Indian High Court rules that the right to abort a pregnancy rests with wife

[fskimospy]

They are not two separate issues.

You just do not want to confront the issue that abortion of the fetus is the same as a man forcing an unwanted procedure upon a woman.

How would the woman feel if the man took her down to the clinic, put her in a chair, and told the doctor to kill the fetus inside her? But its ok for a woman to kill the fetus?

The issue is not the fetus. The woman has a constitutionally protected right to make medical decisions regarding her own body, fetus included. The fetus is not a US citizen, and is not protected by US law in the same way that the woman is. Therefore, the woman has substantially greater protection from being subject to forcible medical procedures than the fetus does.

Then the same should go for women. If a woman has the right to skirt her responsibilities with an abortion, so should a man have those same rights.

What's strange is that you believe that in order to avoid a man being saddled with a financial obligation against his will you would give him the ability to use the power of the state to force a woman to undergo what can be in a fair number of cases an invasive medical procedure against her will.

If the man has a right to force the woman to undergo unwanted medical procedures, then the woman should have the right to force the man to undergo unwanted medical procedures. No man should be able to refuse a demand by any sexual partner to have a vasectomy performed.

 

[Texashiker]

I am arguing the rights to terminate a pregnancy is with the woman.

So you are a sexist?

You believe that men and women should have different rights based on their sex?

No man should be able to refuse a demand by any sexual partner to have a vasectomy performed.

I do not have to pay child support to my sperm.

Its only when the sperm and the egg meet that the problem starts.

 

[fskimospy]

It is terrifying if you ask me.

This is one of those cases were it is so absolutely clear that people have either not thought through the actual implications of what they are arguing for, or they are seriously disturbed individuals.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Do whatever it takes to ensure men have equal rights as women.

Their rights are equal. If a man became unwillingly pregnant, his right to abort would equal that of a woman's.

Likewise, once a baby is born, both the mother and father have equal rights to forgo parenting the child by putting it up for adoption, or leaving it with the other parent with on-going child support payments.

I do think there are defensible reasons to support the right of a parent to "give the child up for adoption" to the other parent, thereby relieving him or herself from the financial obligation -- afterall, you don't have to pay child support to adoptive parents, right?

The argument that a man should get to choose to pay or not because a woman gets to choose to abort or not is simply a terrible argument, however.

 

[Genx87]

So you are a sexist?

You believe that men and women should have different rights based on their sex?

I believe in this context there are obvious physiological reasons why a women has more rights than a man.

 

[MotF Bane]

Texashiker almost has a few points here, buried amidst ...whatever the hell the rest of it is.

Women get the solitary choice, and men are stuck with her choice. Her choice extends beyond herself, and he has no say in it. That's not a fair outcome.

Unfortunately, there's no way around it. Sex does sometimes result in pregnancy, birth control is not 100% reliable, and men cannot carry the child themselves, but the legal system afterwards will do everything possible to ensure the child is provided for.

There is no perfect solution.

And Texashiker, your idea of having the police drag the women down to a clinic for a forcible abortion is just plain fucked up.

 

[fskimospy]

I do not have to pay child support to my sperm.

Its only when the sperm and the egg meet that the problem starts.

Right, so in order to prevent that from happening, mandatory vasectomies performed on men if a sexual partner wishes it.

Can you detail to us exactly how you believe the state should go about forcibly aborting fetuses? For someone who I'm pretty sure opposes Obama's insurance mandate, how is what you are advocating not 100 times worse?

 

[Texashiker]

Their rights are equal.

No they do not.

If a woman can terminate an unwanted pregnancy, so should the man.

 

[actuarial]

I am not entirely sure how a court views that. But I suspect if the mother were to put the child up for adoption the man can petition the court to allow him full custody.

This should be automatic in all cases (as soon as the mother puts the child up for adoption the father automatically gets the child if he wants it with full custody), and the mother should pay child support to the father, IMO.

If not, then the rules are certainly imbalanced.

 

[Genx87]

This should be automatic in all cases (as soon as the mother puts the child up for adoption the father automatically gets the child if he wants it with full custody), and the mother should pay child support to the father, IMO.

If not, then the rules are certainly imbalanced.

Depending on what each person earns. There is certainly room for it to go both ways.

 

[actuarial]

No they do not.

If a woman can terminate an unwanted pregnancy, so should the man.

The day a man gets pregnant is the day he can terminate an unwanted pregnancy. You're arguing against nature, not law.

The law is perfectly fine given the limits imposed by nature.

 

[fskimospy]

No they do not.

If a woman can terminate an unwanted pregnancy, so should the man.

Each person has control over their own body. If the man gets pregnant he can terminate it at his leisure. Each person is also similarly protected from having their partner use the power of the state to force unwanted medical procedures on them.

I keep asking this, I'm serious. Can you describe the mechanism by which you would enforce this? What happens if the woman is non-compliant?

 

[actuarial]

Depending on what each person earns. There is certainly room for it to go both ways.

Assuming full custody to one parent there wouldn't be. We're not talking alimony here.

 

[Texashiker]

Right, so in order to prevent that from happening, mandatory vasectomies performed on men if a sexual partner wishes it.

Could men get mandatory tubal ligation on women?

Then we dont have to worry about anyone getting knocked up.

I keep asking this, I'm serious. Can you describe the mechanism by which you would enforce this? What happens if the woman is non-compliant?

I would imagine you have the cops do what they do - arrest people, bring them before a judge, get a court order,,, go from there.

 

[fskimospy]

Could men get mandatory tubal ligation on women?

Then we dont have to worry about anyone getting knocked up.

No, nobody can force any medical procedure on another, which is my own point. I'm just saying that in your world, partners are free to forcibly perform surgical procedures on each other's reproductive organs, so this would seem to be a reasonable outreach.

If I answer that question, someone might report it as promoting violence towards women.

I sincerely doubt that. You don't need to be graphic, I just want to know if you would have the police arrest the woman and bring her to a clinic for the procedure, or what?

 

[fskimospy]

I would imagine you have the cops do what they do - arrest people, bring them before a judge, get a court order,,, go from there.

That is so fucked up.

Am I correct that you oppose Obama's individual mandate due to personal liberty concerns? Can you explain why this is not so so so much worse than that?

 

[blankslate]

Does the court say if the man does not want the baby he still has to pay child care anyway? This is the problem with any such system (including the US - where the woman also is the only one who has a say).

The man has his say when he chooses whether or not to wear a condom.... sorry life isn't always fair and societies have to weigh relative harm...

 

[MotF Bane]

The man has his say when he chooses whether or not to wear a condom.... sorry life isn't always fair and societies have to weigh relative harm...

Condoms can fail.

 

[fskimospy]

Condoms can fail.

I actually totally agree that there is a disparity in responsibility for a pregnant woman vs the man who got her pregnant. It sucks for the man in many ways, but I can't think of any better solution than what we have now. If you allow the man to effectively ditch their babies at will you will have an epidemic of this in no time. If you allow the man to forcibly abort the fetus, you have a horrifying situation as already described.

There just isn't a good answer for this, but I feel that our system is about as decent as you're going to get.

 

[Texashiker]

That is so fucked up.

What is messed up is denying men the same rights as women.

If a woman can stand up and say "I do not want to carry this baby", a man should be able to say "I do not want her carrying my baby".

Equal rights for everyone, no more sexual discrimination.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You believe that men and women should have different rights based on their sex?

Men and women should have the same rights independent of their biological sex. But you're conflating equality under the law with biological equality, and that's just stupid. Men and women ARE different biologically, and while that difference shouldn't affect issues like how much they are paid or who gets to vote, it DOES matter when you're discussing biological reproduction. Saying that men and women are equal in pregnancy is absurd. A man is unable to carry a child to term in his uterus because he doesn't have one. Similarly, a woman can't release her eggs for fertilization outside of a human uterus; the embryo can't survive outside that environment. So when you realize that treating all humans as equal does NOT mean that we treat men and women as biologically identical, you'll realize that most of your rationale completely disintegrates.

 

[fskimospy]

What is messed up is denying men the same rights as women.

If a woman can stand up and say "I do not want to carry this baby", a man should be able to say "I do not want her carrying my baby".

Equal rights for everyone, no more sexual discrimination.

I'm sorry man, but if you can't see how utterly horrifying your proposal is, I don't think I'll be able to explain it to you any better. What you are proposing will never, ever happen in any western country on earth. People would fucking riot.

 

[MotF Bane]

I actually totally agree that there is a disparity in responsibility for a pregnant woman vs the man who got her pregnant. It sucks for the man in many ways, but I can't think of any better solution than what we have now. If you allow the man to effectively ditch their babies at will you will have an epidemic of this in no time. If you allow the man to forcibly abort the fetus, you have a horrifying situation as already described.

There just isn't a good answer for this, but I feel that our system is about as decent as you're going to get.

And that's exactly it. This system sucks, but all the other options suck more.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

What is messed up is denying men the same rights as women.

If a woman can stand up and say "I do not want to carry this baby", a man should be able to say "I do not want her carrying my baby".

Equal rights for everyone, no more sexual discrimination.

A man has every right to say he doesn't want a woman carrying his baby. That doesn't give him the right to force her into an unwanted medical procedure. He chose to introduce his genetic material into her body, and that's one of the potential consequences for doing so. You don't get "backsies" on some of life's key decisions.

 

[Jaskalas]

Men have that right. It is when they decide to sleep with a woman. The risk is pregnancy and the financial ramifications there after.

Under that logic abortion would be banned, as you're clearly defining the freedom of choice to be conception.