Abortion

[HeatherMarie]

I'm gonna quote something from lasciels link first:

 

An April NBC/Wall Street Journal poll of 1,000 adults found 52 percent thinking abortion should be illegal under all or almost all circumstances.

And that.... means absolutely *nothing*. Unless specifics are reveals about *who* was polled, what areas, wage-bracket, religion, culture they were, a throw-away "statistic" like that means absolutely nothing. For all we know, they polled 1,000 adult Christians who grew up in very misogynistic households. And how would that mean anything when it comes to abortion?

 

No, in order for an *actual* poll to *mean* anything when it comes to abortion, the poll must be *women* only, and a wide variety of different backgrounds, religious and non-religious, etc. Only then could we get any *real* idea about what the US thinks about abortion. (And yes, I say women only. Because laws governing abortion should *not* be voted on by men who cannot and will never experience the situation at hand. FULL STOP.)

 

 

Uh, why should he have to pay? She can do the responsible thing and abort the stupid baby. Consenting to sex is not consenting to years of payments.

 

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic here, but you just seemed to prove the point for pro-choicers. "Consenting to sex is not consenting to years of payments" even though the man knows (or, usually knows) that sex can equal pregnancy? Then *obviously*, consenting to sex is not consenting to 9 months of sickness, body changes, possible complications and death, just because of pregnancy.

 

So how about this: We all cut our losses and get rid of mandatory child support, and approve abortions? That way NO ONE is "consenting" to something they do not want and may not be able to provide in the first place. (*snorts* If only it were that easy)

 

 

Edited January 10, 2014 by Marie19R

[Alpha1]

Consenting to sex is not consenting to bearing a child, either. And someone who really feels they cannot have an abortion has as much right NOT to have one as someone who believes in that choice has to go that route.

 

Their beliefs shouldn't override the fact that she has an option, and he doesn't. You can say, "If you play, you pay" like so many people do, but it's less equitable that way.

 

Then *obviously*, consenting to sex is not consenting to 9 months of sickness, body changes, possible complications and death, just because of pregnancy.

 

I didn't say women shouldn't be able to have an abortion, so I don't know what you're trying to point out to me.

 

[brairtrainer]

Their beliefs shouldn't override the fact that she has an option, and he doesn't. You can say, "If you play, you pay" like so many people do, but it's less equitable that way.

 

 

 

I didn't say women shouldn't be able to have an abortion, so I don't know what you're trying to point out to me.

Hence the 'sign off parental rights' should be allowed for the guy, as long as the woman has access to abortion. If she doesn't (like in a lot of TX areas at the moment) then he should suffer the consequences of being in the same situation as she is.

 

EDIT: My reasons for saying this come from who gets a chance to vote on abortion laws (people in office, most of them men). Really if women are going to suffer for doing a bonding activity then men should too, if for no other reason than to encourage changing the laws.

Edited January 10, 2014 by brairtrainer

[Fuzzbucket]

Hence the 'sign off parental rights' should be allowed for the guy, as long as the woman has access to abortion. If she doesn't (like in a lot of TX areas at the moment) then he should suffer the consequences of being in the same situation as she is.

 

EDIT: My reasons for saying this come from who gets a chance to vote on abortion laws (people in office, most of them men). Really if women are going to suffer for doing a bonding activity then men should too, if for no other reason than to encourage changing the laws.

This.

[whitebaron]

Well, yes. I am hearing of recent cases where women are trying to get child support from sperm-bank daddies, however... 

actually, the cases were this worked, are far from being an official sperm donor bank. And that's exactly the problem. You, as a private person, can not forfeit various rights or obligations in a contract with another person withouit special laws governing it. Sperm Banks have some kind of special rules, set by laws that allow them to have the donors go free of any supporting claims the mother may ever have.

 

 

But: there's those people, who think it is too expensive. after all, you could end up paying in the thousands for good sperm. So they go to a good friend, and pull up a private contract. Whatever is stated in it, is void, though. The father can not through a private contract be suddenly not the father. And thats whats happening in those cases. Just because you made a small piece of paper which states something, does not make it stand up before the law.

Edited January 10, 2014 by whitebaron

[brairtrainer]

actually, the cases were this worked, are far from being an official sperm donor bank. And that's exactly the problem. You, as a private person, can not forfeit various rights or obligations in a contract with another person withouit special laws governing it. Sperm Banks have some kind of special rules, set by laws that allow them to have the donors go free of any supporting claims the mother may ever have.

 

 

But: there's those people, who think it is too expensive. after all, you could end up paying in the thousands for good sperm. So they go to a good friend, and pull up a private contract. Whatever is stated in it, is void, though. The father can not through a private contract be suddenly not the father. And thats whats happening in those cases. Just because you made a small piece of paper which states something, does not make it stand up before the law.

Perhaps then a channel needs to open so those contracts can be made offically. I know people can have their paternty status revoked or surrender it (a friend of mines father surrendered his parental rights (visitation, medical decissions,etc.) because he didn't want to pay Child Support.) My grandfather had his parental rights removed when he got divorced from my grandmother (mostly because of abuse allegations but also because a least one kid took out a restraining order against him)

[whitebaron]

Perhaps then a channel needs to open so those contracts can be made offically. I know people can have their paternty status revoked or surrender it (a friend of mines father surrendered his parental rights (visitation, medical decissions,etc.) because he didn't want to pay Child Support.) My grandfather had his parental rights removed when he got divorced from my grandmother (mostly because of abuse allegations but also because a least one kid took out a restraining order against him)

well. it can be done - but only after the child is born. at which time, the mother could easily have had a change of heart.

 

without being a parent, there's no rights and obligations to give up. Its why there are licensed sperm donor banks in the first place - because they can guarantee you the "no obligations" you might otherwise only partially get.

[brairtrainer]

well. it can be done - but only after the child is born. at which time, the mother could easily have had a change of heart.

 

without being a parent, there's no rights and obligations to give up. Its why there are licensed sperm donor banks in the first place - because they can guarantee you the "no obligations" you might otherwise only partially get.

perhaps there needs to be a channel then before sperm is used from the private sperm donor, either through a family court or some other faction to make things like that easier

[edwardelricfreak]

And to be blunt, there are many MANY fathers who never pay one red cent towards the fruit of their activities. Even after court cases and DNA proof.

Indeed. My father never paid child support. It was my grandma (his mother), instead.

 

I think child support should be completely mandatory, for either the father and/or mother, depending on who walked out. I think single fathers are quite rare, but in those cases, the mother should have to pay. For the more common situation of single mothers, the father should have to pay.

 

But I also think this child support thing, though somewhat related, should be in another thread so I'll stop there. c:

 

 

 

I understand whitebaron a little bit. I'm okay with fathers, especially ones who stick around, to be able to have some say in wanting the woman to keep the baby, but no, his opinion shouldn't outweigh hers.

 

Baron, it's mostly the crap guys and male lawmakers who either don't care/are pro-life/are banning abortion, etc, that are being yelled at here. Their opinions shouldn't become laws that rule over women and control their bodies. It's fine if they suggest, to their own wife/girlfriend, etc, that they want her to keep the baby or not but ultimately shouldn't be able to decide the outcome or have as much weight. Or at least, the weight of their opinion should be decided by the mother of their child. If she's totally okay with her partner having only 25%, or 1%, or 50%, or even be the deciding factor at 100%, then that's still her choice and she weighs his opinion.

 

But that opinion shouldn't be turned into law. Everyone should be able to decide what they do with their bodies, men and women alike.

 

That's all. Lawmakers, specifically male ones that make up the majority, shouldn't let their opinions become laws because they CAN'T ever experience a pregnancy themselves. Their wives/girlfriends, etc, can, and they can deal with some of the things that occur as a result of the pregnancy, but they don't experience the actual pregnancy.

 

Just like I don't think women (especially lawmakers) shouldn't be able to have their opinions matter when it comes to laws regarding men's bodies (though I don't really know about anything because I don't think there are any pressing matters with their bodies, at least not right now). Hmmm examples....I guess something like women can't pass a law to make guys get a vasectomy or even make it illegal. Kind of a weak example when compared to abortion but that's as close as I got (especially making it illegal).

 

No one sex or gender (there is a difference, and there are more than two) should ever control any others D:

[HeatherMarie]

No one sex or gender (there is a difference, and there are more than two) should ever control any others D:

So eloquently stated, and exactly what this entire debate boils down to.

 

"Pro-lifers" (or pro-birthers) want to control other women, whether it be by abolishing abortion, making it damn near impossible to get one, or by shaming and blaming and tearing apart women who do make that choice.

 

Pro-choicers, on the other hand, simply want everyone to be able to do what they need to do. Want all women to have the choice, whether or not they use it.

 

We've gotten past the days when women were considered men's property (well, we mostly have). We've gotten past the days of harems being the norm, of slaves, of men having pure monopoly over voting.... What's so crazy about the idea of not letting someone control another person's choices?

[whitebaron]

Marie, your analogies are totally out of proportion, and both situations are not really similar to what is done about abortions.

 

 

Besides: I doubt the goal of any pro-life faction is to just control others bodies, as is often insinuated here. They have an entire bunch of reasons that are not just,made up to control you, but stem from various viewpoints that are just not similar to yours. Calling them bad mean s will maybe help emotionally to rally against, but is very bad conversational style and the reason I answer here often in a stance,that seems much more pro-life than I actually am - I just refuse this "its all the bad men"-theme that very much present here.

[Brite]

 

Besides: I doubt the goal of any pro-life faction is to just control others bodies, as is often insinuated here.

Pro-lifers no. Force-birthers yes.

[edwardelricfreak]

No, controlling others' (specifically women in this case) bodies isn't the only reason. However it is one of them, and it's a big one, though it's usually covered up with minor reasons. Course I'm not sure it's specifically controlling their bodies, but instead still tying in to sexism with women being inferior and also sex-shaming and blaming the women.

 

Reasons I've seen include morality and religion a lot of the time. To be fair, all of the three major reasons are intermingled at most times.

 

Course at this time we're talking about the laws that are trying to control women's bodies and the opinions of lawmakers that are trying to pass said laws.

 

I don't think anyone said that all pro-lifers want to control women's bodies? If someone did, I missed it. If I said it, I don't remember and that's probably not even what I meant.

[KageSora]

Also, at times those "other reasons" are just covers for wanting to control the bodies.

 

It happens plenty of times--you debate with a person, and slowly peel away their arguments one by one and they're left with "well those dirty *s should be punished for not closing their legs!". It's happened in this very thread more than once.

 

The sad fact is, a very vocal set of people turn to religion and other means to cover up and justify their need to control others. Not necessarily the majority, mind you, but they're often the loudest ones.

[whitebaron]

But.. but.. It is a womans job to birthe and raise ye childes!

 

I think controlling others bodies is just an outcome (and an incomplete one,as they can not hinder you,going out of state) and not the motivation. This would be a far to personal and sick motive - when just common stupidity is able to explain things, its also the most likey cause/reason.

 

[whitebaron]

 

The sad fact is, a very vocal set of people turn to religion and other means to cover up and justify their need to control others. Not necessarily the majority, mind you, but they're often the loudest ones.

Dont attribute to malice, what is a result of stupidity. Educating them, will in the long run be a lot more effective than just fighting them on the grounds that they are just mean/evil persons (which the average pro-birther,especially politicians is NOT)

[KageSora]

Dont attribute to malice, what is a result of stupidity. Educating them, will in the long run be a lot more effective than just fighting them on the grounds that they are just mean/evil persons (which the average pro-birther,especially politicians is NOT)

Except there is a lot of malice. Yes, some cases are ignorance. But the sad fact is there are plenty of cases where it IS malice.

 

Or, at hte very least, they are flat-out refusing to be educated and when you try they do the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALLALALALALALA". :|

[HeatherMarie]

Marie, your analogies are totally out of proportion, and both situations are not really similar to what is done about abortions.

 

 

Besides: I doubt the goal of any pro-life faction is to just control others bodies, as is often insinuated here. They have an entire bunch of reasons that are not just,made up to control you, but stem from various viewpoints that are just not similar to yours. Calling them bad mean s will maybe help emotionally to rally against, but is very bad conversational style and the reason I answer here often in a stance,that seems much more pro-life than I actually am - I just refuse this "its all the bad men"-theme that very much present here.

You are right. My analogies do not include laws being made to keep a woman in constant pain and life-jeopardy for nine months instead of getting rid of a parasite inside her. I'm sorry if you do not believe that other women-controlling issues of the past have any similarities to this particular woman-controlling issue.

 

And yes, I actually know many pro-lifers who are good people and would be appalled at the idea that their view is controlling a woman, in any way.

 

But honestly, anyone *against abortion*, no matter what they may call themselves, are indeed *trying to control a woman's body*.

 

No, the reasons *given* may not be that. I doubt any law or bill proposed would get very far if they actually gave that as a reason. But those anti-abortion laws are all about reducing access to abortion clinics, making tons of unnecessary demands on the hospitals and clinics and doctors, putting limits on when and where a woman can have an abortion (the links to the actual laws/bills have been posted, I'm not going back to look for them).

 

ALL of that, every single thing that those anti-abortioners want to pass into law, will in fact make it harder, if not impossible, for a woman to get an abortion. So even if they don't *SEE* it that way, they are indeed *controlling a woman's body*.

[KageSora]

It isn't a child, though. It doesn't have nearly the same capacity. I still don't believe that an acorn is an oak tree, and a fetus isn't a child.

Ah, finally found the pic this reminded me of.

 

[Fuzzbucket]

Dont attribute to malice, what is a result of stupidity. Educating them, will in the long run be a lot more effective than just fighting them on the grounds that they are just mean/evil persons (which the average pro-birther,especially politicians is NOT)

Politicians very VERY often are - if not downright malicious - just trying to control women. Many of them don't actually think we should have been allowed the vote because our little brains aren't up to it. PLEASE do look at some of the things they say when trying to prevent our having the choice not to

birthe and raise ye childes.

Why do you think that women are not being allowed into the contraception discussion ? Why do you think the men in there don't insist that men also take FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the lives they co-create ?

 

I know that you - while we very much disagree here - have a more humane view than many - but there are a huge number of men who take the all "unmarried pregnant women are s" line. Please do READ what these idiot men are saying. There are hundreds of links to their mad theories in this very thread. How about the one that you don't need abortion for rape because women's bodies know not to get pregnant if it's really rape. How about the ones who refer to "so-called" rape, and say that there is actually no such thing, as sex is what women are for. (and any politician who says that last is NOT ignorant, but malicious.)

 

Those men - and there are a LOT of them, and they are ALL men, those ones - want us barefoot and pregnant, where we can't bother our "pretty little heads" about things we can't understand. .

 

And I'm sorry - but as a man, this kind of thing is not something you will ever experience. No man is ever going to sit in front of you and tell you that because you are a woman, you can't understand these things. The only thing you may be lucky enough to be told (by some women whose attitudes I also deplore) is that your whole life is crotch-driven and you have no sensitivity at all. And actually - there are also a lot of men who want more sex who will indeed say that men cannot control their URGES and we women should be SORRY for you and give you what you want. The concept of marital rape was only JUST accepted as grounds for charging a husband for assaulting his wife - till then, he was seen to have the absolute right to rape her whenever he liked and call it his marital right. A lot of this debate ties in to that kind of attitude among many men, men who do not include you. Women are there for men to use and control. And if that control has unexpected results - well, tough - the women being lesser beings. It's like slavery all over again.

 

Please understand where we are being placed here. We just want to be allowed to control our own bodies and our own destiny. We just want the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Given that right, some of us would absolutely never take that route; some would absolutely need to. But it should be our choice, the choice of the person who is actually pregnant - not something to be dictated by people who will never be in the position of being unwillingly - even dangerously - pregnant. If a politician suddenly said that any man who had successfully impregnated a woman against her will had to have a vasectomy....

 

Incidentally - you do know that the reason there has been so very little research into male contraception is that women "ought to be" responsible for "that stuff", and the MEN who control the research funding won't pay for it, as it might have side effects and women can put up with those instead ?

Edited January 11, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[danegrrrl]

Dont attribute to malice, what is a result of stupidity. Educating them, will in the long run be a lot more effective than just fighting them on the grounds that they are just mean/evil persons (which the average pro-birther,especially politicians is NOT)

Having had an abortion, I can tell you that unless you've made that walk into a clinic and endured the picketers, protesters and other just downright CRUEL people shouting at you and wishing you death and eternal damnation for your choice, you can't possibly know just how very malicious pro-birthers can be. I had things thrown at me, I was spit on, I was cursed at and called a *.

 

I can be ignorant about things without being an a**hole. I will not use being uneducated/uninformed about something as an excuse to wish harm or ill will on someone. That's not being uninformed, that's just being a poor excuse for a human.

[Infinis]

Dont attribute to malice, what is a result of stupidity. Educating them, will in the long run be a lot more effective than just fighting them on the grounds that they are just mean/evil persons (which the average pro-birther,especially politicians is NOT)

You have no idea how hard educating people is, especially those who are stuck in their views. I've talked to people who basically just go "nope can't hear you" when an argument that goes against their views is presented to them. So no, education hasn't really been effective, and unless the people you suggest educating are willing to listen they won't be educated.

 

The fact of the matter is that many anti-choicers ARE malicious or support acts of malice. Holding up a sign that tells women they're bad people for getting abortions is malicious. Yelling mean things at people getting or providing abortions is malicious. Killing people because they receive OR provide abortions is malicious. Forcing people to give birth is malicious.

 

Politicians are ignorant, yes, extremely so. But this is not an excuse to make laws that take away basic rights to one's own reproductive health. Many politicians make plenty of money and have access to more venues than many to get educated, but I see exactly none of them doing that.

 

No, ignorance is not intentionally malicious, but when ignorance causes people to be malicious or commit malicious acts, then ignorance IS malicious.

 

Ignorance is not an excuse for anything.

[whitebaron]

Incidentally - you do know that the reason there has been so very little research into male contraception is that women "ought to be" responsible for "that stuff", and the MEN who control the research funding won't pay for it, as it might have side effects and women can put up with those instead ?

ACtually, it is my belief that it is in the best interest for women to know and do "that stuff". As has been pointed out before - it's your bodies, your decisions, your responsibilities.

 

In a stable long term relationship, a man can help out. those are like what, 5-10% of all people having sex? Come on, modern society has no market going on there.

 

That aside: Hormonal research has been done to various extents, with loads more side effects than the pill. Condoms are pretty much the only mechanical way a man can use. And vasectomies are industry standard, like getting tubes tied. So please don't believe there is much more that even could be researched - funds or no funds.

[Kith]

I can't find the article right now, but there is research being done into a totally reversible, long-term method that makes the body produce sperm with no tail. No tail, no motility; no motility, no fertilization.

 

I don't think FDA testing has begun yet, but if I'm remembering the article correctly, they are into human trials.

 

*Note: I don't know whether it counts as hormonal or merely biochemical since I can't find the source.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Kith

[Fuzzbucket]

ACtually, it is my belief that it is in the best interest for women to know and do "that stuff". As has been pointed out before - it's your bodies, your decisions, your responsibilities.

 

In a stable long term relationship, a man can help out. those are like what, 5-10% of all people having sex? Come on, modern society has no market going on there.

 

That aside: Hormonal research has been done to various extents, with loads more side effects than the pill. Condoms are pretty much the only mechanical way a man can use. And vasectomies are industry standard, like getting tubes tied. So please don't believe there is much more that even could be researched - funds or no funds.

I simply do not believe that only 5-10% of sexual activity takes place in a stable committed relationship.

 

59% of the adult population in the US is married. 95% of people have been married by the time they are 55. From the US census bureau:

 

http://www.meninmarriage.com/article05.htm

 

Are you saying that married people don't bother with sex ? because otherwise that figure simply cannot hold up.

 

And there has been some minimal research into hormonal b/c for men - but men don't really fancy the idea, so the men with the money won't fund further research. (I used to work in Public Health, by the way, and did loads of literature searches for those working in the sexual health area.) AS Kith has already mentioned.