but it was a pretty offhanded comment for you to devote so much thought to it in my opinion.

I have heard people tell me that woman should exist to pop out more life, under mens control and direction.

Ok.

Ah see how that loops around nicely?

Weird flex but ok sure we both have firsthand accounts of terrible opinions people have voiced.

Of course I don't take those people seriously,

Nor do I

but there are man MGTOW/Alt Right individuals who try to make this a simpler issue than it really is to rally men to their cause. Just like I am sure there are extremists who as I said, want to exclude and mock men, just for being men. They both make bad arguments, we want to address good arguments.

Agreed.

Yes, if the woman doesn't want the man to leave, she can choose to leave him. If a man doesn't want to wind up in a situation where he is paying child support, he can choose to not have sex with a woman.

You don't see the difference between the two examples? I thought we wanted to address good arguments.

If it was apples to apples then I would have to be saying (Which i am not) if the woman didn't want to be with a guy that is going to war then she shouldn't have dated that guy in the first place. Or maybe any guy because any of them could someday join the army. But That's ridiculous right?

To be clear the difference is choice. The woman in the first scenario shares the first choice to be in a couple with a guy then a situation arises that is conflicting for her and she then has a new set of choices with no attached responsibility should she choose not to accept them.

The man in the second scenario however while sharing the first choice of having sex is removed from having a say once conception occurs. And even when he does not want it regardless of what type of physical, financial or mental burden this may cause him he is not considered and is not removed from the attached responsibility regardless of whether he even gets any custody over that child.

Is that such a heavy burden on men? Is it such a heavy burden for women?

Oh no, its his only legitimate option? As opposed to what? Being able to force another human to endure pregnancy?

No that would be inhumane. I believe that for men who want to have babies with women who do not want to have them, the only realistic recourse is to find a willing woman to try again.

But when the scenario is The mother wanting the child and the father wanting nothing to do with it, I believe the men not wanting to have the child should be exempt from the rights AND responsibilities of a father (parent) and the mother who chooses to go ahead with giving birth without the fathers consent should not be eligible for government support either. That should be for the mothers who were lied to by the fathers/partners who said they would support them who then do not. Which would still be punishable by law, even more harshly if things were my way on the matter. I believe this change would positively impact the number of people abusing the welfare and child support systems as well. though that is not really on topic feel free to disregard.

What about that woman in the earlier scenario? Is her only "real" option to leave? no she also had the option to stay and accept the responsibility but regardless she had the chance to choose to accept them or not.

Well here we go again, ol Sally wants a magical scenario where she can somehow keep Gary from going overseas to fight in a war... without forcing him... if only there was some way... she could force him... without you know, forcing him and robbing him of his autonomy and agency... hmmm.

I don't know why you're so hung up on this analogy it is not accurate.

The point in responding is that you seem to think pregnancy is some exclusive example, where a conflict of rights/desires exist and 'unfairly' favors one individual over another. Specifically woman over men, but in life and law, lots of conflict occurs, and the context of the situation, determines certain approaches and sets certain standards.

Our laws are supposed to be fair, just and blind. There should be no exceptions and when we come across them they should be corrected as society has done in the past with amendments to the constitution for example

Also yes, I agree, woman, should be careful about who they choose to have sex with, and be responsible. I kind of figured this would be assumed.

Nothing is assumed and i dont believe you do agree. Women have ZERO incentive to be careful outside of STI's as they have a plethora of options. If we're assuming anything then it should be assumed that MEN are the ones being told to be responsible while women are being given greater and greater control and options with little to no negative consequences regardless of what choice they make rendering responsibility as an after thought as best. (for example "aw shucks i didn't take my birth control pill and let that guy have unprotected sex with me better go get plan b")

The emphasis on men generally in this thread, because unlike woman who may become pregnant, men can't legally find ways to prevent pregnancy after the act of sexual intercourse, without consent/permission with the woman. So while she should be as responsible and careful, she has options. The man doesn't,

That was literally my whole point. its a double standard and men should be given more options.

so he should keep that in mind, no?

So again "keep it in your pants" for men.

Also when you say "why aren't women held to the same standard?" by who? The law? Random hypothetical people? The Jews? Society? Same standard in the context of above paragraph I addressed?

The law and western society at large.

Well if I started talking about "woman keeping their legs closed" it would start to sound a lil weird, like I was too invested and hung up on female sexuality... like men,

But you have no issue telling men to keep it in their pants. Maybe you've never heard these phrases that are common in some places and think i am inventing them during this conversation while i am in fact using them as stand ins for abstinence let me rephrase.

You have no problem telling men to abstain from sex or they deserve the consequences but for women you're saying even the idea that there'd be any negative consequence is wrong.

I'd rather, you know, put the emphasis on their ability to reason and engage in informed and educated sexual activity, and not implicitly judging their sexual habits and behavior. If men and woman want to spread anything and everything, if they do it with informed, educated, consent (and safe as far as check ups etc), I say, hang the "Open for Business" sign up.

Cool im fine with whatever consenting adults want to do but thats not really here nor there and comes off as another weird flex.

Also some individuals have less options to contraceptions than others, also, they may have been practicing safe sex, but the type they used, was ineffective.

In either event the man has infinitely less options then the women which is entirely my point.

Also woah woah, when did this start becoming about rhetoric about "people like you?"

Ok my bad it seemed that way to me by what you were saying but if you say thats not what you believe i offer my apologies for my mistake.

no need for that kind of attitude.

totally right.

I don't view woman as children or mentally incapable and I also think woman should practice safe sex practices, and be careful in selecting a sexual partner, for a lot of different reasons.

So do you just think they shouldn't be held responsible regardless of the choice they make and regardless of the circumstances While holding men to a different standard. i get that from our exchange and i disagree.

Just when it comes to abortion and contraception specifically... she factually, and legally had more options then a man generally speaking. Do you deny this, or are you just looking for ways to victimize men in this situation?

Why would i deny what ive been saying this whole time. it is inequitable and should be changed so men have more option so as to retain their autonomy regardless of prior discretion was used or not just as a woman has now.

How about this? If there was a legal and ethical way for a man to use contraception to avoid making a woman pregnant after the act, then he should still be careful about who he chooses to have sex with... but at least he has that option, for after the fact, if he is worried. Until then though, a man, has to do what he can before the act of sex. Or during, like condoms, but even then, actually being in agreement with a sex partner, should be important, condoms don't work 100% of the time. Trust is still important.

Trust is important FOR MEN! women dont need that because they hold all the cards.

I don't think its an unjust law. In some ways the woman is taking more of a risk,but due to various contraceptive pills that can be taken after the act, in some ways, her risks are different to a guys, generally. Not necessarily a higher standard, it depends what you mean by standards, but the fact that she has more contraceptive options in the thereafter, means the risks she is exposed to are different. Regardless, both/all individuals engaging in sex, should be considerate, safe and informed. Why aren't we judging the woman for her actions like the man? You mean negatively?

See this is the issue with you not keeping my responses up and just answering the context for others is lost. I asked that in response to what you said where what you said could be taken as you yourself judging the man and asking why we arent doing the same with women. what you said was

"If you are willing to take the risk, because you are horny, feel entitled to sex without consequences that may not fall in line with your assumptions, then thats your choice."

I took the bold part as you judging men. as the same could apply to the female yet she retains complete autnomy while the man does not. correct me if i did so in error.

Personally, I am not judging anyone. My advice to men, is similar to my advice for woman, and its a little bit different, sure, but not for negative or positive judgmental reasons. Its just practical. My general advice, is be safe, and careful. For men, your options for contraceptions post sex are much more limited. If you are going to have sex with a woman, keep that in mind. You know? Its the same advice I personally keep in mind. I only have sex with woman I feel a kinship with, trust. Also woman I sleep with, know I don't want children, and in those specific instances, they don't either, and I believe them. If I didn't believe them, or I was a bit suspicious of them... then I won't have sex with them. If the man is going to be only having sex with men who are incapable of getting pregnant? My general advice changes again too! Not because I am "judging CIS men" and being a big meany... gay men should also be very careful and practice safe sex habits... but they specifically will not have to worry about getting certain men pregnant then thats not a worry they face.

I agree with all of this but it changes nothing about the inequity in the law and the higher standard men are being held to in this situation.

People looking to surrogacy parenting, is very relevant to the discussion. We are talking about rights and responsibilities and ethics and legalities. A man or a woman, both have to be careful and informed about the process, because at certain points, the surrogate mother will have greater legal rights than them, if conflict occurs. The best way to deal with the conflict... is to avoid conflict at all, by being careful beforehand. Not because the law "unjustly favors" the surrogates. Unfortunately its harder to turn this issue into a mens vs womens right issue... so yeah sure, in that light, I can see why its nor relevant...

Again that surrogate is a woman who is getting favored while the man was never even in the race for consideration. If a sperm donor separates from the egg donor and the surrogate claims custody of the child do you honestly think the sperm donor is being considered on the same level as the two women?

You know what I think should be looked at more carefully? The laws around situations where men are raped, and may be liable for child support. Thats messed up. Or situations where mens sperm are stolen and used without their consent for pregnancy. You know, actual situations,

I agree with all of this but they are less common occurrences then men being dragged into situations they never wanted or not afforded the rights as a parent to their own child if they do with little to no recourse and a system them statistics show heavily favor women.

not just vague generalizations about the 'femoids' getting more rights, cuz she can just spread em with no repercussions. Slut! Men can't act that way, freaking society and its double standards... I tell ya... (also yes, this last part is satire and a strawman, but it goes well with my steel man I presented last post)

I dont think you know what a steel man is. Edit- for clarification before you try to pull the definition out then point to your male rape scenario. While real and tragic it is not a stronger version of my argument as it is far less frequent.

And ending your long post which had no context (my response to you for direct comparison of what i said to what you are saying/implying i said as i do by leaving yours up in my responses) With a stylized font accusing me of being a whiny misogynist loner while assuring anyone reading that you definitely made solid points knowing that its gonna be the only part of your response most people read is pretty weak im only responding to you im not playing to the crowd.

Avatar image for purpleperson
#745 Posted by PurplePerson (907 posts) - - Show Bio

@zr0c00l:

Id say if the man agrees to it then hed be responsible for the child until it becomes of age regardless of whether he stays or not. Im not trying to give men a license to be deadbeats. If a woman gets pregnant she and the father should get a legal document to sign that outlines each of their wants in regards to having/ not having the baby. if they both want it then theyre both responsible if one does and the other doesnt then the person thatwants it sshould get the child while the one who did not (mother or father)0 should have no further responsibilities to that child.

So if the mother doesn't want the baby but the father does then she'll have the baby but she won't have any responsibilities to it? Apart from that pesky first nine months or so which is a massive responsibility in itself. And then if she changes her mind at some point during that time, like maybe she'll feel a natural bond with the child when it has grown inside her, that's just tough luck for her because she has signed away her rights to her child who she can now only see if the father allows it? I don't really like this system.

Couldve just said her body her choice and saved yourself some typing.

I could've but I wanted to establish why I thought that. I admit I maybe did make too much of a digression on this point though.

No it doesn't your misunderstanding of what i said does, and hopefully you see my clarification above.

I see the clarification but I still find problems with it. Maybe you don't see any problems and of course you're entitled to your opinion but I think that would be an unwanted solution for a lot of people.

SC neednt have said anything either as his post on a mans rights was exactlywhat i said society tells men which is "keep it in your pants" while women are babied and treated as they are not just as responsible for their actions as men are.

Hmm, you think promiscuity is promoted for women more than men in society? They clearly should be held equally responsible for their actions as men but I don't think that isn't happening. They just get the choice because it's their body. Makes sense to me.

Avatar image for zr0c00l
#746 Edited by zr0c00l (3143 posts) - - Show Bio

@purpleperson said:

@zr0c00l:

So if the mother doesn't want the baby but the father does then she'll have the baby but she won't have any responsibilities to it? Apart from that pesky first nine months or so which is a massive responsibility in itself. And then if she changes her mind at some point during that time, like maybe she'll feel a natural bond with the child when it has grown inside her, that's just tough luck for her because she has signed away her rights to her child who she can now only see if the father allows it? I don't really like this system.

Nope you're totally right and the way i framed it sounds awful.

I addressed this in my response to SC above but yeah In cases where the mother doesn't want it then no she should not be forced to continue the pregnancy and the man should look for a willing woman should he want to have a child.

I see the clarification but I still find problems with it. Maybe you don't see any problems and of course you're entitled to your opinion but I think that would be an unwanted solution for a lot of people.

No I do and have redressed the issue above but for the tldr version. If they both want it its all great. if the woman doesn't and the man does then no baby. but if the woman does and the man does not then the mother should not be entitled to child support. If a man says he wants the baby then bails afterwards he should be punished more harshly then men are currently though as well.

Hmm, you think promiscuity is promoted for women more than men in society?

Yes in current society i believe so.

They clearly should be held equally responsible for their actions as men but I don't think that isn't happening. They just get the choice because it's their body. Makes sense to me.

That's fair though we disagree as I see that baby as its own life and body and even if i did not then the woman didn't do it on her own but the father has no say at all and i think thats unfair.

Avatar image for purpleperson
#747 Posted by PurplePerson (907 posts) - - Show Bio

@zr0c00l: fair enough. Nice having a civil discussion with you, have a good day.

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#748 Posted by buttersdaman000 (22736 posts) - - Show Bio

Pro-Choice, but I definitely would prefer no one get an abortion. We need better birth control, but conservatives think casual sex is icky and sinful so they do all they can to hinder advancement :/

Avatar image for azureus
#749 Posted by Azureus (2586 posts) - - Show Bio

^what?

Avatar image for lunacyde
#750 Posted by Lunacyde (28178 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't like it, but I don't think it's my place to determine whether other people have access to it. I think that should remain in the realm of healthcare professionals.

Moderator