Abortion: Why Men Don't Get A Say

[PixieStix]

Yes, I agree. Be better for men when they can control their fertility through some sort of internal medicine. But then, better contraception would improve the lives of each gender.

Of course you agree that this is the current system, because it IS the current system. I can also agree that the current system IS the current system. I do not think it is fair or equal, it is absolute gender bias

note to pixie:



child bearing is gender biased. *shakes head*

Ok, child bearing was not created by lawmakers though, was it?

 

[Madeline]

Of course you agree that this is the current system, because it IS the current system. I can also agree that the current system IS the current system. I do not think it is fair or equal, it is absolute gender bias

It is the very best science has to offer as of this time. "Gender equality" is impossible as regards abortion.

I thought you were opposed to abortion, Pixie Stix? If so, why would you want men to be able to strong-arm women who do not want one into an abortion?

I am personally opposed to abortion, what does that have to do with the gender bias of the abortion laws, and the lengths that some take to destroy any semblance of equality?

The abortion laws only contemplate choice among females because only females get pregnant. The fact that others are affected is -- and must remain -- a secondary social consideration, not a competing legal right. You read FA_Q2's post, I assume?

As to "lengths that some take", I am not sure what you mean.

 

[PixieStix]

It is the very best science has to offer as of this time. "Gender equality" is impossible as regards abortion.

I thought you were opposed to abortion, Pixie Stix? If so, why would you want men to be able to strong-arm women who do not want one into an abortion?

I am personally opposed to abortion, what does that have to do with the gender bias of the abortion laws, and the lengths that some take to destroy any semblance of equality?

The abortion laws only contemplate choice among females because only females get pregnant. The fact that others are affected is -- and must remain -- a secondary social consideration, not a competing legal right. You read FA_Q2's post, I assume?

As to "lengths that some take", I am not sure what you mean.

So you agree that the laws are unequal right?

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, I agree. Be better for men when they can control their fertility through some sort of internal medicine. But then, better contraception would improve the lives of each gender.

Of course you agree that this is the current system, because it IS the current system. I can also agree that the current system IS the current system. I do not think it is fair or equal, it is absolute gender bias

It is the very best science has to offer as of this time. "Gender equality" is impossible as regards abortion.

I thought you were opposed to abortion, Pixie Stix? If so, why would you want men to be able to strong-arm women who do not want one into an abortion?

Where, other than in your head, did she say any such thing?

 

[JBeukema]

It is the very best science has to offer as of this time. "Gender equality" is impossible as regards abortion.

I thought you were opposed to abortion, Pixie Stix? If so, why would you want men to be able to strong-arm women who do not want one into an abortion?

I am personally opposed to abortion, what does that have to do with the gender bias of the abortion laws, and the lengths that some take to destroy any semblance of equality?

The abortion laws only contemplate choice among females because only females get pregnant. The fact that others are affected is -- and must remain -- a secondary social consideration, not a competing legal right. You read FA_Q2's post, I assume?

Her choice, her responsibility.

Either you're a big girl and can make and be responsible for your own life decisions or not.

 

[Madeline]

I am personally opposed to abortion, what does that have to do with the gender bias of the abortion laws, and the lengths that some take to destroy any semblance of equality?

The abortion laws only contemplate choice among females because only females get pregnant. The fact that others are affected is -- and must remain -- a secondary social consideration, not a competing legal right. You read FA_Q2's post, I assume?

As to "lengths that some take", I am not sure what you mean.

So you agree that the laws are unequal right?

The facts are unequal. The law copes as best it possibly can. Men and women are not similiarly situated as regards abortion. I never said they were.

 

[Madeline]

I am personally opposed to abortion, what does that have to do with the gender bias of the abortion laws, and the lengths that some take to destroy any semblance of equality?

The abortion laws only contemplate choice among females because only females get pregnant. The fact that others are affected is -- and must remain -- a secondary social consideration, not a competing legal right. You read FA_Q2's post, I assume?

Her choice, her responsibility.

Either you're a big girl and can make and be responsible for your own life decisions or not.

"Responsible" women waive off their babies' rights to paternal support, IYO, I take it. Not in my opinion.

We disagree. Get over it, JB.

 

[ConHog]

so to recap: Madeline never wants to see the system even try to be fair towards men, or children?

Got it

 

[FA_Q2]

so to recap: Madeline never wants to see the system even try to be fair towards men, or children?

Got it

Well that is rather blown out of proportion. We have finally agreed that the system is unfair. The difference here is weather the solution of allowing men off the hook costs too much. I am unsure but am leaning on the side that it is. Maddie seems to think so as well. The rest of you seem to disagree. It is possible that we will not find a middle ground but statements like this only serve to ensure that and stop the debate. We would all like the system to be fair but fair is not the goal in life. Life is never fair and that is a fact. I rarely think in terms of fair or not as that line of thought never really works. What we need is a system that is functional and give the most opportunity to all parties and the child may well suffer more than is worth should the father be allowed his fair shake. As the laws and practice stands now there needs to be major reform. The system is unbelievably broken but then again I am weary of a solution the gives the father full ability to walk away.

Of course you agree that this is the current system, because it IS the current system. I can also agree that the current system IS the current system. I do not think it is fair or equal, it is absolute gender bias

It is the very best science has to offer as of this time. "Gender equality" is impossible as regards abortion.

I thought you were opposed to abortion, Pixie Stix? If so, why would you want men to be able to strong-arm women who do not want one into an abortion?

Where, other than in your head, did she say any such thing?

That is one of the unintended consequences that come from allowing the man to walk away. There are plenty of situation where a woman is willing but unable to fully support a child without something from the father. In that situation, she may be forced to abort because having the child would not be financially sound. Allowing the father to walk WILL result in outcomes like this increasing. Even though adoption is also an answer it is also a poor one. There are consequences that will be paid in the name of fairness if the father were allowed to walk. You must realize this. The question that must be answered is whether or not the freedom in this case is worth the cost.

 

[Si modo]

so to recap: Madeline never wants to see the system even try to be fair towards men, or children?

Got it

Well that is rather blown out of proportion. We have finally agreed that the system is unfair. The difference here is weather the solution of allowing men off the hook costs too much. I am unsure but am leaning on the side that it is. Maddie seems to think so as well. The rest of you seem to disagree. It is possible that we will not find a middle ground but statements like this only serve to ensure that and stop the debate. We would all like the system to be fair but fair is not the goal in life. Life is never fair and that is a fact. I rarely think in terms of fair or not as that line of thought never really works. What we need is a system that is functional and give the most opportunity to all parties and the child may well suffer more than is worth should the father be allowed his fair shake. As the laws and practice stands now there needs to be major reform. The system is unbelievably broken but then again I am weary of a solution the gives the father full ability to walk away.

It is the very best science has to offer as of this time. "Gender equality" is impossible as regards abortion.

I thought you were opposed to abortion, Pixie Stix? If so, why would you want men to be able to strong-arm women who do not want one into an abortion?

Where, other than in your head, did she say any such thing?

That is one of the unintended consequences that come from allowing the man to walk away. There are plenty of situation where a woman is willing but unable to fully support a child without something from the father. In that situation, she may be forced to abort because having the child would not be financially sound. Allowing the father to walk WILL result in outcomes like this increasing. Even though adoption is also an answer it is also a poor one. There are consequences that will be paid in the name of fairness if the father were allowed to walk. You must realize this. The question that must be answered is whether or not the freedom in this case is worth the cost.

Here's a thought. Rather than making a man pay for a child he never wanted in the first place; rather than tossing him in prison if he doesn't pay for something he never wanted; and if the mother cannot afford to raise the child on her ownl and rather than the child be raised in a one-parent household with a reluctant and likely uninvolved father; the mother could give the baby up for adoption.

But, I suppose the ego of the mother is too great to consider the best option for the child.

 

[Madeline]

Si modo wrote:

Here's a thought. Rather than making a man pay for a child he never wanted in the first place; rather than tossing him in prison if he doesn't pay for something he never wanted; and if the mother cannot afford to raise the child on her ownl and rather than the child be raised in a one-parent household with a reluctant and likely uninvolved father; the mother could give the baby up for adoption.

But, I suppose the ego of the mother is too great to consider the best option for the child.

So your solution is to (a) force women to have babies they do not wish to carry to term by denying them abortion rights and then (b) allowing men to compel women to give those babies up for adoption if the father does not want to be obligated to pay support?

 

[Si modo]

Si modo wrote:

Here's a thought. Rather than making a man pay for a child he never wanted in the first place; rather than tossing him in prison if he doesn't pay for something he never wanted; and if the mother cannot afford to raise the child on her ownl and rather than the child be raised in a one-parent household with a reluctant and likely uninvolved father; the mother could give the baby up for adoption.

But, I suppose the ego of the mother is too great to consider the best option for the child.

So your solution is to (a) force women to have babies they do not wish to carry to term by denying them abortion rights ....

Damn, you are dense.

How the heck did you ever get the idea that I am anti-choice?

Oh, wait...I'm asking a hysterical lying lunatic who has zero credibility a question.

.... and then (b) allowing men to compel women to give those babies up for adoption if the father does not want to be obligated to pay support?

The only one who said anything about copmpelling a thing is you, not me.

Damn, there is not an ounce of anything near accurate in your post.

Moron.

 

[Colin]

so to recap: Madeline never wants to see the system even try to be fair towards men, or children?

Got it

Back already! And STILL putting YOUR words in other's mouths.

 

[Si modo]

so to recap: Madeline never wants to see the system even try to be fair towards men, or children?

Got it

Back already! And STILL putting YOUR words in other's mouths.

That would be Madeline's specialty.

Or, more accurately, she puts the words of the voices in her head in others' mouths.

 

[Madeline]

Si modo wrote:

Here's a thought. Rather than making a man pay for a child he never wanted in the first place; rather than tossing him in prison if he doesn't pay for something he never wanted; and if the mother cannot afford to raise the child on her ownl and rather than the child be raised in a one-parent household with a reluctant and likely uninvolved father; the mother could give the baby up for adoption.

But, I suppose the ego of the mother is too great to consider the best option for the child.

So your solution is to (a) force women to have babies they do not wish to carry to term by denying them abortion rights ....

Damn, you are dense.

How the heck did you ever get the idea that I am anti-choice?

Oh, wait...I'm asking a hysterical lying lunatic who has zero credibility a question.

.... and then (b) allowing men to compel women to give those babies up for adoption if the father does not want to be obligated to pay support?

The only one who said anything about copmpelling a thing is you, not me.

Damn, there is not an ounce of anything near accurate in your post.

Moron.

If you are finished insulting me you might notice, I was asking you to clarify, Ms. Defensive.

Punctuation can be useful.....did you happen to notice the question mark?

 

[Cecilie1200]

mdn2000 wrote:

Oh, so your making a rational decision based on a tragedy of a friend who committed suicide. Suicide is a whole other issue.

I could see how a girl may commit suicide, it is a shame and tragedy people were not there to support her. I hope she had you at least, to tell her how wonderful and great children, are, at a young age friends are most important.

Maybe you could share some more details, I would be wrong to be to presumptive.

Thirteen, you support abortions in thirteen year olds, with or without parents permission.

mdn, you are likely funner than a bag of kittens to debate with, but IME no one ever EVA changes their mind on abortion, and if it's okay I wanted to just explore the narrower question of whether anyone thought it was reasonable for men to override a woman's decision as to her own body?

As an aside: the pre-Roe v. Wade era contained many tragedies for women with unwanted pregnancies. Outlawing abortion does not end it (and likely does not drop the rate) but it does make life much more dangerous for women who are not rich.

Life is already more dangerous for women - and men - who aren't rich. Poverty pretty much sucks no matter who has it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No fucking way does anyone force a woman to live her life a certain way, even if it is just for nine months.

And, IF for some insane reason this is allowed, the woman can name the price it will cost the man to rent her body for his child. A few trillion ought to do the trick. He can't pay, she chooses.

Fuck that idea.

Women do understand that they will not get pregnant if they don't have sex don't they ?

Uh, men are the cause, I am told.

Then someone lied to you. COUPLES are the cause. It's a joint activity.

 

[Madeline]

Women do understand that they will not get pregnant if they don't have sex don't they ?

Uh, men are the cause, I am told.

Then someone lied to you. COUPLES are the cause. It's a joint activity.

Cecilie, did you read the article linked in the Op? It is a strange crime and what prompted all this convo.

 

[Si modo]

So your solution is to (a) force women to have babies they do not wish to carry to term by denying them abortion rights ....

Damn, you are dense.

How the heck did you ever get the idea that I am anti-choice?

Oh, wait...I'm asking a hysterical lying lunatic who has zero credibility a question.

.... and then (b) allowing men to compel women to give those babies up for adoption if the father does not want to be obligated to pay support?

The only one who said anything about copmpelling a thing is you, not me.

Damn, there is not an ounce of anything near accurate in your post.

Moron.

If you are finished insulting me you might notice, I was asking you to clarify, Ms. Defensive.

Punctuation can be useful.....did you happen to notice the question mark?

Oh, reallly? Disingenuous much?

K. I'll ask a question, Madeline-style: When did you stop taking your antipsychotics?

Get a grip, lunatic.

 

[Madeline]

Damn, you are dense.

How the heck did you ever get the idea that I am anti-choice?

Oh, wait...I'm asking a hysterical lying lunatic who has zero credibility a question.

The only one who said anything about copmpelling a thing is you, not me.

Damn, there is not an ounce of anything near accurate in your post.

Moron.

If you are finished insulting me you might notice, I was asking you to clarify, Ms. Defensive.

Punctuation can be useful.....did you happen to notice the question mark?

Oh, reallly? Disingenuous much?

K. I'll ask a question, Madeline-style: When did you stop taking your antipsychotics?

Get a grip, lunatic.

Fine, don't clarify. But don't bitch about being misunderstood then, either. You don't get to have it both ways.