Should men also have the "right to choose"

[Tom]

But WHY does the man not have the same option? You have yet to answer why a man cannot make a decision that will affect the rest of his life, and yet the woman is allowed to make that choice? By the same token you're saying you don't approve of abortion AT ALL because "she should have thought of that before rolling the dice"?

It isn't about choosing to have a baby or not, its about choosing to be pregnant or not, in other words in control of her own body, versus the government controlling her body.

So your point about men is fundamentally not relevant.

And the competing parties in Row v Wade are the woman and the government, not the woman and the unborn.

Its about government control versus private rights.

 

[cybrsage]

So you are saying only women get to choose to be parents, but men are fobidden from making that choice?

Just trying to understand if that is the crux of your position or not.

 

[Tom]

So you are saying only women get to choose to be parents, but men are fobidden from making that choice?

Just trying to understand if that is the crux of your position or not.

Nobody can have a baby without a willing partner, there is no difference between the sexes in that regard.

The only issue is when and under what circumstances can men, or the state, force a pregnant woman or girl to give birth.

 

[cybrsage]

Nobody can have a baby without a willing partner, there is no difference between the sexes in that regard.

Thanks for the clarification. This statement is not true. Many willingly have sex but are unwilling to have babies. Abortions are the solution to this for a lot of women. It is also not true in the case of rape, but I understand this is implied in your statement.

The only issue is when and under what circumstances can men, or the state, force a pregnant woman or girl to give birth.

Men and The State are two vastly different groups. Would you support this set of rules?

1. Woman and man both want baby - no abortion, both support baby.
2. Woman does not want baby, man does - abortion, no support.
3. Woman wants baby, man does not - no abortion, no support.
4. Woman and man both do not want baby - abortion, no support.

No one is forced to have an abortion and no one is forced to be a parent against their will.

 

[nehalem256]

It isn't about choosing to have a baby or not, its about choosing to be pregnant or not, in other words in control of her own body, versus the government controlling her body.

So your point about men is fundamentally not relevant.

And the competing parties in Row v Wade are the woman and the government, not the woman and the unborn.

Its about government control versus private rights.

So you don't think the government requiring men provide child support to women is "controlling his body". How do you think most men earn money?

 

[Tom]

So you don't think the government requiring men provide child support to women is "controlling his body". How do you think most men earn money?

Parents are responsible for their offspring. That is a principle of our society.

And your not accurate in your statements. Men do not pay women child support, parents pay for the costs of raising their children.

 

[her209]

So you don't think the government requiring men provide child support to women is "controlling his body". How do you think most men earn money?

Nice try. Government requires men provide child support to the child, hence the word "child support".

 

[Jhhnn]

So you don't think the government requiring men provide child support to women is "controlling his body". How do you think most men earn money?

He'd likely be working anyway. Nobody's telling him what to do with his body, just with his money.

 

[Tom]

Thanks for the clarification. This statement is not true. Many willingly have sex but are unwilling to have babies. Abortions are the solution to this for a lot of women. It is also not true in the case of rape, but I understand this is implied in your statement.




Men and The State are two vastly different groups. Would you support this set of rules?

1. Woman and man both want baby - no abortion, both support baby.
2. Woman does not want baby, man does - abortion, no support.
3. Woman wants baby, man does not - no abortion, no support.
4. Woman and man both do not want baby - abortion, no support.

No one is forced to have an abortion and no one is forced to be a parent against their will.

There is no relationship between who pays to raise a child, and abortion. Parents are responsible for raising their children, the details of how that is worked out is best decided as it is now, individual cases, because there's way to much variability in circumstances to have one rule. But your idea that wanting or not wanting the child has anything to do with it, I don't agree with at all.

And I as I just said, the right to choose is about a woman's right to control her own body, not about having a baby or not.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice try. Government requires men provide child support to the child, hence the word "child support".

That actually depends on which is the custodial parent. One of my male coworkers is the custodial parent, and his children receive support payments from their mother. Another shares custody & the children spend equal time with both parents. Neither pays child support. Yet another's son lives with him & his daughter with her mother. neither pays child support.

 

[blankslate]

Men do have a right to choose.... whether or not to wear a condom. Sure they sometimes break but very few things in life are guaranteed.

But hey buck up the male contraceptive pill may just be around the corner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19281690

But WHY does the man not have the same option?

When you can magically carry the baby in your body for nine months and relieve the woman of that task then I'm sure this argument will carry more weight.

Reminds me of that joke that starts "if men got pregnant...."

 

[Gunslinger08]

I agree that it is a double standard. Obviously, men don't have to deal with carrying the child to term, but I think that they should have some sort of input if the mother wants to abort.

I don't agree with abortion in most cases and not for any specific religious reason. Tying the debate to religion doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Nobody disputes that murder is wrong, as some would lead you to believe. The debate is over whether a fetus constitutes life, which the Bible does not address. I personally believe it is life and that it should be protected in most cases. The same as we fight to protect the life of coma patients like Schiavo until we're sure their return to valid life isn't viable.

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree that it is a double standard. Obviously, men don't have to deal with carrying the child to term, but I think that they should have some sort of input if the mother wants to abort.

I don't agree with abortion in most cases and not for any specific religious reason. Tying the debate to religion doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Nobody disputes that murder is wrong, as some would lead you to believe. The debate is over whether a fetus constitutes life, which the Bible does not address. I personally believe it is life and that it should be protected in most cases. The same as we fight to protect the life of coma patients like Schiavo until we're sure their return to valid life isn't viable.

Oh, please. Schiavo spent 15 years in a vegetative state, and it was *obvious* that she wouldn't recover halfway through that. The whole episode was Repubs pandering to right to lifers, grandstanding on top of a tragedy to serve their own political ends. Sheesh.

This whole discussion, with concern trolling, is about men attempting to justify not supporting their own children, about putting it all off onto women, about forcing women to do as men want, either physically or economically.

 

[MrColin]

People of both sexes should use discretion in their choice of sex partners. An officially sanctioned mechanism for dodging responsibility for your choices is not a good idea.

You mean like abortion?

Having an abortion is one way to take responsibility, sometimes it is more responsible than having a child if you can't properly care for it.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Oh, please. Schiavo spent 15 years in a vegetative state, and it was *obvious* that she wouldn't recover halfway through that. The whole episode was Repubs pandering to right to lifers, grandstanding on top of a tragedy to serve their own political ends. Sheesh.

This whole discussion, with concern trolling, is about men attempting to justify not supporting their own children, about putting it all off onto women, about forcing women to do as men want, either physically or economically.

I don't specifically mean her case, just using it as an example of the condition, since pretty much everyone knows of it. Would you support euthanasia for coma patients if you knew for sure they'd regain consciousness in 40 weeks? I'm just saying we always try to protect their lives until we're sure they're not coming back.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't specifically mean her case, just using it as an example of the condition, since pretty much everyone knows of it. Would you support euthanasia for coma patients if you knew for sure they'd regain consciousness in 40 weeks? I'm just saying we always try to protect their lives until we're sure they're not coming back.

Your question is a non-sequiter.

I think such protections are adequate atm, and that decisions in line with such are best left to families & the guidance of their medical professionals.

If you don't want people to criticize episodes of absurdist pandering for political points, which the Schiavo episode surely was, don't bring them up.

 

[lotus503]

What does that have to with anything. I am not proposing forcing a woman to carry a child.

You are the one who is in favor of forcing a man to be responsible for a woman's choice.

The choice is made before conception.
When you choose to stick your dick in, you do so knowing the end result could be offspring.

 

[Lithium381]

It isn't about choosing to have a baby or not, its about choosing to be pregnant or not, in other words in control of her own body, versus the government controlling her body.

So your point about men is fundamentally not relevant.

And the competing parties in Row v Wade are the woman and the government, not the woman and the unborn.

Its about government control versus private rights.

I 100% support the womans right tho choose to be pregnant or not. 100%! That's totally up to her and that's fine. I'm just saying if she chooses to be pregnant, since that choice has nothing to do with the point of view of the man, then he should not be forced to participate in the pregnancy or not-pregnancy and the possible baby that results.
If I took the logic of some of those in the thread, if the woman didn't want to get pregnant and doesn't want abortion, she should have been on birth control in the first place

 

[Lithium381]

The choice is made before conception.
When you choose to stick your dick in, you do so knowing the end result could be offspring.

Do you see how you phrased that? It's biased. "before you stick your dick in" making it sound as if making the baby is the "fault" of the man.

"when a man gets a woman pregnant". . . phrased as if she had nothing to do with it, the woman is almost passive in that phrase. She opened her legs and participated equally(heh well it depends on the woman amirite!?)

She shouldn't get the right to choose the impact for THREE lives. Two yes, but not three. Carrying the baby or not carrying the baby is STILL HER CHOICE but she does it with the knowledge that the father will NOT be supporting the child. According to the logic here "she should have thought about that before opening her legs" and/or "she should have chosen a mate more carefully" She still gets to make a decision about her own body.

 

[nehalem256]

Having an abortion is one way to take responsibility, sometimes it is more responsible than having a child if you can't properly care for it.

So in other words no matter what a woman does it is taking responsibility. That is certainly convenient

 

[nehalem256]

The choice is made before conception.
When you choose to stick your dick in, you do so knowing the end result could be offspring.

So I assume based on this you would agree that pro-lifers are also pro-choice. Since the woman choose to let a man stick his dick in her knowing the end result could be offspring.

The choice was just made at conception. No takesie backsies

 

[nehalem256]

Nice try. Government requires men provide child support to the child, hence the word "child support".

Funny how the woman gets to spend the child's money.

Funny how if the woman dumps the children at the fathers's house and continues spending the "child support" money she does not go to jail for theft by fraud.

He'd likely be working anyway. Nobody's telling him what to do with his body, just with his money.

And his money is a direct result of working WITH HIS BODY. And if he was not being forced to support a woman's choice he could work less.

Forcing someone to work to support your choices is what exactly?

 

[lotus503]

Do you see how you phrased that? It's biased. "before you stick your dick in" making it sound as if making the baby is the "fault" of the man.

"when a man gets a woman pregnant". . . phrased as if she had nothing to do with it, the woman is almost passive in that phrase. She opened her legs and participated equally(heh well it depends on the woman amirite!?)

She shouldn't get the right to choose the impact for THREE lives. Two yes, but not three. Carrying the baby or not carrying the baby is STILL HER CHOICE but she does it with the knowledge that the father will NOT be supporting the child. According to the logic here "she should have thought about that before opening her legs" and/or "she should have chosen a mate more carefully" She still gets to make a decision about her own body.

it's takes a male and a female to conceive. We know biologically the act of intercourse can result in pregnancy.

We also know how the law views this.

So yeah, you know when you screw the end result can be pregnancy and you know the law supports a woman's right to terminate or keep it.

What your saying is I want to change that to alleviate that responsibility.

If she chooses to terminate she is opting not to be the host. If she chooses to keep it, the law places the well being of the child over the patents so you have to support it.

I think that's fine

 

[lotus503]

So I assume based on this you would agree that pro-lifers are also pro-choice. Since the woman choose to let a man stick his dick in her knowing the end result could be offspring.

The choice was just made at conception. No takesie backsies

Yes both people who engage in intercourse know the end result can be pregnancy. What that has to do with pro life or pro choice I'm not sure.

Pro life folks tend to think an embryo is a person, I think it's an embryo.

 

[Lithium381]

It isn't about choosing to have a baby or not, its about choosing to be pregnant or not, in other words in control of her own body, versus the government controlling her body.

So your point about men is fundamentally not relevant.

And the competing parties in Row v Wade are the woman and the government, not the woman and the unborn.

Its about government control versus private rights.

more on that point, she has the same options as a man in terms of contraceptives and birth control methods. .. . so now she really does have a choice as to whether or not she's pregnant or not