March for Women's Lives

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » April 28, 2004, 3:23 pm

Winnow wrote:There's nothing I see morally that should allow a female to control a man's fate after a mutual act of sex consented to by both.

Exactly. Yes, allow the woman the right to choose whether or not to have the child, but the responsibilities that would be inherited by the man incurs some level of "consent to birth" on his part or a party is making unilateral decisions regarding another legal reponsibilities of another without consent.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » April 28, 2004, 3:26 pm

I just make it easy - before a guy can have sex with me, I tell him if I get pregnant I'm having an abortion. I do practise safe sex but mistakes happen. No guy has ever decided to not have sex with me after I have said that.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 28, 2004, 3:27 pm

Thess wrote:I just make it easy - before a guy can have sex with me, I tell him if I get pregnant I'm having an abortion. I do practise safe sex but mistakes happen. No guy has ever decided to not have sex with me after I have said that.

we can't hear when we have erections

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » April 28, 2004, 3:31 pm

Thess, that's good from a "setting expectations" perspective, but you can change your mind after the fact (very similar to the concerns many men have with consentual sex becoming "rape" after the fact). i.e. the genie is out of the bottle and all bets are off.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 28, 2004, 3:38 pm

deposting your load in a woman and getting her pregnant doesn't give a man a right to decide her fate for the next 9 months and the rest of her life. any man who thinks that has some very serious self-importance issues to work out.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » April 28, 2004, 3:42 pm

Thess wrote:I just make it easy -

Yep sounds like you

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 28, 2004, 3:46 pm

don't you think that crosses the line a tad? just because you can't even get your fat fucking ugly whale of a wife to put out, what gives you the right to make a comment like that?

Post by **Sylvus** » April 28, 2004, 3:53 pm

That's not very cool either, kyoukan. He gets plenty from the kids in his neighborhood!

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » April 28, 2004, 3:56 pm

kyoukan wrote:deposting your load in a woman and getting her pregnant doesn't give a man a right to decide her fate for the next 9 months and the rest of her life. any man who thinks that has some very serious self-importance issues to work out.

I think we agree on that, Kyo.

I think the discussion has changed to "does a woman get to decide a man's fate for a lifetime?" "Mistakes happen" to quote Thess, but only the woman has a "choice". If the man takes precautions for "safe sex" he has no fallback if the woman decides she wants the baby and he does not, but aside from the physical pregnancy/birth, he shares all of the legal reponsibilities of that "choice.".

If the woman is to have freedom to "choose" whether to be a mother, it's hypocritical to deny a man the right to have the same follow-up "choice" as to whether to be a father. If he doesn't and she does, fine - he loses all rights and responsibilities, as Sueven put, and the baby is hers to do with as she will.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » April 28, 2004, 4:00 pm

Atokal wrote:
Thess wrote:I just make it easy -
Yep sounds like you

lol, someone still mad I told him I found him to be retarded when we met irl?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 28, 2004, 4:03 pm

Thess wrote:I just make it easy - before a guy can have sex with me, I tell him if I get pregnant I'm having an abortion. I do practise safe sex but mistakes happen. No guy has ever decided to not have sex with me after I have said that.

That's birth control right there. Some guys would probably drop their load just hearing that good news. There's not many guys that are looking to impregnate a female during a casual night of sex.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 28, 2004, 4:03 pm

Well I don't think a man should be financially responsible for an unwanted pregnancy either. I didn't realize the discussion shifted. =p

But the onus should always be on the woman to make a decision like that. The father should be allowed input I think, but shouldn't be able to decide the fate, and certainly not through legislation.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 28, 2004, 4:25 pm

kyoukan wrote:Well I don't think a man should be financially responsible for an unwanted pregnancy either. I didn't realize the discussion shifted. =p

But the onus should always be on the woman to make a decision like that. The father should be allowed input I think, but shouldn't be able to decide the fate, and certainly not through legislation.

Yes.

Both male and female would have the option to abort although the male only would have the legal option to abort responsibility. The female has the total choice of whether to keep the child independant of the males decision.

The morality of this can be argued but the financial lock a female has on a male currently seems as unfair as if an abortion were illegal for the female altogether.

----------------------
Highly debatable idea:

The term "Planned Parenthood" should take on a new meaning. If an unwed couple wishes to have a child, they should file paperwork stating that...almost along the lines of a prenup. It wouldn't be required but without that documentation the pregnancy would default to unplanned with the above abortion options available to the male...the female would always have the right to decide either way. Part of the civil union contract which would replace the marriage license should state that the father has a legal obligation to support a child if conceived at anytime during the legal union.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » April 28, 2004, 4:30 pm

kyoukan wrote:deposting your load in a woman and getting her pregnant doesn't give a man a right to decide her fate for the next 9 months and the rest of her life. any man who thinks that has some very serious self-importance issues to work out.

I agree, the man shouldnt have the right to decline a womans abortions rights, although i do think that we should have the option to choose to have parental rights, or deny them, and not be forced to pay child support if the woman decided not to have an abortion.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » April 28, 2004, 4:40 pm

I don't think the financial question is as easy as you all make it sound. Once the woman excersizes her right to have the child, then there is more at stake than just her future. Now you have a kid too.

Females do not currently have a financial "lock" on a male. It should be very clear in the absence of abortion rights, that States would be allowed to prevent a woman from getting an abortion (or more realistically, punish those that do it), but no one has ever suggested that the State could force a woman to abort. Right of abortion or no, the man is in exactly the same financial position - if a child results, there will be some financial liability. The woman is in the same position - if a child results, she will have some financial responsibility. Having the right to abort does not give the woman any additional control over the man and certainly no "financial lock." It merely gives her a way out.

Once the child is born, both partners are in exactly the same situation. Niether has any more or less "control" over the other. They had a child. They will be responsible for it. Either can choose to give up their parental rights, but neither can choose to foist their parental responsilities on the other. Together, they can choose to give up both rights and responsibilities vis-a-vis adpotion.

Giving a woman the right to choose an abortion does not create an inequality unless, absent that right, the man could somehow choose whether or not to have the child. Since that is not, nor ever has been, the case, there really is no issue here.

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » April 28, 2004, 4:41 pm

Winnow wrote:The male wouldn't decide the fate of the fetus Voro, he would decide his own personal fate related to the future of the child after birth and then the female can decide on the fate of the child. Equal choice for personal fate although still leaving the female with ultimate choice in the fate of the child.

It takes nothing away from the females choice at all for the male to be able to choose legal responsibility or no legal responsibility during the time an abortion can take place. There's nothing I see morally that should allow a female to control a man's fate after a mutual act of sex consented to by both.

This will never happen ...

As a female, I fully agree with this on one condition. If a guy doesn't want to be a father and relinquishes all parental rights, there is no way he is coming back in 5 or 6 years demanding access to Johnny unless she wants him to be a father.

But there will always be some judge who decides that when Bud was 18 and knocked up his girlfriend he didn't understand what he was giving up and grant him parental rights 6 years down the road against the mother's wishes.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 28, 2004, 6:41 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Once the woman excersizes her right to have the child, then there is more at stake than just her future. Now you have a kid too.

That's exactly the point. It's the womans problem not the mans if he chose to "abort" his rights to the child. He should have no financial responsibility if he offers to pay for the abortion and legally chooses not to have the child. There's nothing stopping the woman from still having the child although she will know up front that she won't be getting support from the father.

-------
Fredonia, since this would be a legally signed document, I would assume that the paperwork would be detailed in explaining that the father was giving up all rights to the child when he chooses not to offer support and couldn't come back 5 years later unless the women allowed him.

--------
While I think this is the fairest way to handle abortion for both sides, I can also picture men abusing it by going nuts and fucking anything that moved as signing a paper refusing ownership is much easier than having the actual abortion. It still sucks more to be the woman but I believe two consenting adults are equally responsible and should have the same control of their own personal lives. The woman still conrols the unborn child but both male and female have the opportunity to choose their personal fate.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 29, 2004, 3:11 am

I can see your point Winnow, but frankly if you sire a few bastards you can help raise them. Ideally in the real sense, but failing that financially.

On abortion, once isn't last-ditch birth control, twice you really should start mandating sterilization or at least deprovera..

Silvarel Mistmoon · Post by **Silvarel Mistmoon** » April 29, 2004, 3:48 am

To those earlier in this thread talking about seeing graphic banners, I also had to see those on the way to daycare for my daughter. It's very upsetting to think these idiots think small children need to see these photos.
Here in B'ham the same group was protesting at Barns and Noble book stores several years ago over a book they claimed had child prono in it. They had a banner with children undressed, men behind them or looked like fondling them, of course parts were blurred BUT you still knew what it was. They were set up at a very busy intersection during rush hour in the evening. It pissed me off so bad I turned around drove in to the parking lot got out of my car asked for who was in charge and I blasted him.
I told him every pervert who just drove by was enjoying the view and that all he was doing was selling more of that book.
He informed me there was a court date set over the issue in Montgomery, I told him "don't you think putting the court date and time would be more important to draw concerned people in to the issue then this?" His reply was "that is a good idea!"
Take the time to stop and tell these people what they are doing is wrong and promoting what they are fighting in the wrong way.

I think people should attempt to keep a open mind when looking at whos going to become a judge. Just because they won't tell you their stance on abortion does not mean they will vote it down, just because they don't agree with abortion doesn't mean they will vote it down. A judge is not suppose to vote on their personal feelings, but on the facts, does the constitution come in to play, and the public outcry on matters.
A woman needs the right to choose, no doubt, but a minor should not be able to get a abortion with out the parents being brought in for serveral health reason. I have known girls when I was in school that would cross state lines to do it and in up in a world of medical trouble.

I think if a pregnant woman is attacked and her unborn child is killed do to the attack I think when the person is caught they should be charged with murder. The prochoice people fight that being made law for fear it will put a foot in the door to banning abortions. I think prochoicers show very little concern for human life in that aspect.

Bottom line, Wrap it up and swallow a pill or keep your pants zipped and your legs together.

For medical reasons concerning mothers health by all means she needs to beable to choose.

Sorry for all the spelling mistakes, 1:45 am here.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 29, 2004, 5:09 am

Aaeamdar wrote:The woman is in the same position - if a child results, she will have some financial responsibility. Having the right to abort does not give the woman any additional control over the man and certainly no "financial lock." It merely gives her a way out.

That is the inequality right there. It is the woman's body and she should have absolute sovereignty over it. However, not all abortions are done for health reasons, I would assume the majority are done because the female is not willing or able to assume the lifelong responsibility and all it entails. I absolutely support this choice, especially early term abortions with my reservations increasing as embryo developement advances. While women have this way out, men do not. Wether or not a man will have this lifechanging and lifelong responsibilty is in the sole descretion of the female. This is an inequality.

---------------------

For the strong pro-lifers such as Adex. Do you believe that anything after conception is wrong? If so what is your view towards birth control pills?

The pill works by using a combination of 3 methods: preventing ovulation, preventing sperm from reaching the egg and preventing egg implantation in the uterus.

It is entirely possible that a fertilized egg (after conception) will be flushed from the female's system.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 29, 2004, 7:49 am

Just to answer that for him in advance, since he's a firm believer in church law, he should be against any type of birth control. That includes using comdoms or pills.

Before my wife and I got married, I had to go to catacism classes(I think that's what they were called, it's early) and the push was made for "Natural Family Planning". It was funny just how many people that were there literally laughing and being inappropriate at the movie, those nutty catholics. Ohh, the class leaders were all hard luck stories-married couples that were still married even though one might have been an alcoholic or abusive or just being plain awful to each other over the years. Most of them were scary fucking people I would let step into my house to be honest.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » April 29, 2004, 12:30 pm

Sinfest has a good strip yesterday on abortion.
http://sinfest.net/d/20040428.html

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » April 29, 2004, 2:50 pm

Winnow, guys should learn to be a little smarter and they wouldn't have to worry. For example, a guy relying on a girls' word that she is on the pill is flat out stupid. She could be irresponsible and skip pills or she could be lying.

I know of several cases where a girl was insecure about her relationship with her boyfriend and purposely stopped the pill in order to get pregnant. Of course they never tell him that! It amazes me how many guys think "the pill just didn't work" when it is likely someone accidently or purposely stopped taking the pill.

I've been using condoms for many many years and I've never had one break, so I don't understand "the condom broke" thing. (Although I did see one guy on a talk show admit to poking holes in his condoms with a needle to get his gf pregnant secretly..) Use lube, don't go past the expiration date, and put it on right and you wont have a problem. Common sense!

I believe that 99% of "accidental" (not counting nonconsentual) pregnancies are simply people being careless with birth control. Having sex with someone and not being 100% responsible can get you into trouble whether it be pregnancy or STDs.

In short Winnow, guys who "accidently" get girls pregnant are just as much to blame in the irresponsible act as the women and should pay for it. He gave up his power when he didn't put a condom on, or when he failed to use it correctly, or when he decided he could trust that his gf was taking her pills.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 29, 2004, 3:04 pm

Lalanae:

In short Lalanae, girls who "accidently" get pregnant are just as much to blame in the irresponsible act as the man and should pay for it. She gave up her power when she decided she could trust her boyfriend to put a condom on, or when he failed to use it correctly, or when she didn't take her pills.

All I did was switch the genders in your statement, and it seems to result in a completely fallacious pro-life argument. I fail to see how your view can be reconciled with a pro-choice philosophy.

The fault could be mine, I could be missing something basic. Could you elaborate a little further?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 29, 2004, 5:42 pm

Lalanae, I agree that men and women should both learn to take better precautions but it doesn't change the fact that both are equally responsible for an unwanted pregnancy.

My only argument on this pro choice thread is that guys have as much right to request a legal abortion as women have to request an actual abortion. Except for special circumstances (rape, etc), equal sharing of the blame is a must. Ultimately, the female still has complete control of the fate of the unborn child but neither male or female should have control over the other's personal life.

I'd push for better education first and foremost to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Accidents happen and both sides should have an equal obligation or opportunity to decide their personal fate.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » April 29, 2004, 7:01 pm

Sueven wrote:Lalanae:

In short Lalanae, girls who "accidently" get pregnant are just as much to blame in the irresponsible act as the man and should pay for it. She gave up her power when she decided she could trust her boyfriend to put a condom on, or when he failed to use it correctly, or when she didn't take her pills.

All I did was switch the genders in your statement, and it seems to result in a completely fallacious pro-life argument. I fail to see how your view can be reconciled with a pro-choice philosophy.

The fault could be mine, I could be missing something basic. Could you elaborate a little further?

I never said they werent equally responsible.

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » April 29, 2004, 7:07 pm

Winnow wrote:Lalanae, I agree that men and women should both learn to take better precautions but it doesn't change the fact that both are equally responsible for an unwanted pregnancy.

My only argument on this pro choice thread is that guys have as much right to request a legal abortion as women have to request an actual abortion. Except for special circumstances (rape, etc), equal sharing of the blame is a must. Ultimately, the female still has complete control of the fate of the unborn child but neither male or female should have control over the other's personal life.

I'd push for better education first and foremost to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Accidents happen and both sides should have an equal obligation or opportunity to decide their personal fate.

Again I never said they werent equally responsible.

Sorry you have a problem with biology, but until men start getting pregnant, they have no right to request a legal abortion. Its a woman's choice because it occurs in her body. Your suggestion is frankly ridiculous and I have a hard time believing that you think that is a viable alternative. Drawing up contracts? How about something easier. Don't fuck people carelessly and casually and you won't have the problem to deal with.

Its so easy NOT to get pregnant or get someone pregnant, that if you do "on accident" I don't feel a damn bit sorry for either party.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 29, 2004, 7:38 pm

Lalanae wrote:
Sorry you have a problem with biology, but until men start getting pregnant, they have no right to request a legal abortion. Its a woman's choice because it occurs in her body.

You seem to not understand what I'm saying. The man has no right over an actual abortion. Perhaps if I rephrase it. The man would have the right to separate himself from responsibility for the unborn child if the woman chooses to not have an abortion paid for by the man.

I fail to see why it's any more the man's fault than the womans. It's exaclty equal for two consenting adults unless you are saying men are superior and smarter than women and therefore should be held more accountable than women which I doubt is what you mean.

Tell me why the man is more wrong for fucking a woman unprotected than a woman is for letting him yet the woman may choose to abort but the man is on the hook as the legal biological father for the child if the woman chooses not to.

Is it up to men completely to prevent unwanted pregnancy? I hope I'm right in thinking most here think the intelligence and rationality of a man and woman are equal. I find it hard to believe you'd think otherwise.

You are placing the burden of unwatned pregnancy 100 percent on the man and then giving the female 100 percent control in the fate of the child (which I agree with completely) and man's financial responsibilities (which I disagree with).

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 29, 2004, 7:50 pm

Are you pro-life?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » April 29, 2004, 7:57 pm

Lalanae wrote:I never said they werent equally responsible.

Lalanae wrote:Again I never said they werent equally responsible.

then like 2 posts later...

Winnow wrote:I fail to see why it's any more the man's fault than the womans.

hahahahaha

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » April 29, 2004, 7:59 pm

Winnow,
Repeating your opinion over and over without additional reasoning is not discussion. Nor are you correct merely because you have a greater stamina for typing exactly what you typed before.

What do you think the situation is without the right to abortion?

Why should the financial liabilities of a man for a child born to the world change merely because women have a right to abort?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 29, 2004, 8:40 pm

Aaeamdar wrote: Why should the financial liabilities of a man for a child born to the world change merely because women have a right to abort?

Because the man has no choice and the women does after they both screwed up.

Aaeamdar wrote:
What do you think the situation is without the right to abortion?

With no right to abortion for the women, the man is equally responsible for the wellbeing of the child.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » April 29, 2004, 8:45 pm

Winnow is slowly reverting to his Jurrasic period Winnow of IGN days when his mastery of avoiding topical arguments while repeating the same statement in slight variation wore down all but the fiercest of opponents. It is an ingenious tactic and a marvel to behold. While he does execute the tactic to perfection, its not exactly original.....

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 29, 2004, 8:51 pm

To prove Jice's point:

Summary:

1. It's agreed that both are equally responsible for an unwanted pregnancy. Sorry I missed that this was understood and kept stating it.

2. The fate of all three people involved, man, woman and unborn child are 100 percent in the woman's control after an unwanted pregnancy.

3. A man has no right in the decision of abortion but should have a right to decide their involvement if the woman decides not to have an abortion otherwise there is a level of injustice taking place.

OK, that's as clear as I can make my position.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 29, 2004, 9:10 pm

Bottom line after a pregnancy:

A women has a choice to become a mother or not.
A man has no choice to become a father or not, the woman chooses for him.

You do not see this as an inequality?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 29, 2004, 9:32 pm

Aaeamdar: Yes, without the right to abortion, a man has no choice as to whether or not he will become a father, and the situation is the same with the current right to abortion. What this indicates to me is that granting the right to abortion does not take away male rights, and I'm perfectly willing to agree with that.

The Supreme Court has found that decisions relating to "marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," as they involve "the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the fourteenth amendment." It is, as you earlier stated, a liberty issue, not an equal rights issue.

Now, you know more about law than me, and I'm sure that you have a well thought out position, so my basic question is:

Considering that abortion is protected under the fourteenth amendment guarantee of liberty, and considering that choices related to procreation, family relationships, and child rearing are protected as well, why is a man's choice to not take responsibility for his child not protected by the same reasoning? Why is it not a choice "central to personal dignity and autonomy" under the rubric provided by the court?

Thess · Post by **Thess** » April 29, 2004, 9:47 pm

Forthe wrote:Bottom line after a pregnancy:

A women has a choice to become a mother or not.
A man has no choice to become a father or not, the woman chooses for him.

You do not see this as an inequality?

People not talking about things like, "Hey if I get pregnant - what would we do?" before having sex seems absolutely ridiculous to me, and no I'm not talking about having this discussion while the man is arroused.

A man has a choice by communicating to the woman he's sleeping with before they have sex.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 29, 2004, 10:02 pm

Thess wrote:
Forthe wrote:Bottom line after a pregnancy:

A women has a choice to become a mother or not.
A man has no choice to become a father or not, the woman chooses for him.

You do not see this as an inequality?
People not talking about things like, "Hey if I get pregnant - what would we do?" before having sex seems absolutely ridiculous to me, and no I'm not talking about having this discussion while the man is arroused.

A man has a choice by communicating to the woman he's sleeping with before they have sex.

Not really. They could be in full agreement on a recourse if they discussed it beforehand. However, after a pregnancy the woman still has a choice while the male does not. That prior agreement is not binding and the female can reverse her previous position.

I'm not even sure if some prenup (sp?) type of contract would be binding.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » April 29, 2004, 10:25 pm

Thess wrote:People not talking about things like, "Hey if I get pregnant - what would we do?" before having sex seems absolutely ridiculous to me, and no I'm not talking about having this discussion while the man is arroused.

Ermmm well it may seem ridiculous...but I would wager most people still don't talk about having sex before they have sex...

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » April 29, 2004, 11:07 pm

Forthe wrote:Bottom line after a pregnancy:

A women has a choice to become a mother or not.
A man has no choice to become a father or not, the woman chooses for him.

You do not see this as an inequality?

The man and the woman are equally responsible if the woman gets pregnant and therefore, both should be equally responsible for the child once it's born. To suggest that the man should be able to "abort" himself of any legal responsibility for a child simply because he couldn't force the woman to have an abortion is ludicrous.

You really want to claim that men have no decision about whether or not they become a father? Of course they do. Any man who is unwilling to accept that having sex has consequences shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

It's impossible for women to have sex without some risk of becoming pregnant and winding up responsible for a child. Why should it be any different for a man? There's no inequality here. If you have sex, you should be willing to take responsibility for the consequences, whether it means helping the woman out through an abortion, or raising the child.

We should feel sorry for you because you stuck your dick in someone and weren't 100% guaranteed the woman would have an abortion if she got pregant?

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 29, 2004, 11:51 pm

Etasi wrote:You really want to claim that men have no decision about whether or not they become a father?

Ultimately, if the man wants the child and the woman doesn't, there's no child, yet if the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, he now has a child.

It's pretty simple really.

You can reason it all you want to, but if we're talking about the first situation, we're talking about an inequity. And since there's nothing that can be done to switch these potential responsibilities, what can you do if you're a man? However I do agree that they shouldn't "give in" to such urges if such an outcome hasn't been discussed in any way shape or form. But then, you're talking about millions of people, both men and women, who have their respective heads up their asses so what do you expect?

I still don't get the whole idea of deciding it's the right thing to do to bring a child into the world and not put up for adoption when you know well in advance you're not getting the support needed since he flat out didn't want a child to begin with.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 30, 2004, 12:03 am

Etasi wrote:The man and the woman are equally responsible if the woman gets pregnant and therefore, both should be equally responsible for the child once it's born. To suggest that the man should be able to "abort" himself of any legal responsibility for a child simply because he couldn't force the woman to have an abortion is ludicrous.

I didn't say that at all. I said the woman has the option to have an abortion or not, to become a parent or not. The woman has a choice. The man does not, the woman chooses for him.

Etasi wrote:You really want to claim that men have no decision about whether or not they become a father? Of course they do. Any man who is unwilling to accept that having sex has consequences shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

Nice. Please recognize you are using the argument conservative men use against women's abortion right's here.

Etasi wrote:It's impossible for women to have sex without some risk of becoming pregnant and winding up responsible for a child. Why should it be any different for a man? There's no inequality here. If you have sex, you should be willing to take responsibility for the consequences, whether it means helping the woman out through an abortion, or raising the child.

This is false. Abortion makes this possible for women. Howerver, It's impossible for men to have sex without some risk of the woman becoming pregnant and winding up responsible for a child. This is true, and that is the inequality.

You mention helping the woman through an abortion which I entirely agree with and should be required to do so. However, if the woman chooses to keep the child the man should not be forced to become a parent.

Etasi wrote:We should feel sorry for you because you stuck your dick in someone and weren't 100% guaranteed the woman would have an abortion if she got pregant?

"Feeling sorry for" is irrelevent. Equality in the choice to become a parent or to not become a parent is the issue.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 30, 2004, 12:25 am

Etasi wrote:
Forthe wrote:Bottom line after a pregnancy:

A women has a choice to become a mother or not.
A man has no choice to become a father or not, the woman chooses for him.

You do not see this as an inequality?
The man and the woman are equally responsible if the woman gets pregnant and therefore, both should be equally responsible for the child once it's born. To suggest that the man should be able to "abort" himself of any legal responsibility for a child simply because he couldn't force the woman to have an abortion is ludicrous.

You really want to claim that men have no decision about whether or not they become a father? Of course they do. Any man who is unwilling to accept that having sex has consequences shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

It's impossible for women to have sex without some risk of becoming pregnant and winding up responsible for a child. Why should it be any different for a man? There's no inequality here. If you have sex, you should be willing to take responsibility for the consequences, whether it means helping the woman out through an abortion, or raising the child.

We should feel sorry for you because you stuck your dick in someone and weren't 100% guaranteed the woman would have an abortion if she got pregant?

Trying to follow your logic, the man is to relinquish his rights to the woman at the time of sexual intercourse...that's fair? It seems to me that places the entire risk on the male and leaves the female with two options and control of the man.

----------

Female: OK, we both don't want children but if by chance I get pregnant, I will decide both your fate and the childs fate and there's nothing you can do about it.

Male: Nevermind, just blow me.

-----------

I suppose legal abortion gives the man a fighting chance. On the other hand, if you want to stop casual sex, prevent legal abortion except in situational circumstances and even the playing field for men and women. Instead of just the women having a choice, no one would have a choice. Unnacceptable? I'd hope so.

I'd think in this day and age, people accept that casual sex exists and do their best to prevent unwanted pregnancies but you've got to treat the eventual accidents fairly between men and women. I'm 100 percent behind equal rights for women. In this case I'm fighting for equal rights for men in determining their personal fate.

I must take pity on religious people as I see this point crystal clear and don't understand how someone else couldn't. That's as close to being religious as I get although I would change if someone dropped a logic bomb that made it clear the woman should control a man's fate after an accidental pregnancy.

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » April 30, 2004, 1:40 am

You didn't directly say anything about forcing the woman to have an abortion, but it's not a stretch to imagine a woman feeling like she has no choice but to abort knowing the father is legally obligated to do jack shit for the child.

You could argue that she shouldn't have signed the agreement in the first place if she wasn't willing to accept the consequences, and it's true. However, you do have to take into account the naivete so many people have about sex. So many people think, "it'll never happen to me!" and then guess what, it does. I can see many people thinking that kind of agreement is great, and then really regretting it later once the reality of being pregnant hits home. Both parties could get really screwed, the woman because she might feel forced to have an abortion, when she might have kept the baby if the father was around to help out; and the man because he might have relinquished his rights to his child when he wasn't thinking realistically about the situation at all.

Feel free to turn the "don't do things you can't accept the consequences of!" argument back around on me. I simply wanted to point out that maybe 'legal abortion' has more flaws than its proponents have imagined.

Forthe wrote:
Etasi wrote: Any man who is unwilling to accept that having sex has consequences shouldn't be having sex in the first place.
Nice. Please recognize you are using the argument conservative men use against women's abortion right's here.

I could have written it more clearly, but the conservative argument also includes the clause, "abortion is not an acceptable consequence of sex." I do not believe this to be true. What I meant to say was that any man who cannot accept pregnancy and/or abortion as consequences of having sex shouldn't be having it.

This is false. Abortion makes this possible for women. Howerver, It's impossible for men to have sex without some risk of the woman becoming pregnant and winding up responsible for a child. This is true, and that is the inequality.

First, let me refine the wording of my last post. It's impossible for women to have sex without the risk of becoming pregnant. Therefore, it's impossible for women to have sex without the possible risk of having a child. This is true for both genders.

You're placing the decision making in the wrong part of the process. If you absolutely do not want to accept the financial consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, be they related to abortion or childbirth, do not have sex. Men DO have a means by which to prevent becoming a father.

The fact of the matter is an inequality already exists when it comes to pregancy. Pregnancy affects a woman's health, but not a man's. A woman that keeps her baby is financially responsible for it, whereas it is possible for men to shirk this responsibility (here you can argue that it isn't legal, but in my opinion, that's irrelevant, as it is a fact that some fathers do get away with not supporting their children).

If you want to claim inequality, you have to look at all the facts. Women and men have equal say in whether they initially take the risk of having an unwanted pregnancy. I would argue that women and men also have an equal say in whether an unwanted pregnancy is terminated, in the sense that each has a say proportional to the risk presented to each.

We can assume that in certain relationships, such as long term relationships and marriages, the woman is in most cases going to take into account the man's wishes about terminating the pregnancy. Even if she decides to keep the child when the man does not wish to, it seems highly unlikely that he would desire to 'abort' his legal rights concerning the child, as the child is a product of a committed relationship.

We can assume that in other relationships, such as one night stands and casual sexual relationships, the woman may care less about the man's opinion as to whether the pregnancy should be terminated. In these cases, though, there is a much greater risk that the man will avoid, or attempt to avoid, taking responsibility for the child, should it be born.

At this point I'd like to ask why exactly it is that men deserve the option of having no legal responsibility for a child, when the woman has no such option assuming she does not wish to have an abortion. What about cases in which the woman doesn't believe in abortion? Is your argument for 'legal abortion' still valid?

The idea of legal abortion does not make sense from a legal standpoint, and it certainly doesn't make sense from the government's standpoint. The government isn't going to agree to any plan that makes it more likely that taxpayers are going to have to support unwanted children when the parents are fully capable of doing so themselves.

Furthermore, why should the government get involved in the first place, when the issue is easily solved by people taking a little more personal responsibility for their actions?

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » April 30, 2004, 1:51 am

Winnow wrote:Trying to follow your logic, the man is to relinquish his rights to the woman at the time of sexual intercourse...that's fair? It seems to me that places the entire risk on the male and leaves the female with two options and control of the man.

This has always been true of sex, and will continue to be true whether or not abortion is legal. Men don't have total control over what a woman does with her body after she becomes pregnant. She could run off to another country and not tell the father where she's going, too.

I suppose legal abortion gives the man a fighting chance. On the other hand, if you want to stop casual sex, prevent legal abortion except in situational circumstances and even the playing field for men and women. Instead of just the women having a choice, no one would have a choice. Unnacceptable? I'd hope so.

Way to be overly dramatic. Who said anything about stopping casual sex? 'Legal abortion' would simply give people less reason to think responsibly about their sexual choices. Why is that acceptable?

I'd think in this day and age, people accept that casual sex exists and do their best to prevent unwanted pregnancies but you've got to treat the eventual accidents fairly between men and women. I'm 100 percent behind equal rights for women. In this case I'm fighting for equal rights for men in determining their personal fate.

You act as though women and men were equal with regards to pregnancy until the legalization of abortion (since this wouldn't be an issue at all if abortion weren't legal). The woman faces substantially more personal risk than the man does if she becomes pregnant and keeps the child. She faces more health risks, more professional risks, and is guaranteed financial risks that the man is not. Men abandon their children far more often than women do. If she has an abortion, she's the only one taking any risks at all. And in spite of all this, the man should have just as much right to decide what happens to the woman as she does? That doesn't make much sense.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » April 30, 2004, 2:03 am

/agree Etasi

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 30, 2004, 2:06 am

I would argue that women and men also have an equal say in whether an unwanted pregnancy is terminated, in the sense that each has a say proportional to the risk presented to each

This is where I disagree. The woman has 100% of the say in whether the pregnancy is terminated. She also bears all of the physical risks, some of the emotional risks, and some of the financial risks. The man bears some (although probably less) or the emotional and financial risks. What's the exact breakdown? 75/25? 99/1? It doesn't matter. The man has some investment and receives no say. Additionally, using "the risk presented to each" as a criteria for "say" in abortion strikes me as somewhat arbitrary.

At this point I'd like to ask why exactly it is that men deserve the option of having no legal responsibility for a child, when the woman has no such option assuming she does not wish to have an abortion. What about cases in which the woman doesn't believe in abortion? Is your argument for 'legal abortion' still valid?

I believe I can respond to this question. I don't give a damn if a woman doesn't want to have an abortion. Perhaps she feels it's immoral. Guess what: I would expect that the vast majority of men would think that it's immoral to go fucking women and then not taking responsibility for it. Just like abortion, I'm not defending the action, only it's legality. Oh, also, she does have an option: adoption.

Most of your arguments against legal abortion strike me as the same arguments against abortion that you would typically reject.

I could have written it more clearly, but the conservative argument also includes the clause, "abortion is not an acceptable consequence of sex." I do not believe this to be true. What I meant to say was that any man who cannot accept pregnancy and/or abortion as consequences of having sex shouldn't be having it.

Your argument also includes the clause "legal abortion is not an acceptable consequence of sex. I do not believe this to be true. I feel that any man or woman who cannot accept pregnancy and/or abortion and/or legal abortion as consequences of having sex shouldn't be having it.

Way to be overly dramatic. Who said anything about stopping casual sex? 'Legal abortion' would simply give people less reason to think responsibly about their sexual choices. Why is that acceptable?

Abortion simply gives people less reason to think responsibly about their sexual choices. Why is that acceptable?

I could go on, but that's basically the point.

I am really shocked that so many pro-choice people are so dead set against giving men a legal option to escape parentage. It strikes me as incredible hypocrisy. All these arguments about shirking responsibility and talking about it beforehand and such is the same rhetoric that the right wing uses to argue against abortion, and it's as irrelevant here as it is there.

And again, it's a liberty issue, not an equal rights issue. The right to abortion is part of the general "liberty" protected by the constitution. I don't see why the right to legal abortion should be any different.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » April 30, 2004, 2:26 am

A woman's options from an unwanted pregnancy:
1) Abortion
2) Adoption ('Legal abortion')
3) Keep the baby.

If the male declares he does not want to be a parent why should he be held responsible for a decision made entirely by the woman to choose #3?

Etasi wrote:And in spite of all this, the man should have just as much right to decide what happens to the woman as she does? That doesn't make much sense.

No I think the male should have no right to decide what happens to the woman. I also believe the woman should have no right to decide what happens to the man. They both should make the choice for themselves.

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » April 30, 2004, 2:31 am

Sueven wrote:
I would argue that women and men also have an equal say in whether an unwanted pregnancy is terminated, in the sense that each has a say proportional to the risk presented to each
This is where I disagree. The woman has 100% of the say in whether the pregnancy is terminated. She also bears all of the physical risks, some of the emotional risks, and some of the financial risks. The man bears some (although probably less) or the emotional and financial risks. What's the exact breakdown? 75/25? 99/1? It doesn't matter. The man has some investment and receives no say. Additionally, using "the risk presented to each" as a criteria for "say" in abortion strikes me as somewhat arbitrary.

Except that isn't true. Depending on his relationship with the woman, he does have some say. You cannot ignore that simply because she's the one who's setting foot in the abortion clinic and she's not. Some women will take into account the father's viewpoint. The more likely she is to take his opinion into consideration, the more likely he is to actually take responsibility for the child once it's born.

You're oversimplifying to assume that 100% of men have 0% of the say in unwanted pregnancies.

I believe I can respond to this question. I don't give a damn if a woman doesn't want to have an abortion. Perhaps she feels it's immoral.

However, the argument for legal abortion makes no sense in a context in which abortion is not assumed as a viable option in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. If abortion isn't an option, then neither party has any say in whether or not the child is born.

Your argument also includes the clause "legal abortion is not an acceptable consequence of sex. I do not believe this to be true. I feel that any man or woman who cannot accept pregnancy and/or abortion and/or legal abortion as consequences of having sex shouldn't be having it.

I don't disagree with people who say that those who cannot accept the consequences of having sex shouldn't have it. I do disagree with those that think abortion isn't an acceptable consequence of sex. That doesn't weaken my argument that people shouldn't have sex if they don't want to be responsible for it.

By arguing for 'legal abortion' you're basically arguing that men should be able to have sex without any consequences whatsoever. Women can't have sex without consequences; even if they have an abortion, that's still a consequence, and it has the potential to affect the rest of their life, just as having a child does. Why should men be able to have sex without taking any responsibility for it? You argue that those who oppose legal abortion are hypocrites, but how is your position any less hypocritical?

And again, it's a liberty issue, not an equal rights issue. The right to abortion is part of the general "liberty" protected by the constitution. I don't see why the right to legal abortion should be any different.

How about because legal abortion makes no sense from the government's perspective? Do you as a taxpayer really want to be responsible for even more kids that their parents can't or won't take care of?

How about because legal abortion poses risks to both parties? I can see the lawsuits now: men suing to get back the rights to their kids because they weren't thinking clearly when they agreed to legal abortion.

Really though, I'm most opposed to the idea of legal abortion because I disagree with the idea that it gives men equality to women when it comes to being a parent. Men are already in the superior position on this issue. Women incur more risk from unwanted pregnancies already; why should there exist the potential for them to incur 100% of the risk, and men 0%, when both are equally responsible for the pregnancy in the first place?

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » April 30, 2004, 2:42 am

Forthe wrote:No I think the male should have no right to decide what happens to the woman. I also believe the woman should have no right to decide what happens to the man. They both should make the choice for themselves.

But if the man decides he's not going to support the child in any way, he's deciding more than what happens in his own life. He's also deciding what happens in the woman's life, and in the child's life.

Anyway, I've posted a lot on this thread and I think if I say any more I'm just going to be repeating myself. However, I really would like someone to comment on what I said in my above post about legal abortion giving men the right to have sex with absolutely no consequences. If men have the 'right' to this, then so do women. However, until there's a way to 100% guarantee against unwanted pregnancy, that just isn't possible. I think maybe some of you are focusing too much on what happens if the woman doesn't have an abortion, and not enough on the fact that having an abortion can be just as life altering for a woman as having a child can.

Neither gender should be able to have sex without consequences unless both genders are able to do so. It would be nice if both genders could face equal consequences for unwanted pregnancies, but they can't. That's a physical inequality rather than a legal one, however.

VeeshanVault

March for Women's Lives

...

Re: ...

Re: ...

Re: ...

Re: ...

...

Re: ...

Re: ...

...