Though I'd start part 2 since it was such a good thread despite being started back in Jan 16 2013. lol Anyways; Should men get a say in whether or not their girlfriends, wives, or even just their one-night-stands have an abortion or not? I am of the opinion that they may have as many says as they like, but they may not make the final decision. That must be left up to the woman because it is her body that is ultimately being affected/damaged/injured in some way. He only gave 1% of the process (and more than likely a pleasurable one at that) and she is doing the other 99% at her own expense physiologically and psychologically (not quite as enjoyable as that starting 1%, ever heard of a perineal tear? OUCH!!!) Not to mention the other huge list of side effects a woman faces in pregnancy and childbirth. You know the ones and if you don't feel free to review them below. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-i...#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm If a man wants a baby so badly he should find a willing partner! Not force someone who doesn't want to endure pregnancy/childbirth to have one for him! Alright. ROUND 2! FIGHT! ....er, *ahem* I mean DEBATE!
Ya know, I'm almost starting to agree with those who don't think men should be responsible for their own children. If a law was passed giving men the long sought after freedom from child care responsibilities (which they never accepted fully anyway) there might be some benefits. First I 'd like to add that any man who wants to get married must sign a legal statement as to whether he wants children or not BEFORE he can get married. If he agrees to have children he also must sign a legal document stating that he will assume 50% of parenting responsibilities including taking time off work to take his kids to the doctor, go to PTA meetings, soccer games, etc. Also bake cookies for treats for school, organize birthday parties on his own, and clean the toilets. This will help show women just what kind of "man" they'll be marrying, no surprises down the line, might cut down on divorces.... It will strengthen women's right to have an abortion....if men can opt out there is NOTHING to stop women from doing the same , not even sicko, misogynistic control freaks. And the FUN part is it will raise taxes to support all these actual living CHILDREN that can't be supported on one income.....something the Repub/Conservatives hate , the same Repub/Conservatives who are against abortion !
I was of a mind that a man should always be financially responsible for his children .. but . .through the process of the debate on this subject I have changed my view. In order for the equality between men and women to be fair then if a woman can choose to have an abortion then a man should be able to choose whether to support his children. ... however .. due to the financial burden this would probably place on the state (and the tax payer) I cannot see it coming to fruition.
Well the title was about abortion and abortion has to do with a fetus...child support has to do with real living actual children. So women have a little more "equality" than men since they are the ones who have the first decision, they are the ones who have to be pregnant(or have an abortion), and there really isn't anything anyone can do about that. The only way it would be completely fair is if men could get pregnant, too, and that won't happen either as much as I'd like it to
Yeah I realise that the original OP started out like that but it evolved into something else. I don't think the debate is one between the unborn and the born, it is more about the choices people can or cannot make and whether those choices are equal for both men and women. I mean you have seen me argue here that pregnancy is a matter of consent . so it would be hypocritical of me to support the woman's unabridged right to an abortion or not and not support the same unabridged right for a man to revoke support as far as his children are concerned .. though on a financial level there is not a hope in hell of it ever coming to a legal reality. The only real argument that stands in the way of it is that the state do not recognise a fetus as a person but all born children are recognised . .should that distinction be removed then I can see some women pursuing a man for his share of the expense of the pregnancy as well as the born child. It is one of those situation where there really isn't a fair resolution.
Men have no unilateral control over whether impregnation occurs as a result of consensual sex. Women do. Men have no control at all over whether a newborn baby is created as a result of a pregnancy. Women do. Men should have no control over and no responsibility for women's bodies. Do you think men should ever, at any time, be given the power to unilaterally decide that a woman will be put into years of involuntary servitude toward a person who doesn't even legally exist yet?
Of course not, just like women do not have the power to put men into years of involuntary servitude toward a person who doesn't even legally exist yet. Glad to see you read the title and know this is about abortion, fetuses and embryos , and not live children.....
Part of the reason some men feel they should have a say in abortion is because of the inequality that women now have, between the time of conception and fetal viability, to decide both of their fates when it comes to future financial obligations. If you took away this equality, then you'd take away a huge reason for men to even want to have any say in it because then it really would be none of their business.
You can't expect a direct connection part of the time and a total disconnect the rest. King Solomon, where are you when we need you? Since women have been denied the right to control their sexuality for most of our history, it is easy to understand a desire to close men out now. Perhaps someone will have the wisdom to include both sexes in decision that involve both the sperm and the egg.
You might've understood if you weren't so dishonest as to cherry pick posts. You left out "Glad to see you read the title and know this is about abortion, fetuses and embryos , and not live children..... "" (I guess you didn't know or couldn't comprehend)) LIVE CHILDREN are the reason the STATE thinks men should support their own children....it has nothing to do with what women think or do....and nothing to do with "men having a say in ABORTION" - - - Updated - - - Sure, just as soon as both sexes can be pregnant.....
Being pregnant is equal to the body being damaged? If women determine to have sex, they give half the right of decision to the guy. After all its half his kid.
Sorry this all appears to be above your comprehension level. You seem to be the only one who doesn't grasp how these issues relate to each other and what the argument actually is. Perhaps you should take a step back and try a more rational approach.
Excuse me! You haven't read or comprehended the TITLE of the thread and you say I don't comprehend something??? YOUR issue seems to be how unfair it is that men can't have periods and get pregnant like women can.....because until they do it ALL will be UNFAIR to women.!
Yes, all pregnancies cause injury to a female. Ownership of a person went out quite some time ago, so while half the genetic material may be the man's that does not equate to 50% ownership for the man or the woman. The reason he doesn't get a say in abortion is very simple .. it is not his body that is being used by another, what it seems you are alluding to is that a person must ask permission from someone else before they can stop their body being intruded upon and used without their consent and that is absurd.
What does the "pro-lifer" ...who wants "the father's approval for abortions"....say in this scenario- A woman goes to a sperm bank to be impregnated and is. The next week she loses her job and additionally discovers that she was exposed to a toxic chemical that would likely result in a birth defect. Should she be forced to track down the sperm donor to get his permission to have an abortion?
So does living. That takes its toll on the human body too. The female body doing what it is designed to do is not injury anymore than growing old. I think you forget that the body growing inside the mother is its own life form as well. Its odd to me that you think that a man shouldn't have any say over a women's body, while simultaneously giving the pregnant women say over the baby's body. Pretty hypocritical. "Intruding" "Used without their consent". Good lord. What absolutely ridiculous and plain old stupid comments. What is absurd is taking the position that a man and a women, who engage in sexual intercourse, which we all know is the only natural way for conception, causes a pregnancy that is not consensual. Here is a crazy position. If you don't want to get pregnant, or have a mutual discussion about that pregnancy with the father, then don't have sex with the man. Stop acting like a 12 year old, doing whatever you want, and then acting like you are shielded from the repercussions of your action. Just to prove your hypocrisy a little, further. Lets assume the mother wants to keep the baby and the father wants to terminate, surely you don't think the man should be on the hook for child support then right?
Obviously in that scenario the biological father has already waived all legal rights and responsibilities toward the unborn child, so he shouldn't have any say in the matter. I'm not aware of any pro-lifers who argue that donors to sperm banks should be held legally responsible for their biological offspring, although they probably should to be consistent in their position.
No it is not, if that was the case then there would be no requirement for the zef to suppress the local immunity system in order to stop it attacking and killing it. Not forgotten at all, but then due to the fact it is growing inside of another person means that without consent it is an intruder that a woman has every right to remove, after all it is her uterus. It would be odd and hypocritical if that is what I actually thought .. I don't. Really, instead of just saying so prove they are "ridiculous and plain old stupid comments" Seems you need to be reminded that consent to one person (a man) for an action (intercourse) cannot be seen as proxy consent to another person (the fetus) for a separate action (implantation and gestation). You could try for implied consent, but then implied consent is only valid to the point where the person explicitly says, by word or action, "no", from that point implied consent is moot. That is one of the problems with the pro-life mantra of a person at conception, that status has restrictions as well as protections. Fine, but that does not equate to the reality that the human race has had sex for all of it's history and that pregnancies have happened when that was not the intent, and that abortion has been part of human history since some of the earliest records. The problem you have is proving that consent to sex = consent to pregnancy and I'm afraid proclaiming the fetus as a "person" does little to help the case, in fact it strengthens the legality of abortion. You see you are making assumptions that are incorrect .. I fully support the right of a man to revoke ALL parental responsibilities should he not consent to being a father, so your hypocrisy comment only rebounds back onto you.
How would you take away the inequality? How would you make it possible for a man to undergo a medical procedure ( one that doesn't affect the body of any other person) that will result in no baby being born? How would you go about rectifying all the other inequalities involved in human reproduction?
Trust me, if I could magically give these "men" who don't want to support their own children a vagina, a uterus and all the other female bits and pieces that they're so jealous of, I would
It's not like they aren't trying to give men the experience of pregnancy. http://empathybelly.com/home.html Now all they have to do is come up with a way for us men to experience birth .. lol .. urrm spoke to soon, they have - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...h--painful-realization-wrong-caught-film.html
And if it was really possible for men to experience ALL the "benefits" of having a female body for ALL their lives how many do you really think would volunteer especially once they had a tiny taste of the experience??? None.
