[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51770224]If its mutual agreement a guy could just say nope.mp4 and effectively force a woman to bear and deliver his child?
To make this clear: If it requires mutual agreement then the guy must agree, if the guy doesn't agree to having an abortion then he effectively has control. Should be up to the woman imo, shes the one who's body is going to have to carry and feed the baby if she doesn't want to then its wrong to force her to do it.[/QUOTE]
The (hypothetical) law would ideally put it through some kind of arbitration and not allow an abortion to be halted if the woman was in any kind of physical or psychological danger without it. This law wasn't written with that in mind at all though, it's an attack on abortion in general that isn't even slightly veiled.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;51770245]yeah it is her pussy so unlucky dude. when you have to carry a baby for 40 weeks then you can decide what happens to it. also, you totally moved the goalposts and those situations are totally different. you highlight an unfortunate situation but to strip someone of dominion over their body to satisfy an unlikely problem is not ok. there is a judicial system for a reason.[/QUOTE]
So if it's your pussy, then it's also your responsibility to use birth control methods to avoid situations like these.
If you manage to get pregnant, it's woman's pussy and uterus, true, but it's both of woman and man's responsibility to decide what happens to the child.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770231]After all, if you get pregnant, it's both parties' fault.[/QUOTE]
What is rape for 400?
[editline]3rd February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770257]So if it's your pussy, then it's also your responsibility to use birth control methods to avoid situations like these.
If you manage to get pregnant, it's woman's pussy and uterus, true, but it's both of woman and man's responsibility to decide what happens to the child.[/QUOTE]
So like, if someone gets in my car, is it suddenly their fucking choice where we're driving, instead of mine, THE DRIVERS?
In which case, if I run over someone in the car, does the passenger gets in trouble as well?
[QUOTE=dogmachines;51770256] not allow an abortion to be halted if the woman was in any kind of physical or psychological danger without it. [/QUOTE]
I'm also agreeing with this point, my argument does not stand when this is taken into consideration.
Why does it take two people to make someone pregnant, but it's woman's responsibility to deal with it?
RIP Automerge, lost in depths of SH.
[QUOTE=gufu;51770258]What is rape for 400?
[/QUOTE]
*sigh* Slippery slope arguments for 400.
[quote]So like, if someone gets in my car, is it suddenly their fucking choice where we're driving, instead of mine, THE DRIVERS?
In which case, if I run over someone in the car, does the passenger gets in trouble as well?[/quote]
Apples and oranges. Or should a person be not responsible for killing a woman because she wanted it, signed a document she agrees to torture and dismemberment, because it's her body and her right to do so?
[editline]3rd February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=gufu;51770267]Why does it take two people to make someone pregnant, but it's woman's responsibility to deal with it?
[/QUOTE]
That argument applies to her choice of whether to do abortion or not?
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770270]*sigh* Slippery slope arguments for 400.[/quote]
It's an actual situation that happens too damn often. You can't just dismiss it.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770270]Apples and oranges. Or should a person be not responsible for killing a woman because she wanted it, signed a document she agrees to torture and dismemberment, because it's her body and her right to do so?[/QUOTE]
Well, that's a whole different argument, more closely aligned to self-agreed medical suicide.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770257]So if it's your pussy, then it's also your responsibility to use birth control methods to avoid situations like these.
If you manage to get pregnant, it's woman's pussy and uterus, true, but it's both of woman and man's responsibility to decide what happens to the child.[/QUOTE]
so, you want equality to be applied to something that is inherently unequal? for what?
well too fucking bad dude because if she doesn't wanna carry that baby then it's not your choice what she does with her body. you go find someone else.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770270]That argument applies to her choice of whether to do abortion or not?[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that a woman's choice to get abortion is same as her choice to use protection during sex if she is not willing to become pregnant?
your responsibility over what goes on in that womb ends when you pull your dick out so damn right you don't get a say.
you can talk to whoever it may be and have an opinion on what should happen but she gets the final say. you should not be allowed to coerce or legally force her to carry that child.
merge
[QUOTE=gufu;51770278]It's an actual situation that happens too damn often. You can't just dismiss it.
[/QUOTE]
Because we're not talking about rapes here? We were also not talking about medical danger during pregnancy, does that automatically mean I invalidate those reasons as well? Be fucking reasonable.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;51770280]so, you want equality to be applied to something that is inherently unequal? for what?
well too fucking bad dude because if she doesn't wanna carry that baby then it's not your choice what she does with her body. you go find someone else.[/QUOTE]
Both women and men can equally take precautions to avoid pregnancies. Her negligence doesn't strip her of responsibility before her husband/partner/boyfriend/whatever for the pregnancy.
I guess it's meaningless to argue further considering neither of us has convincing enough arguments for each other to sway opinions, it seems.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770290]Because we're not talking about rapes here? We were also not talking about medical danger during pregnancy, does that automatically mean I invalidate those reasons as well? Be fucking reasonable.[/QUOTE]
You didn't clarify you were talking specifically of consensual sex, instead of sexual intercourse in general.
[QUOTE=gufu;51770296]You didn't clarify you were talking specifically of consensual sex, instead of sexual intercourse in general.[/QUOTE]
We were talking in context of wife/husband, outgoing from [b]your own post.[/b]
[QUOTE=gufu;51769907]Step 1: Take condom.
Step 2: Damage condom
Step 3: Have sex with [u][B]wife[/B][/u] using condom without her knowing it
Step 4: Repeat until your baby factory is now forced to work for you[/QUOTE]
But as I said, I won't be elaborating further as three of us are just going in circles.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770290]Because we're not talking about rapes here? We were also not talking about medical danger during pregnancy, does that automatically mean I invalidate those reasons as well? Be fucking reasonable.
Both women and men can equally take precautions to avoid pregnancies. Her negligence doesn't strip her of responsibility before her husband/partner/boyfriend/whatever for the pregnancy.
I guess it's meaningless to argue further considering neither of us has convincing enough arguments for each other to sway opinions, it seems.[/QUOTE]
No, because you're completely missing the fact that until that child is born, your involvement ends after sex. You're on level pegging until it becomes [I]entirely[/I] her problem. Can you see how this situation is unequal? You're saying a man should have a say over what goes on entirely within a woman's body. Until you can develop the fetus outside of her body, it's her choice.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770290]Both women and men can equally take precautions to avoid pregnancies. Her negligence doesn't strip her of responsibility before her husband/partner/boyfriend/whatever for the pregnancy. [/QUOTE]
A situation can arise of any sort, including failure of birth control. What sort of responsibility are we even talking about? If they did not originally wish to conceive a child, aka used birth control, then the choice is still primarily with the woman, and it shouldn't have any problem since both parties originally did not want a child. If they wanted a child, then the arguing is generally pointless, since they won't need an abortion.
If a VERY SPECIFIC situation happens, wherein the woman becomes pregnant and stops wanting a child, I believe that it's on her to make that choice, in which case the man has the 3 previous choices I listed.
Now, if it's another HIGHLY SPECIFIC situation is one wherein a woman has caused her own pregnancy without consent of the man despite having consensual sex. That's actually a pretty damn gray area legally right now, and you do have a sort of point. However, that situation has little to do with the news topic, since it specifically discusses WOMAN'S ability to make the choice to go ahead with abortion.
[editline]3rd February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770298]We were talking in context of wife/husband, outgoing from [b]your own post.[/b][/QUOTE]
Alright, fair enough on that point, I did use the specified wording for that situation and did lose focus. Although to be honest, you can rape your wife/husband, so that's kinda moot.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51769418]This will probably be an unpopular post but I can kind of understand the argument for this since it's his child too but as the man doesn't have to carry the kid or birth it I'm a little torn on whether or not he should really have a say and definitely he shouldn't get no-questions-asked veto powers over an abortion if they're separated and so on. No exceptions for rape etc. is unacceptable.[/QUOTE]
this post demonstrate a quite scary logic and seeing as how much fp seem to star it makes it way scarier.
a women should always have control of her body. people saying otherwise can't even begin to claim they are for any freedom if they hypocritically refuse BASIC self determination.
in a perfect system, I envision that the man could, before some authority, a court maybe, relinquish all parenting rights before the limits for abortion and in that way he's freed of a burden he didn't want.
but never ever ever should he be able to trap a women into being a baby making machine for him, so if he want to keep it but the woman says no, well just too bad it's game over and you have SHIT to say.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;51770256]The (hypothetical) law would ideally put it through some kind of arbitration and not allow an abortion to be halted if the woman was in any kind of physical or psychological danger without it. This law wasn't written with that in mind at all though, it's an attack on abortion in general that isn't even slightly veiled.[/QUOTE]
So now the man AND the state have control over whether or not a woman is allowed an abortion?
Why not stop jumping through hoops and say:
It's her body, she should decide whether or not she wants an abortion.
The woman's right to bodily integrity trumps all. It's exactly the same reason why you have a right not to donate your blood/organs, even to save lives.
This is fucking disgusting. I am genuinely unable to keep a scowl from my face as I read this.
They literally want to give women less agency over their bodies than already afforded to dead people.
Do people not understand exactly how much of an ordeal pregnancy is?, and that perhaps it's fucking immoral for someone who will never have to go through it to have the power to force someone else to?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51769418]This will probably be an unpopular post but I can kind of understand the argument for this since it's his child too but as the man doesn't have to carry the kid or birth it I'm a little torn on whether or not he should really have a say and definitely he shouldn't get no-questions-asked veto powers over an abortion if they're separated and so on. No exceptions for rape etc. is unacceptable.[/QUOTE]
The asymmetry in how reproduction works does make things kinda suck to make fair, but I'll be damned if being legally forced to carry an unwanted baby to term isn't and incredibly scary and Orwellian nightmare. Fuck that. Women should have sovereignty over their own bodies.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51769418]This will probably be an unpopular post but I can kind of understand the argument for this since it's his child too but as the man doesn't have to carry the kid or birth it I'm a little torn on whether or not he should really have a say and definitely he shouldn't get no-questions-asked veto powers over an abortion if they're separated and so on. No exceptions for rape etc. is unacceptable.[/QUOTE]
There would be a case to be made for this late in to pregnancy but nobody gets abortions late in to pregnancy.
Essentially the man does not have a child and the decision is whether or not the woman should allow the fetus to progress to a stage where it would be considered by everyone to be a proper, living child. Which should be totally her decision. If she doesn't want to have a child the husband should not be able to make her.
However, on a similar issue, if the man doesn't want to have a child but the woman does, I think there's a legitimate case to be made that the father should not necessarily have to bear responsibility for child support. I don't know whether I would agree with that but there is definitely a case to be made.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51769418]This will probably be an unpopular post but I can kind of understand the argument for this since it's his child too but as the man doesn't have to carry the kid or birth it I'm a little torn on whether or not he should really have a say and definitely he shouldn't get no-questions-asked veto powers over an abortion if they're separated and so on. No exceptions for rape etc. is unacceptable.[/QUOTE]
Well, she is the captain of the boat.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770298]We were talking in context of wife/husband[/QUOTE]
which can still include rape????
i mean the guy's own post, which you're so eager to declare is what you're going by, described a situation where one party did something without the other's consent. please, fucking apply yourself, dude
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51770231]So we leave it up to three possible scenarios:
1) Either the woman decides the fate of fetus
2) Either the man decides the fate of fetus
3) Both decide the fate of fetus
So how come 2 is more wrong than 1? After all, if you get pregnant, it's both parties' fault.
[editline]3rd February 2017[/editline]
If he says nope, then it's not his child. I think Sweden had some sort of concept like that in plans not long ago?
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/08/men-should-have-the-right-to-abort-responsibility-for-an-unborn-child-swedish-political-group-says/]Source[/url][/QUOTE]
Ideally, woman decides the fate by the virtue of self determination, man should be able to opt out of parenthood during the time which abortion is still possible.
Or more precisely, has to opt in during that time, to avoid the situation of conception and pregnancy happening without him ever knowing about it.
This is presuming that abortion is a right. If not, then there's no way to make it fair.
Lmao fucking losers who "put the pussy on a pedestal"
Do men over there approach women like they're a foreign object? Do they have to strongarm laws policing what they can do with them because they don't understand their circumstances?
A woman is just another sovereign human being. If you treat them, or anyone else for that matter, as an object, you're just a loser with an inability to effectively communicate and interact with them.
[QUOTE=download;51769564]What a name.[/QUOTE]
could have been called the Fetus Freedom Restoration Afirmation Act
[QUOTE=Talishmar;51771157]Ideally, woman decides the fate by the virtue of self determination, man should be able to opt out of parenthood during the time which abortion is still possible.
Or more precisely, has to opt in during that time, to avoid the situation of conception and pregnancy happening without him ever knowing about it.
This is presuming that abortion is a right. If not, then there's no way to make it fair.[/QUOTE]
This, if women are able to decide whether to opt out of parenthood through abortion, then so should men through legal means. The decision of whether to have the baby should still be the mother's in that case (she's the one who gestates and give birth to it) but the father should be able to opt out of being the child's legal parent. To ensure equal treatment women should also be able to opt out of being a child's legal parent if their partner themselves wants the child and the expectant mother doesn't mind giving birth as long as she's not responsible for the child (probably a weird situation that wouldn't happen often but still). That way in every situation, the solution satisfies both parties as much as possible.
This assumes that the decision is taken before abortion isn't possible anymore, though. Otherwise you'd have situations where the couple wasn't aware of the pregnancy (which they're both equally responsible for) until it's too late and the man bails out leaving the burden on the woman's shoulder. I suppose you could add exceptions for cases where the woman kept the man in the dark or vice-versa.
IMO, women should have the right to have an abortion no matter what, and men who request an abortion but get refused by the woman should be excused from paying any child services or other parental duties. If it was known well ahead of birth that the man was not interested in having a child and has said this in front of a doctor or other official person, he should be able to opt out.
Men controlling women's abortions though? Fuck outta here. Men have enough semen to make more babies with some other gal who is actually willing.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51771324]This, if women are able to decide whether to opt out of parenthood through abortion, then so should men through legal means. The decision of whether to have the baby should still be the mother's in that case (she's the one who gestates and give birth to it) but the father should be able to opt out of being the child's legal parent. To ensure equal treatment women should also be able to opt out of being a child's legal parent if their partner themselves wants the child and the expectant mother doesn't mind giving birth as long as she's not responsible for the child (probably a weird situation that wouldn't happen often but still). That way in every situation, the solution satisfies both parties as much as possible.
This assumes that the decision is taken before abortion isn't possible anymore, though. Otherwise you'd have situations where the couple wasn't aware of the pregnancy (which they're both equally responsible for) until it's too late and the man bails out leaving the burden on the woman's shoulder. I suppose you could add exceptions for cases where the woman kept the man in the dark or vice-versa.[/QUOTE]
I like where you're goimg with this but I have some questions.
In this hypothetical, what solution would you propose for women who feel uncomfortable morally with having the fetus aborted but whose partner would like to be exempt from the pregancy? I'm prochoice myself but I would feel uncomfortable with leaving women in that situation to raise a child alone. Maybe some sort of gov funded social program?
Also, would you agree that if both parties agree to the abortion then the cost should be split evenly between the two?
[QUOTE=Glo;51771525]I like where you're goimg with this but I have some questions.
In this hypothetical, what solution would you propose for women who feel uncomfortable morally with having the fetus aborted but whose partner would like to be exempt from the pregancy? I'm prochoice myself but I would feel uncomfortable with leaving women in that situation to raise a child alone. Maybe some sort of gov funded social program?
Also, would you agree that if both parties agree to the abortion then the cost should be split evenly between the two?[/QUOTE]
If she doesn't want the child but is morally against abortion, she still has adoption as an avenue. The only downside is the cost of adopting a child is outlandish.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.