Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I responded to how a new right to opt-out of parenthood pre-birth was created in Roe v Wade in other posts. I do understand the right to privacy does not match with men and women in pregnancy.
You and I generally agree on the solution to allow men to opt-out legally, so even if we disagree on the route to equal rights, that's fine by me.
Thats pretty colorful wording. The way I read it Roe v Wade overturned Texas' abortion laws and granted women the right to abortion with limitations based on the fact that it violated the 9th and 14 amemdments being due process: prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness and "enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."
I have never read the words "opt out", "parenthood pre-birth" or explicitly "right to privacy" regarding Roe v Wade.
In the past, we had fewer out of wedlock pregnancies, period, I don't believe allowing men to opt out of child support will reduce pregnancies, or abortions, I believe it will increase them. It will allow men to have responsibilty free sex, pressure girls to go w/o condoms and walk away. Leaving women 100% responsible for every aspect of pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing despite the males participation. Do married men get the opt out option too?
I have already stated that women don't have equal rights that go against biology. If a woman can't perform the essential functions of a physically demanding job she does not have to be hired, she can't be in combat. A man can't have equal rights in the case of pregnancy because it's biologically impossible. Opting out of pregnancy pre birth is not a right. Women and men both have the right to privacy of their body, no inequality there.
I'm not denying men rights for the sake of society, men and women are both held responsible for their born children.
Good afternoon,
I appreciate the lively debate, it helps sharpen my viewpoints.
Let's walk through this logic. You're saying that if a woman knows she might get stuck with a child if the man opts out after conception, they are still going to allow men to pressure them to not use condoms, so births and abortions will increase? That doesn't compute. Women decide when sex occurs, not men, and women have an incentive to avoid unprotected sex if men have an equal chance to opt-out legally. If she's pro-life, she may use protection. If she's pro-choice, she may abort unilaterally just as she can today. She's not losing anything, why are you against this?
That didn't happen in the past because women knew they'd be stuck, so why would it happen now? "Irresponsible" sex increased along with out of wedlock births after the creation of the pill, legalization of abortion, and the advent of child support. I don't want to get rid of any of those, I'm using this example to show how INCENTIVES dictate behavior. Less women will take the chance of being stuck financially if the man has a choice.
It's interesting that you say men will have "responsibility free" sex. Don't women already have this with the abortion option (which I'm fine with). According to most people, responsibility is using birth control / condoms. Why is it not a good thing to equalize the responsibility (or lack thereof) when birth control fails or is not used?
Regardless, we're getting off the mark here, I'm not trying to control people's behaviors, my only goal is to equalize legal rights here.
You make a good argument on the privacy thing, yet my argument is still that a new "right" was created by Roe v. Wade. What it was based on doesn't matter if it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe vs. Wade needs an update to avoid this violation, and until this comes before the Supreme Court, both of our posts are simply opinions.
Oh, and married men shouldn't have an opt out, unless we included in my solution an opt out box on the government marriage license.
The most important question is, since women aren't losing ANY rights in my solution since they can still abort unilaterally, why are you really against this?
Thats pretty colorful wording. The way I read it Roe v Wade overturned Texas' abortion laws and granted women the right to abortion with limitations based on the fact that it violated the 9th and 14 amemdments being due process: prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness and "enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."
I have never read the words "opt out", "parenthood pre-birth" or explicitly "right to privacy" regarding Roe v Wade.
You are exactly right. I am very familiar with the case and have read the majority opinion multiple times. I am referring to the unintended consequences of discrimination that were created with this decision, not anything that was explicitly stated in the Supreme Court's majority opinion.
An tangential example of this was the "Separate But Equal" unintended consequences of discrimination created by Plessy v. Ferguson.
Let's walk through this logic. You're saying that if a woman knows she might get stuck with a child if the man opts out after conception, they are still going to allow men to pressure them to not use condoms, so births and abortions will increase? That doesn't compute. Women decide when sex occurs, not men, and women have an incentive to avoid unprotected sex if men have an equal chance to opt-out legally.
That didn't happen in the past because women knew they'd be stuck, so why would it happen now? "Irresponsible" sex increased along with out of wedlock births after the creation of the pill, legalization of abortion, and the advent of child support. I don't want to get rid of any of those, I'm using this example to show how INCENTIVES dictate behavior. Less women will take the chance of being stuck financially if the man has a choice.
It's interesting that you say men will have "responsibility free" sex. Don't women already have this with the abortion option (which I'm fine with). According to most people, responsibility is using birth control / condoms. Why is it not a good thing to equalize the responsibility (or lack thereof) when birth control fails or is not used?
Regardless, we're getting off the mark here, I'm not trying to control people's behaviors, my only goal is to equalize legal rights here.
You make a good argument on the privacy thing, yet my argument is still that a new "right" was created by Roe vs. Wade. What it was based on doesn't matter if it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe vs. Wade needs an update to avoid this violation, and until this comes before the Supreme Court, both of our posts are simply opinions.
Women do not have responsibility free sex, they will always have responsibility for pregnancy, there is no such thing for women. Yes, young women who aren't on birth control have been pressured to have condom free sex, even now, when men know they could end up with child support, it would only get worse. Men have a lot more control over sex then you give them credit for especially among young girls desperate to please.
To get to the point, I don't believe it created a new right, opting out of pregnancy is not a real right, it sustained the standing right that both men and women have the right to privacy of their bodies. I don't believe it violates the equal protection clause. If a woman does not have the physical ability to do the essential functions a job, she can legally be denied that job, so clearly we do not say "equality above biology, and reality." If men had the ability to get pregnant they would have the ability to have abortions, and would fall under privacy, there is no obligation to create an new "opt out" right for men simply because they can't biologically have abortions under the right to privacy. Another concern is that abortion is not a right, if a woman can't afford one or find a clinic she will be stuck with the child, will the man still have this "opt out" right?
The reason I oppose it is because I believe both men and women are responsible for the children they bring into the world, whether they want them or not. You can say women lucked out in that they get to carry the babies (yeah right,) so they have the ability to have abortions and men don't. I would say men lucked out that they generally have more upper body strength, and are more likely to be able to qualify for any job and go into combat, while many women can't, that's not fair, but it's reality, and women accept it.
You are right that these are opinions, and men's right to "opt out" is theory only. I suggest we agree to disagree, and move on because I don't see any new points coming up.
The most important question is, since women aren't losing ANY rights in my solution since they can still abort unilaterally, why are you really against this?
Women are not losing rights via abortion, but they are losing. They lose either way they go since permanent physical damage is done and cannot be undone. that's just how it goes with invasive procedures. Nor are they compensated for their time and effort. Of course, that's neither here nor there. Any way, I don't completely disagree with opting out for men, but I would prefer "opting out" with a caveat; reversible vasectomy. It's really the best solution I can think of.
Women are not losing rights via abortion, but they are losing. They lose either way they go since permanent physical damage is done and cannot be undone. that's just how it goes with invasive procedures. Nor are they compensated for their time and effort. Of course, that's neither here nor there. Any way, I don't completely disagree with opting out for men, but I would prefer "opting out" with a caveat; reversible vasectomy. It's really the best solution I can think of.
A general question for the "opt outers" We don't guarantee abortions, an abortion is not a right, if a woman can't afford one, and can't find a clinic to perform one she's stuck with the child, should we still allow the man to opt out even when the woman couldn't? It seems like this "opt out" would be an actual right, when woman don't have an actual right to have abortions performed. Wouldn't we have to guarentee abortions for every woman so women's right to equality is not violated if men have a right to an "opt out?" Should we charge for the opt out, and put that in a fund for guaranteed abortion, and shouldn't women get a little extra for pain and suffering, and time missed from work? Pro lifers will love that!
I would like to move on from this, it's off topic and should be a separate thread, but these seem like valid questions if anyone truly wants to legislate an "opt out" for men.
I became active in this thread after reading the opinions of a few pro-choicers that brought up the same, tired "he should have worn a condom" or "he should have kept it in his pants" argument and I saw it as hypocritical since they don't use this argument for women. I also pointed out the hypocrisy of pro-lifers in carving out a rape/incest exception since that really makes them pro-choice at a smaller level, and not truly pro-life.
the comment about men keeping it in their pants is in direct relation to all the anti choice folks who want women to keep their legs closed. I could care less if people have sex and think in fact they should have sex and lots of it. it amkes most people happy
I am fine, rather indifferent towards the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. If that decision didn't exist, I'd prefer abortion's legality to be handled by the States based on Tenth Amendment authority. Even though I see abortion as killing a baby, I do not believe it is my business since it's inside the woman's body and I support legal prostitution and drugs for the same reasons. Although I don't partake in any of these, I can separate my personal lifestyle decisions from academic arguments. Abortion is not personal to me like it is to most in this thread.
maybe you are indifferent because you are a man and becoming pregnant is not something you will experience. the trouble with states deciding is then it is not universal and woman wanting the service has to travel to another state to get it, when in fact the SCOTUS has said we do have the right, each and every one of us no matter what state we live in. I have never understood so much why people want the state to give us the "law"its still government handing down the law either way.
I think it is wonderful you can separate your own morality from academic arguments many people can not. this is why I also leave my personal choices out of the abortion debate as what a woman does with her body is indeed noe of my business.
So, if you want to assign a label on me based on what I said above, go ahead. But to me, if abortion is legal or not means nothing to me. I simply want men and women to have the same rights in all situations.
I have no need to label you, my question was wondering why on a general way people can be on the fence about some thins, you explained it
Women are not losing rights via abortion, but they are losing. They lose either way they go since permanent physical damage is done and cannot be undone. that's just how it goes with invasive procedures. Nor are they compensated for their time and effort. Of course, that's neither here nor there. Any way, I don't completely disagree with opting out for men, but I would prefer "opting out" with a caveat; reversible vasectomy. It's really the best solution I can think of.
having an abortion does not give permanent physical damage. get educated. abortion does not take long in most cases and there really is no need to take time off.
you want to think it causes permanent damage, then you will also have to think that being pregnant and giving birth also does permanent physical damage. that process is much more demanding on a woman's body
Women do not have responsibility free sex, they will always have responsibility for pregnancy, there is no such thing for women. Yes, young women who aren't on birth control have been pressured to have condom free sex, even now, when men know they could end up with child support, it would only get worse. Men have a lot more control over sex then you give them credit for especially among young girls desperate to please.
To get to the point, I don't believe it created a new right, opting out of pregnancy is not a real right, it sustained the standing right that both men and women have the right to privacy of their bodies. I don't believe it violates the equal protection clause. If a woman does not have the physical ability to do the essential functions a job, she can legally be denied that job, so clearly we do not say "equality above biology, and reality." If men had the ability to get pregnant they would have the ability to have abortions, and would fall under privacy, there is no obligation to create an new "opt out" right for men simply because they can't biologically have abortions under the right to privacy. Another concern is that abortion is not a right, if a woman can't afford one or find a clinic she will be stuck with the child, will the man still have this "opt out" right?
The reason I oppose it is because I believe both men and women are responsible for the children they bring into the world, whether they want them or not. You can say women lucked out in that they get to carry the babies (yeah right,) so they have the ability to have abortions and men don't. I would say men lucked out that they generally have more upper body strength, and are more likely to be able to qualify for any job and go into combat, while many women can't, that's not fair, but it's reality, and women accept it.
You are right that these are opinions, and men's right to "opt out" is theory only. I suggest we agree to disagree, and move on because I don't see any new points coming up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
A general question for the "opt outers" We don't guarantee abortions, an abortion is not a right, if a woman can't afford one, and can't find a clinic to perform one she's stuck with the child, should we still allow the man to opt out even when the woman couldn't? It seems like this "opt out" would be an actual right, when woman don't have an actual right to have abortions performed. Wouldn't we have to guarentee abortions for every woman so women's right to equality is not violated if men have a right to an "opt out?" Should we charge for the opt out, and put that in a fund for guaranteed abortion, and shouldn't women get a little extra for pain and suffering, and time missed from work? Pro lifers will love that!
I would like to move on from this, it's off topic and should be a separate thread, but these seem like valid questions if anyone truly wants to legislate an "opt out" for men.
Hi detshen,
I'm all for the man being required to pay for the abortion or paying half the cost if he initiated an opt out, or they both initiated it. I'm also for a fee being charged to help indigent men and women opt out. I'm open to anything that helps things move in the right direction.
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, and look forward to talking with you in a future thread. Take care, and thanks for the lively debate!
Women are not losing rights via abortion, but they are losing. They lose either way they go since permanent physical damage is done and cannot be undone. that's just how it goes with invasive procedures. Nor are they compensated for their time and effort. Of course, that's neither here nor there. Any way, I don't completely disagree with opting out for men, but I would prefer "opting out" with a caveat; reversible vasectomy. It's really the best solution I can think of.
Hi Braunwyn,
Nice to see you again. I'm fine with the reversible vasectomy option if that's what it takes to make women comfortable with my solution, it's a step in the right direction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
