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 don't think he's trying to control a woman's uterus. The plan says leave all current women's options the same, all her body, her choice. No one is advocating forced abortions here.
How is allowing a man to opt out of parenthood controlling her uterus?
As stated a hundred times in this thread his proposals allow men to avoid responsibility for babies, sex and children completely. She has to get an abortion or carry the baby to term if the birth control fails and then support it. He merely signs a piece of paper and states that other men should support his kids if the mother of his children cannot.
In other words he's annoyed that a woman controls the sperm once it enters her body. She can decide what to do with the sperm. He wants to take that right from her by punishing her financially for that decision. Worse, he wants to punish his own offspring.
So, yes, he is asking to control over her uterus. If she doesn't do as he wants (an abortion) he wants the right to avoid the financial consequences of his decision to leave his sperm in her uterus.
In other words he seeks to ignore biology, allow men sex without consequences and hurt children. That may sound okay if you are a twenty year old college student but in the real world it doesn't work.
I barely notice my periods and my 4 childbirths were rather uneventful (except my last who I delivered naturally in a tub...now that was an event!). At the beginning I was dreadfully sick and towards the end, I was ready to be done with it all. But I love that I can get pregnant and wouldn't trade it for anything. I'm sorry you find being a woman such a burden.
Just realize that not every woman has your desire. I won't speak for other women, but for me, it has nothing to do with me believing it's a burden to be a woman. I'm glad I'm a woman. I do a hellavu lot for one woman. I just happen to be one that didn't want to drop a baby every year, or every other year. I will not be ashamed of that, nor will I apologize for it, or allow someone else to try and say I and other women who share that sentiment aren't comfortable being women.
Allowing abortion for any reason and safe haven drop offs (no questions asked) is exactly the same thing. It is declaring herself not responsible for her own children financially.
No it isn't.
Allowing women the right to abortion is allowing her to control her own body. It is not just about freeing a woman from a financial obligation. Men don't have that right because men don't get pregnant. Unless you've been pregnant you cannot possibly understand how difficult pregnancy is. Men don't get an abortion because they don't get pregnant. Having actually been pregnant twice I say they ought to be very grateful for that fact.
If you don't want to risk supporting offspring don't have babies with a woman who does not agree with you. I am amazed that some people feel comfortable yelping that a poor woman should think about fifty two times before considering a baby but a poor man should get to father offspring, sign a piece of paper and just walk away.
As stated a hundred times in this thread his proposals allow men to avoid responsibility for babies, sex and children completely. She has to get an abortion or carry the baby to term if the birth control fails and then support it. He merely signs a piece of paper and states that other men should support his kids if the mother of his children cannot.
In other words he's annoyed that a woman controls the sperm once it enters her body. She can decide what to do with the sperm. He wants to take that right from her by punishing her financially for that decision. Worse, he wants to punish his own offspring.
So, yes, he is asking to control over her uterus. If she doesn't do as he wants (an abortion) he wants the right to avoid the financial consequences of his decision to leave his sperm in her uterus.
In other words he seeks to ignore biology, allow men sex without consequences and hurt children. That may sound okay if you are a twenty year old college student but in the real world it doesn't work.
Hi Eleanora,
If he's allowing men off the hook, it's only in response to the current policies that are allowing women off the hook. The woman is not required to support the child, it is a CHOICE for her. One cannot argue that abortions, safe havens (no questions asked) isn't an "out" for women who are both pro-life and pro-choice. So that is simply an attempt at equalizing the irresponsibility.
In regards to punishment and "hurting children", one can argue that both abortion and safe havens also punish children since the baby can either be killed or the baby can be abandoned. How are those policies not punishment? Even if you don't agree the fetus is a "person", you cannot argue that having the option to drop the child to a safe haven isn't punishment since the child will most likely grow up in the care of the state. Do you support removing abortion and safe havens as a choice for women since they can arguably "punish children"?
In regards to uterus control, I suppose you are using it tangentially. However, it is still 100% her decision so there is no real control. Women are smart enough to decide on their own what they want to do regardless of what the man's wishes are. They are not children, and are just as capable as men to make a decision.
If you want to use the control argument, realize it can be reversed on you and say women who disagree with this policy simply want to control men financially. I don't believe this to always be the case, and it's as asinine as the assumption that a man wants to control a uterus by opting out.
Once again, it's also sexist and condescending towards women to assume they NEED a man's finances to raise a child and will be automatically on welfare if he opts-out. I thought we were a long way from those inferiority assumptions. Women are just as smart, intelligent, and as capable as men, and are graduating from college in higher numbers.
My mom hasn't worked since I was a baby. She plans on working again when my brother finishes high school.
So for the vast majority of my life, and all of my brother's life, my dad was the sole provider for the family. If one male can afford a family, one female can afford a family too.
Unless, of course, the posters think females are incapable of making a lot of money
And you have said in other threads that your family is wealthy.
You honestly think that is the norm in this country?
Really?
If he's allowing men off the hook, it's only in response to the current policies that are allowing women off the hook. The woman is not required to support the child, it is a CHOICE for her. One cannot argue that abortions, safe havens (no questions asked) isn't an "out" for women who are both pro-life and pro-choice. So that is simply an attempt at equalizing the irresponsibility.
You keep ignoring one fact.
Women who keep the baby are not off the hook biologically. They still have to go through pregnancy and give birth. Men don't.
If a woman does not want to go through with a pregnancy an abortion is not an irresponsible act. On the contrary refusing to give birth to a baby she cannot support financially or emotionally is often a highly responsible choice.
Quote:
In regards to punishment and "hurting children", one can argue that both abortion and safe havens also punish children since the baby can either be killed or the baby can be abandoned. How are those policies not punishment? Even if you don't agree the fetus is a "person", you cannot argue that having the option to drop the child to a safe haven isn't punishment since the child will most likely grow up in the care of the state. Do you support removing abortion and safe havens as a choice for women since they can arguably "punish children"?
Again abortion is not about a baby. Abortion is mostly about a woman protecting herself from the physical effects of pregnancy. Women have the right to avoid pregnancy because they get pregnant. Men don't.
Quote:
In regards to uterus control, I suppose you are using it tangentially. However, it is still 100% her decision so there is no real control. Women are smart enough to decide on their own what they want to do regardless of what the man's wishes are. They are not children, and are just as capable as men to make a decision.
If a man does not wish a woman to control his sperm he can avoid putting it in a woman's uterus. Men are not children who need to get a special out from societal responsibility because they made poor choices in sexual partners.
Quote:
If you want to use the control argument, realize it can be reversed on you and say women who disagree with this policy simply want to control men financially. I don't believe this to always be the case, and it's as asinine as the assumption that a man wants to control a uterus by opting out.
Again if a man does not want a woman to allegedly control him financially then the man can refuse to have sex with her so he doesn't father a child with her. If he wants to argue otherwise he is arguing that he gets power over what she does with her uterus. He doesn't.
Quote:
Once again, it's also sexist and condescending towards women to assume they NEED a man's finances to raise a child. I thought we were a long way from those inferiority assumptions. Women are just as smart, intelligent, and as capable as men, and are graduating from college in higher numbers.
It is not a question of need. It is a question of basic fairness. If both parties make a child both parties should support the child. It doesn't matter if the woman can support the child on her own. The man still has financial obligations to his offspring.
You have yet to answer a fundamental question. Why should a man have the right to simply decide he isn't going to support his children financially? Worse, why should society condone that idiotic demand?
Get your head out of the libertarian polysci textbook and go take a history class. We tried that whole no safety nets idea for a few centuries. All it got us was a society full of dead babies. Punishing children for the actions of their parents is barbaric. A man has a moral obligation to support his kids even if he does not want to do so. If you believe otherwise do us all a favor and get that vasectomy ASAP.
You do realize that by letting a man enter your vag' without a condom is also your choice too....
Oh wait. Men are evil. Let's go back to watching Lifetime, televison for idiots.
You raise good points, and I will address them one by one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
You keep ignoring one fact.
Women who keep the baby are not off the hook biologically. They still have to go through pregnancy and give birth. Men don't.
I did not ignore this fact. You are absolutely right about women not being off the hook biologically. This is why the proposed plan gives 100% of the choice to abort or not as the woman's decision. This is why no one is forcing women to abort if the man doesn't want the child. This is an effective compromise that respects the woman's biological contributions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
If a woman does not want to go through with a pregnancy an abortion is not an irresponsible act. On the contrary refusing to give birth to a baby she cannot support financially or emotionally is often a highly responsible choice.
If you take this opinion, that's fine, just understand that by saying abortion is a responsible financial decision, you're also admitting to the opposite (giving birth to a baby she cannot support) is irresponsible. No matter which side you decide to call responsible, by using your own logic the woman still has the opposite "irresponsible choice" available to her. The man still has zero.
Many will disagree with you and say having an abortion is irresponsible and the responsible choice is having the baby. Either way, it doesn't matter, since once again the man is still at zero choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
Again abortion is not about a baby. Abortion is mostly about a woman protecting herself from the physical effects of pregnancy. Women have the right to avoid pregnancy because they get pregnant. Men don't.
I agree with this, which is why the proposed solution keeps 100% of the decision to abort or not in the woman's hands. The man's opt out doesn't have anything to do with her choice to abort, keep or drop the baby at a safe haven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
If a man does not wish a woman to control his sperm he can avoid putting it in a woman's uterus. Men are not children who need to get a special out from societal responsibility because they made poor choices in sexual partners.
Using your logic, a woman shouldn't have the ability to obtain an abortion or drop the baby at a safe haven (no questions asked) because it is a "special out from societal responsibility". I don't believe this, but you can't dispute it without being hypocritical.
If you're pro-life, I can understand your point of view, but if you're pro-choice, it's not intellectually consistent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
Again if a man does not want a woman to allegedly control him financially then the man can refuse to have sex with her so he doesn't father a child with her. If he wants to argue otherwise he is arguing that he gets power over what she does with her uterus. He doesn't.
We are talking about post-conception options here. You are still going back to pre-conception. It is unequal to give one party multiple options under the law post conception and give the other zero options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
It is not a question of need. It is a question of basic fairness. If both parties make a child both parties should support the child. It doesn't matter if the woman can support the child on her own. The man still has financial obligations to his offspring.
It's interesting that you argue for fairness but do not provide any post-conception fairness as a compromise for men. Until you agree to no abortions and no safe haven abandonment, you are advocating double standards.
I'm not for removing either, I'm for keeping the rights women have now and extending options to men. Why are you against something that does not change women's rights at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
You have yet to answer a fundamental question. Why should a man have the right to simply decide he isn't going to support his children financially? Worse, why should society condone that idiotic demand?
The answer is because it is a balance to the current status quo. Women currently can decide not to support her children financially by either 1) aborting them or 2) dropping them off at a safe haven, no questions asked.
I notice you have yet to answer about safe havens even though I've brought it up multiple times. Even if abortion doesn't register with you, you cannot get past the safe haven argument, because that is a 100% out financially for women after birth. The man still has zero options, even at this point.
Men will pay CS because we have deemed it correct and fair. It won't change. Biology won't change. Human sexuality won't change (never has). Theories and debate are fun, and sometimes the only thing people have going on, but it will never ever change what is.
I support keeping CS up to date and workable, not to break anyone financially (unless they act irresponsibly and there is no choice) or drive them to murder (omg I know! Right Choc??) But beyond that guys....your is your downfall. Get a grip on that, understand what pregnancy means to you, and adjust your behavior accordingly. It's really simple. There are no laws we can pass to make things equal when it comes to birthing children. Men who think so are .
Last edited by CaseyB; 06-14-2011 at 04:19 PM..
Reason: rude/language
Men will pay CS because we have deemed it correct and fair. It won't change. Biology won't change. Human sexuality won't change (never has). Theories and debate are fun, and sometimes the only thing people have going on, but it will never ever change what is.
I support keeping CS up to date and workable, not to break anyone financially (unless they act irresponsibly and there is no choice) or drive them to murder (omg I know! Right Choc??) But beyond that guys....your is your downfall. Get a grip on that, understand what pregnancy means to you, and adjust your behavior accordingly. It's really simple. There are no laws we can pass to make things equal when it comes to birthing children. Men who think so are
Good afternoon,
You are raising points that we already know and understand. It has already been acknowledged that a man needs to be careful under the current laws.
This is a debate, the point is not to say "what already is", otherwise we can just shut the entire forum down because there would be little to talk about.
If it bothers you that much, no one here is forcing you to read our viewpoints and post in this thread.
Personally, I'd love to have the debate, so if you'd like to challenge the actual viewpoints on their merits I'd welcome it. Saying there are no laws we can pass is incorrect since the framework of a law has been proposed in this thread.
Once again, I'd still like to know if any of you would support the past status quo of a woman being fired once she gets pregnant but not firing men when they are out sick. I think it is just as wrong as the topic of this thread. Using your logic, you would agree with firing a pregnant woman since "it is biology".
Last edited by CaseyB; 06-14-2011 at 04:20 PM..
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.
