Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Are you Pro-Choice . . . for Men?
Topic Started: Mar 8 2006, 09:06 PM (652 Views)
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Should men have more say about their pregnancy?
(Recently I have heard men say, "We are pregnant."
Or are today's laws, which give the woman the sole right to the abortion decision, appropriate because it is happening in HER body?

What if the parents disagree about continuing the pregnancy?
Should they flip a coin, then winner gets to decide whether to abort or force her to carry it to full term?
Then winner of the coin flip gets the baby and no child support from the partner?

If a pregnant woman doesn't want to support a child she can abort it.
Why can't the man have the same power?

Today she has sole power to keep the baby and force the man to pay child support.

On the other hand, if only the man wants the baby should the woman be denied the right to an abortion?

Or is this whole thing just another example of men taking power away from women?


http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherho...t.ap/index.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Good questions Kenny, it's a tough situation.

I think the man should have equal say in it.

If they both want an abortion, then that's that.

If only one wants the abortion, they should have the baby and whoever wanted the baby, gets full custody.

We must remember, it is the womans body, but it's the baby we're talking about...not the woman.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Secondly, could you imagine the horror if your wife was 5 months pregnant with your baby, and she wanted an abortion? Under today's laws, she could go kill the baby (your child), and you would have NO control over it. It's about the worst thing I can think of...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
i think that i actually agree with you 89th! :blink: what's happening to the world :o


:P

i know if i ever decided to get an abortion (which i wouldn't!) but my so wanted the child i'd give it to him. i can't imagine giving your kid away, though.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CrashTest
Pisa-Carp
I usually just skip town.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gryphon
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
The 89th Key
Mar 9 2006, 01:28 AM
it is the womans body, but it's the baby we're talking about...not the woman.

It's never the baby we're talking about, but it should be. We are starting to change that. The extremist left is losing control. The congress, the presidency, the courts, the states. Watch the way they behave.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
I think the answer to all questions such as this is 'it depends'. In an ideal world issues as complicated as this would be figured out on a case by case basis. This seems to rarely happen, particularly when the issue gets taken over by idealogues of both sides, and yes, I do think that both sides in the abortion debate tend to become shrill, extreme, and to stop thinking clearly. People aren't simple, the world isn't simple, why try and make the issue simple?

To answer the question, men should have some say in this, but I'm not sure that his say should be equal, because let's face it he can, as Crash put it, just skip town, whereas the woman doesn't have that luxury. The idea that abortion is a women's rights issue is a distortion of the facts.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Once again, Gryphon launches into a tirade against the left. Really, though, the disagreement is about what is a "baby".

Everyone agrees that it should be all about the baby. Well, almost everyone. The major difference of opinion is about what is a "baby". To many (myself included), a fetus that is not capable of surviving on its own outside the mother's womb is not yet a "baby". To Gryphon, to 89th, and to others around here, that incipient being is already a "baby".

If you think the fetus isn't a baby, then you head down one path. If you think it's a baby already, you go down another.

The point Kenny was making was different ... it was whether the father should have some rights about whether to become a parent or not. I've heard women say that the father did everything necessary to become a parent when he inseminated the mother, and that's where his choices stop. But why should that be the case? Last I heard, they were BOTH involved in the insemination process. They BOTH decided to have sex. The mother has choices for some period of time thereafter, why shouldn't the father?

I don't agree that a man should be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term. No one should have the right to co-opt nine months of someone else's life like that. But, by the same token, why should the woman be able to make a decision that has major financial, emotional, and life implications for the man? Clearly, he has a stake. Why shouldn't that stake be taken into consideration? At a minimum, why shouldn't he be able (as she is) to say, no, I don't want to have a child right now, I am not ready for the responsibilities?

To me, it's an important fairness issue. If women want control of their lives, they should acknowledge that men deserve control of their lives, too. And if that control doesn't end at the sex act for women, it shouldn't end at the sex act for men either.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Very well put, Quirt.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
FrankM
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
QuirtEvans
Mar 9 2006, 08:28 AM
Once again, Gryphon launches into a tirade against the left. Really, though, the disagreement is about what is a "baby".

Everyone agrees that it should be all about the baby. Well, almost everyone. The major difference of opinion is about what is a "baby". To many (myself included), a fetus that is not capable of surviving on its own outside the mother's womb is not yet a "baby". To Gryphon, to 89th, and to others around here, that incipient being is already a "baby".

If you think the fetus isn't a baby, then you head down one path. If you think it's a baby already, you go down another.

The point Kenny was making was different ... it was whether the father should have some rights about whether to become a parent or not. I've heard women say that the father did everything necessary to become a parent when he inseminated the mother, and that's where his choices stop. But why should that be the case? Last I heard, they were BOTH involved in the insemination process. They BOTH decided to have sex. The mother has choices for some period of time thereafter, why shouldn't the father?

I don't agree that a man should be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term. No one should have the right to co-opt nine months of someone else's life like that. But, by the same token, why should the woman be able to make a decision that has major financial, emotional, and life implications for the man? Clearly, he has a stake. Why shouldn't that stake be taken into consideration? At a minimum, why shouldn't he be able (as she is) to say, no, I don't want to have a child right now, I am not ready for the responsibilities?

To me, it's an important fairness issue. If women want control of their lives, they should acknowledge that men deserve control of their lives, too. And if that control doesn't end at the sex act for women, it shouldn't end at the sex act for men either.

:thumb:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
Well, at the risk of being extremely non-PC, there are some pretty sleazy women and girls out there who get pregnant for a variety of reasons, none of them good.

There's the time-honored "I'll get pregnant so he'll marry me" tactic.

"I'll get pregnant so our marriage will get better."

"I'll get pregnant so he won't leave me."

"I'll get pregnant so I'll get child support and/or welfare and can move out of my parent's house."

"I'll cheat on him and get pregnant with another man, and that'll show him!"

"I'll get pregnant because my girlfriend has a baby and I want one, too."

I mean, let's face it. It's not like women are the *only* victims here. There is a lot of conniving, too. Under those circumstances, any man who doesn't take as much care as a woman to avoid a pregnancy if *he* doesn't want it is just a total idiot.

And not taking precautions doesn't absolve a man from the responsibilities of parenthood any more than it absolves the woman.

The intriguing thing to me in this is the notion of fraud. If the woman said she absolutely, 100% was incapable of getting pregnant due to some biological reason, can the man sue? I'm guessing no. Every time you do the deed you are rolling the dice that you don't get pregnant. You can reduce the risk significantly with various forms of contraception, but you can never take the risk to zero.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Except with tubal ligation or a hysterectomy.

If she said she had one of those and didn't, it's fraud.

If she said a doctor had told her she was infertile, and it isn't true (that a doctor told her that, I mean), it's fraud.

If she said that she was using birth control, and she wasn't, it's fraud (because it changes the odds).
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Sorry guys.

I added some questions to my first post.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
But what if she had a tubal ligation (to pick just one) and it failed?

Is it still fraud from the man's point of view? She assured him she couldn't get pregnant, and he took her at her word.

Does fraud require intent? To use a less emotional example, if I sold some gizmo on e-bay as a genuine Civil War gizmo and it turned out to be a fake, can I just say, "Well, someone told me it was real" and get out of a fraud charge?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nina
Senior Carp
kenny
Mar 9 2006, 08:15 AM
Sorry guys.

I added some questions to my first post.

Kenny, we're waay ahead of you. I see your hybrid in my rear-view mirror! :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Nina
Mar 9 2006, 07:18 AM
kenny
Mar 9 2006, 08:15 AM
Sorry guys.

I added some questions to my first post.

Kenny, we're waay ahead of you. I see your hybrid in my rear-view mirror! :)

Then speed up and get that gas-pig Prius out of my way! :silly:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

QuirtEvans
Mar 9 2006, 08:28 AM
Everyone agrees that it should be all about the baby. Well, almost everyone. The major difference of opinion is about what is a "baby". To many (myself included), a fetus that is not capable of surviving on its own outside the mother's womb is not yet a "baby". To Gryphon, to 89th, and to others around here, that incipient being is already a "baby".

If you think the fetus isn't a baby, then you head down one path. If you think it's a baby already, you go down another.

Exactly.

With abortion, there is a gray area that is really hard to define either way. (is it a baby)

With Christians, there is a gray area between Catholics and Protestants. (how much emphasis should be placed on oral traditions, e.g. the debate between Ivory and Dwain right now)

Many debates have a gray area that even I can admit aren't easy to empirically define. Thus there are splits that are inherently irreconcilable.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fizzygirl
Fulla-Carp
QuirtEvans
Mar 9 2006, 10:13 AM
Except with tubal ligation or a hysterectomy.

If she said she had one of those and didn't, it's fraud.

If she said a doctor had told her she was infertile, and it isn't true (that a doctor told her that, I mean), it's fraud.

If she said that she was using birth control, and she wasn't, it's fraud (because it changes the odds).

And if he told her he had a vasectomy (and didn't) just to get a roll in the hay and she gets pregnant ....... it's also fraud.
Cats are intended to teach us that not everything in nature has a purpose. ~ Garrison Keillor


My latest videos.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amanda
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
CrashTest
Mar 9 2006, 02:13 AM
I usually just skip town.

Crash, if she told you she got from pregnant from being French kissed, she was ...lying! :P
[size=5]
We should tolerate eccentricity in others, almost to the point of lunacy, provided no one else is harmed.
[/size]

"Daily Telegraph", London July 27 2005
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
QuirtEvans
Mar 9 2006, 09:28 AM
The major difference of opinion is about what is a "baby". To many (myself included), a fetus that is not capable of surviving on its own outside the mother's womb is not yet a "baby".

Two problems with this definition.

1) A full term, healthy newborn wouldn't be a baby, as it is incapable of surving "on it's own".

2) With medical technology improving, it's a shifting age when the fetus can be born, and survive. There are premature babies being born at six months and surviving. That seemed impossible just two decades ago.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
QuirtEvans
Mar 9 2006, 09:28 AM
The point Kenny was making was different ... it was whether the father should have some rights about whether to become a parent or not. I've heard women say that the father did everything necessary to become a parent when he inseminated the mother, and that's where his choices stop. But why should that be the case? Last I heard, they were BOTH involved in the insemination process. They BOTH decided to have sex. The mother has choices for some period of time thereafter, why shouldn't the father?

I don't agree that a man should be able to force a woman to carry a fetus to term. No one should have the right to co-opt nine months of someone else's life like that. But, by the same token, why should the woman be able to make a decision that has major financial, emotional, and life implications for the man? Clearly, he has a stake. Why shouldn't that stake be taken into consideration? At a minimum, why shouldn't he be able (as she is) to say, no, I don't want to have a child right now, I am not ready for the responsibilities?

To me, it's an important fairness issue. If women want control of their lives, they should acknowledge that men deserve control of their lives, too. And if that control doesn't end at the sex act for women, it shouldn't end at the sex act for men either.

I agree. Assuming there is no prior agreement made on the issue, if either biological parent wants to terminate a pregnancy, then the pregnancy should be terminated -- unless one party completely "buys out" the other party's stake and agree to completely absolve that other party from any further obligation to the fetus after some point in time. If the legal framework does not permit this sort of arrangement, then the pregnancy should be terminated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Life is cheap.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Mar 9 2006, 01:08 PM
Life is cheap.

Actually looking at it from a supply and demand perspective and considering the supply of eggs and sperm . . . babies are pretty easy, and fun, to make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Luke's Dad
Mar 9 2006, 02:20 PM
QuirtEvans
Mar 9 2006, 09:28 AM
The major difference of opinion is about what is a "baby".  To many (myself included), a fetus that is not capable of surviving on its own outside the mother's womb is not yet a "baby".

Two problems with this definition.

1) A full term, healthy newborn wouldn't be a baby, as it is incapable of surving "on it's own".

2) With medical technology improving, it's a shifting age when the fetus can be born, and survive. There are premature babies being born at six months and surviving. That seemed impossible just two decades ago.

Technically they can be born after 20 weeks, or 5 months. My friend is a nurse in the "department of labor" as they call it in the hospital.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
Life is cheap.


You left out part of the quote ....

""My dear Mademoiselle, perhaps you have already observed that in Casablanca,
human life is cheap."
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1