Should a man have a say so, when it comes Abortions? (independent, parties)
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.
What some fail to realize is that we cannot legislate away a basic biological inequality with some comepletely different bit of legislation. As you have stated, women go through all the effects of pregnancy while the men go through none, because the fetus is INSIDE the woman's body, she has a legal right to her own medical procedures including abortion. Men have no legal right to abortion because the fetus never affects their bodies, if it did he would have every legal right to that and any other medical procedure affecting his body. Pregnancy is a tremendously unequal for women, but we don't demand legislation to equalize biology because it's IMPOSSIBLE and so becomes absurd.
Even the right to have an abortion is not absolute, there is always a point where society has determined that the rights of a potential child outweigh a woman's right to her own body, so we lose our basic constitutional rights, but we accept this, the law protects society first, individual rights second, no one has the right to do anything they want in this country. Society has determined that the rights of a born child include the support of both parents whenever possible. Some may find this unfair, but there is no equal in biology and we all must accept this. If one cannot accept the actual legal and biological consequences of pregnancy and all it's inherent unfairness they must abstain from sex, it's fool proof.
I've got to say, isn't the current family court system essentially attempting to legislate away basic biological inequity? After all, the natural state of things is that since the man doesn't carry the child, he always has the option of ditching. If we're going to violate that natural inequity for the benefit of women by enforcing continuing financial ties, why not for men?
At the end of the day, I'm not sure giving a man an opt out is necessarily a good idea. It's impossible to accurately predict what a western society the embraced such an option would look like 30 years down the line. However, as a man, I can't help but feel that the current family court system puts me at an large risk of no longer being able to control my own personal destiny. That 18 year price to pay (financially and emotionally) for a 5 second ejaculation seems wrong when the other party involved has additional options. Any non-biological argument that you can make that would support a woman's right to choose can, quite rightly, necessitate supporting a man's right to opt out of fatherhood. To me, those non-biological arguments are the reason I'm pro-choice, so denying men the benefit of them reeks of legally sanctioned bias.
So all a man has to say is, "I want you to get an abortion!" and if the woman refuses, he doesn't have to pay any child support? Okay.
It'd be more akin to relinquishing any and all legal rights to the child. You have zero legal impact on the child at that point on including any and all decisions about its life or its parent's handling of that child's life (outside of neglect and abuse)--and you can never have custody of the child or sue for custody of the child. It's as serious a decision as abortion, undoubtedly.
I've got to say, isn't the current family court system essentially attempting to legislate away basic biological inequity? After all, the natural state of things is that since the man doesn't carry the child, he always has the option of ditching. If we're going to violate that natural inequity for the benefit of women by enforcing continuing financial ties, why not for men?
At the end of the day, I'm not sure giving a man an opt out is necessarily a good idea. It's impossible to accurately predict what a western society the embraced such an option would look like 30 years down the line. However, as a man, I can't help but feel that the current family court system puts me at an large risk of no longer being able to control my own personal destiny. That 18 year price to pay (financially and emotionally) for a 5 second ejaculation seems wrong when the other party involved has additional options. Any non-biological argument that you can make that would support a woman's right to choose can, quite rightly, necessitate supporting a man's right to opt out of fatherhood. To me, those non-biological arguments are the reason I'm pro-choice, so denying men the benefit of them reeks of legally sanctioned bias.
And in the natural state of things.....only the strong survive. Do you want that applied to today's society too?
And in the natural state of things.....only the strong survive. Do you want that applied to today's society too?
I was responding to a previous post that used biological inequity as part of his/her argument, not necessarily advocating a return to the caveman days. It was an attempt to point out the cognitive dissonance inherent in some of the arguments against this idea. If you're argument against it is from the biological perspective, you should acknowledge that the natural state of things always leaves the option of the man walking away. On the other hand, if your argument is from a moral perspective, I must presume you're against abortion because any argument that allows women the option of abortion can be applied to men wishing to avoid fatherhood. If you're using a combination of both in such a way that it really only applies to women, well, that's a pretty thin line to take logically.
I've got to say, isn't the current family court system essentially attempting to legislate away basic biological inequity? After all, the natural state of things is that since the man doesn't carry the child, he always has the option of ditching. If we're going to violate that natural inequity for the benefit of women by enforcing continuing financial ties, why not for men?
At the end of the day, I'm not sure giving a man an opt out is necessarily a good idea. It's impossible to accurately predict what a western society the embraced such an option would look like 30 years down the line. However, as a man, I can't help but feel that the current family court system puts me at an large risk of no longer being able to control my own personal destiny. That 18 year price to pay (financially and emotionally) for a 5 second ejaculation seems wrong when the other party involved has additional options. Any non-biological argument that you can make that would support a woman's right to choose can, quite rightly, necessitate supporting a man's right to opt out of fatherhood. To me, those non-biological arguments are the reason I'm pro-choice, so denying men the benefit of them reeks of legally sanctioned bias.
I agree that this makes sense as a point, but reality is a different story. I'm always for as little legislation as possible, but there are times when we need legislation in order to protect our society, this definitely qualifies, as does violating women's rights by imposing certain restrictions on abortion. Simply because of my particular life experience I saw this issue first hand, so I have a different understanding of why we needed these laws, and a clearer understand of how society would look down the line because I've already seen it. It didn't happen to me, but only because I had a strong father who did everything possible to help me in life, which is another reason why I understand so clearly how important fathers are, and anything that further erodes this will only destroy us.
Throughout human history society has always demanded men take responsibility for the children they father, we have always understood this was a necessity, in the past men were force to marry the women they impregnated, or suffer serious social consequences. As society grew to be more about individual happiness, and we started living in larger cities where people didn't know each other, the social consequences started to disappear. In the 70s and 80s this really started to become a problem, especially in people below the middle classes.
I grew up in a large city and lived where working and lower middle class met poor areas, so I was right there where young pregnancies were common. It was insane! Young men would lie about anything, they would pretend to be in love with as many girls as they could fool, many would even claim to be sterile. The girls were all falling for it, men always have emotional power over women if they can get them into bed, but women only start to understand this through experience, young women don't fully understand it (biology again).
I saw blocks and blocks filled with pregnant young women. There were no strong fathers around to demand the men marry the girls, or take any resposibility, no on knew courts existed for anything but sending people to jail, the guys would simply deny they were the father and move on to new girls to have sex with and the boys were free from all responsibility, and they simply abused this to the point that single mothers finally started look into their legal rights, and it continued from there, now everyone understands DNA and child support and boys know denial is no longer possible, so they are forced to be more careful, or suffer the consequences, something women have always had to deal with. The idea that abortion is some easy answer completely equal with a man signing his name on some paper is very wrong. It's an invasive medical procedure no one ever actually wants, complications are always a risk, infertility and even death are possible, not to mention the emotional hormonal consequences that can last a lifetime.
I agree that this makes sense as a point, but reality is a different story. I'm always for as little legislation as possible, but there are times when we need legislation in order to protect our society, this definitely qualifies, as does violating women's rights by imposing certain restrictions on abortion. Simply because of my particular life experience I saw this issue first hand, so I have a different understanding of why we needed these laws, and a clearer understand of how society would look down the line because I've already seen it. It didn't happen to me, but only because I had a strong father who did everything possible to help me in life, which is another reason why I understand so clearly how important fathers are, and anything that further erodes this will only destroy us.
Throughout human history society has always demanded men take responsibility for the children they father, we have always understood this was a necessity, in the past men were force to marry the women they impregnated, or suffer serious social consequences. As society grew to be more about individual happiness, and we started living in larger cities where people didn't know each other, the social consequences stated to disappear. In the 70s and 80s this really started to become a problem, especially in people below the middle classes.
I grew up in a large city and lived where working and lower middle class met poor areas, so I was right there where young pregnancies were common. It was insane! Young men would lie about anything, they would pretend to be in love with as many girls as they could fool, many would even claim to be sterile. The girls were all falling for it, men always have emotional power over women if they can get them into bed, but women only start to understand this through experience, young women don't fully understand it (biology again).
I saw blocks and blocks filled with pregnant young women. There were no strong fathers around to demand the men marry the girls, or take any resposibility, no on knew courts existed for anything but sending people to jail, the guys would simply deny they were the father and move on to new girls to have sex with and the boys were free from all responsibility, and they simply abused this to the point that single mothers finally started look into their legal rights, and it continued from there, now everyone understands DNA and child support and boys know denial is no longer possible, so they are forced to be more careful, or suffer the consequences, something women have always had to deal with. The idea that abortion is some easy answer completely equal with a man signing his name on some paper is very wrong. It's an invasive medical procedure no one ever actually wants, complications are always a risk, infertility and even death are possible, not to mention the emotional hormonal consequences that can last a lifetime.
You're absolutely right and nothing I'm arguing should be taken to assume such difficult, heart-wrenching decisions should be approached flippantly from either side. And you're also right that the current state of affairs is a rational societal response to irresponsible men/women having children, designed to ease the suffering of children that had no part in their particulars of their own conception, and the desire to not have society as a whole bear the brunt of those people's poor decisions. Nevertheless, a very undesirable set of options is still a set of options, which is certainly more than men can lay claim to after the moment of conception. I'm also quite sure there are places in this world containing groups of men working dead-end jobs off the books, living is poor conditions to stay off grid, and cutting themselves off from their own past to avoid impossible-to-pay support/penalties and avoid being thrown in jail.
It's all an academic argument anyway since all women, anyone against abortion, and the vast majority of men that haven't been confronted with being forced into fatherhood would all be against it.
Last edited by inmate347; 11-10-2012 at 04:50 PM..
You're absolutely right and nothing I'm arguing should be taken to assume such difficult, heart-wrenching decisions should be approached flippantly from either side. And you're also right that the current state of affairs is a rational societal response to irresponsible men/women having children, ease the suffering of children that had no part in their particulars of their own conception, and the desire to not have society as a whole bear the brunt of those people's poor decisions. Nevertheless, a very undesirable set of options is still a set of options, which is certainly more than men can lay claim to after the moment of conception. I'm also quite sure there are places in this world containing groups of men working dead-end jobs off the books, living is poor conditions to stay off grid, and cutting themselves off from their own past to avoid impossible-to-pay support/penalties and avoid being thrown in jail.
It's all an academic argument anyway since all women, anyone against abortion, and the vast majority of men that haven't been confronted with being forced into fatherhood would all be against it.
You are correct that a undesirable set of options are still options that men don't have, but there's simply no equal, so we are stuck accepting this as an unfairness, which is something women certainly experience in pregnancy, and in reality, child rearing, so men are hardly alone in unfairness. Unless we want to ban abortion to "equalize" things, which still doesn't, and also takes away women's rights, and denies men the abortion many of them want their partners to have. I do support looking into reforms in child support rules, and regulations, that would be a real issue that deserves looking at, and a much better use of time than fighting over "opting out."
BTW, I thought you posed a fair question and deserved no hostility.
Men can reduce abortions by not engaging in unprotected class with dumb bimbos. I realize that is asking quite a bit.
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.
