I see... literal.

I've written replies and deleted them 3 times now, which is very unlike me.

I think Jinx is probably responding to this little gem....

Dana uses *forced* correctly in my mind....deciding to have sex (safely) and having an accident, doesnt mean the sperm donour (lets not call him a Father, he isnt a Father at this stage) should be allowed to dictate how the paternal Mothers body is used for the next 9 months.

Its ridiculous, you want to force an unwilling Female to carry a child?

Well that, and this exchange, and a couple other comments,

but whatever. It's just ridiculous.

Of course she didn't make it all by herself. But she's growing it all by herself. So she gets to be selfish about whether she wants to keep growing it or not.

Does that mean you agree?

That requirement would have the same affect on my body, as outlawing abortion would. In other words, I would HAVE to carry an unwanted fetus around for 9 months and take all of the risks involved with pregnancy and childbirth (for me, both are equally high risk). My body would be forever changed as would my emotional state.

Who is going to hold my hair while I puke my guts out every morning? Who is going to rub my back when I can barely stand? Who is going to help me up out of my chair or up the stairs? Who is going to prepare and inject my insulin shots? Who is going to be with me while I go through the multiple tests and procedures to ensure a healthy pregnancy? Who is going to make sure I eat right and don't drink or do drugs? Who is going to hold my hand while I scream during labor? Who is going to bring me ice packs when my breasts engorge? Who is going to admire my not-so-perfect-anymore body?

How many women do you think would actually go through with giving the baby to the birth father after he forced her to complete the pregnancy and childbirth? He gets to have sex, proceed to sit back and daydream of his coming child, then get it handed to him on a silver platter <so to speak>. And you think this is somehow FAIR or EQUAL????

I agree with Dana, both people who engage in sex take a risk. If they aren't prepared to deal with the consequences, then they need to abstain. Period.

and your problem with that is???

That was directed at Rk's selfish quote.

Good thing no one is talking about outlawing abortion.
I agree it's selfish.

That is the whole point of this entire thread. The law would force the woman to get permission from the man.

Nope, the law would make the man stop an abortion if he wished to take full responsibility for his child.

Abstain....seriously?

rage, you're all fucked up here.

i'm slightly disgusted by your willful disregard of a woman's rights. does it really need to be laid out as literally as stormie does in her post for you to get it?

you sir, should be ashamed of yourself for taking the stance you've taken.

You started this thread about outlawing abortion--that's what the proposed legislation is about. If the woman has to get permission from the man to have an abortion, and he says no, then it would be against the law for her to have an abortion.

Ah, I love patriarchal laws.

Seriously, the woman has no say on whether to have an abortion when she is the one that has to have the baby? The father should never have the final say on an issue that a woman has to go through.

As I am for yours for the man's, same thing, big deal. :right:

oh..the man's rights....took me a sec.

shut up.

i thought you were libertarian? your rights end at the limits of your body. If you dont want a woman killing your babies, keep your goo to yourself, or marry her and be sure she wants to procreate first, genius.

Rage, men and women have naturally unequal stances on abortion since the woman actually has to give birth.

They are not equal and you can not pretend that they are. Abortion is a lose-lose situation and everyone is just picking the lesser of two evils.

No. So eloquent, as always.
I did marry her.
Your advice is great for men and women, I applaud you for it.

Pierce, men and women are not equal? Well... um... you go ahead and stick with that.

you get the eloquence your stunted ass deserves. here's some more eloquence for ya:

EAT



A




DICK

Homophobia... it just gets better and better.

Homophobia? Huh?

Ah the irony that you take me out of context for me being sexist when you support a patriarchal position.

A woman has to give birth and a man doesn't, that is fact and it doesn't make a certain gender any better than the other. Since the woman has to give birth she gets to have the final say, not the man. Trying to evening out the playing field to be fair to the man is everything you stand against since you have said you don't believe in fair. Like LJ said, if you don't want a woman to have an abortion with a baby that you helped create, don't impregnate her.

Funny, I see my opinion as equality and your's as matriarchal.
Don't wanna' have a baby, don't get pregnant.

or abort it as soon as you know about it.



dont want to get pregnant? dont have sex?


dont want to get pregnant, dont have a uterus?

dont want to be subservient, dont be a woman?

dont want people to call you names, dont be an asshole.

You must love for people to call you names. Fetish of yours?

i just wanted to turn this ridiculous thread about assholery into what it should be. assholery.

now go piss up a rope with your silly positions and posturing about equality. it really is a waste of logic to argue this with you any further. you'll get nothing more from me than insults and ridicule.

you .......big....... bald .......sperm donor.

LOL!!!

*Applauds* outstanding.

rk, honey, I lova ya, but that's fucked up. You would seriously want a law that gives a man the right to dictate to a woman whether or not she was able to have an abortion?


From the original article on the proposed law change : Well, fuck me sideways if I didn't tripover and land in the Handmaid's Tale. Rk, next time you call European laws on racism fascistic in nature I'm just going to laugh in your face, because this beats any Holocaust Denial laws into the ground, for me. How can you so vehemently defend the rights of people to spout racist filth and yet not seek to defend a woman's right to have the final say over her own body? And if you want to point at Fascist German and say, well hey they limited freedom of speech, I can point you to the German Maids whose job was to bear blond haired, blue eyed, master-race babies. And I can point you to the pregnant women whom the nazis experimented on.

Chris rock joke everybody!

"so....whachu gonna do?"

Rk I don't agree with you, but I have even more respect for you for not backing down. You took all those rocks thrown at you. Teach me.

Uh uh. If rk were to concede gracefully, that would be worthy of respect.

If you mean he was stoned, you may be right :P

I'd like to know what woman would have an abortion if she was in a happy relationship with a man she wants to be with (unless there are extremely extenuating circumstances and I still think she has the final say anyway).

Also, if they make this legislation what makes anyone think men wont abuse it simply to get back at a woman who wont fuck him anymore?

The problem is, the problem works both ways but ultimately, it's not the man who has to bear the brunt, and if he changes his mind half way through the pregnancy (as they all too often do) then the woman is left with a child that she never intended to have but has no choice but to follow though - and in most cases will love that child endlessly, but her life is changed forever thanks to a fuckhead who wasn't smart enough to keep what's his to himself (if you want to apportion blame). We all know that even now that women are equals (har har) men are still the ones who do most of the persuing.

Since time immemorial, there have been laws governing and securing men's rights over their children. Assumptions of female custody are an extremely modern development. For most of the world, across most of recorded history, where laws have existed, they have protected men's rights to the furtherance of their genes. These have in many cases stretched as far as the right to kill off any babies that weren't his (rights to 'expose' a baby), thereby showing that what is important, deep down is the 'replicate me' programme we're all born with. Males, as the physically dominant sex have always sought to control that programme. As civilization became more advanced, this morphed into control of land and property and maintenance of the family name and estate...but at its core it is what it always was. It is the reason society shames the promiscuous woman.

This is no different. This is no different to any of the myriad other ways men have used patriarchal societal systems to exert their control over the 'replicate me' programme and the women who incubate their genetic future.

What, let him spew crap with no repercussions? Hell no. Rk knows the deal here.

The funny part (in my opinion) is that rkz truly believes what he's saying but doesn't realize how sexist he's being.

Sorry rkz, but it's true. I realize there's reasons why you feel the way you do and that you honestly believe what you're saying, but mate, you're not a woman. You never will be so you will never understand.

Before you go ahead and tell me I'm not a man and I'll never understand, I agree.

That's why it's a case of n'er the twain shall meet on this issue.

WTF? Will you guys stop deleting your posts?

Makes it very hard to follow

and swallow

Have you had your daily dose of potassium?

I thought it was protien?

I suspect its a little of both......probably no carbs though..

I know a woman who got pregnant. At the time, her relationship was a disaster that had nearly run its course. The boyfriend wanted an abortion. She did not. She left. She endures pregnancy and raises the child on entirely her own. Because she believes she has an ethical - not legal - duty to take his opinion into consideration, she eliminates his responsibility to that child by raising the child on her own without financial, emotional, or any kind of support whatsoever from him. She recognizes that although she has the biological "advantage" (or disadvantage, depending on your POV) which allows her the ultimate decisions when it comes to her body, she believes she is ethically bound to respect his wishes.

It isn't fair to women that men don't have to deal with the baby plumbing that we do - the bleeding, the cramps, the migraines, the cancers, the risks and complications, the scarring, the pain... I spend 25% of my life stuffing cotton up my twat, another 25% eating chocolate and crying. I'm only "normal" 50% of the time! You guys walk around without a care in the world except when it comes to your ability to impregnate.

It isn't fair that men don't have the ultimate say. But as with most things in life, it isn't fair, and it is about trade-offs. You don't physically have to deal with it, you don't get the final decision.

You start putting limitations on abortions like this legislation suggests, and we've regressed back to coat hanger abortions, and abortions for the privileged.

Keep your laws off my body.

First of all, I did not say I agree with the bill as proposed... I stated that a man who wishes to stop a abortion should be able to.
Fresh, back down when you are wrong... I do it all the time.

Yikes. I thought we were suppose to be getting away from the archaic idea of men controlling women.

I respect your opinion, rkzenrage, but I am a little shocked.

Perhaps my problem is my inability to trust what a man would decide for my body (or our child.) This is a time when people don't have sex just to procreate and we can no longer fool ourselves about that. Don't get me wrong. If the law were this way and my husband and I got pregnant, I would trust him because I know he would respect me and we would make this decision together. If I had chosen to marry a different man? If I were not married and a surprise pregnancy came about? Who the fuck knows? Makes me even more happy about who I married. A bit of a scary thought, though.

I see a lot of problems with this law:

- If a man has the final say in whether or not to abort the baby, as someone else stated above, what is to keep some of them from abusing this law to control a woman or to "punish" her? I won't believe that this would be a small minority of situations. Many people cannot handle responsibility, so they use it to control another person. This happens already in so many other ways.

- Once the child is born, what of him/her? Can you honestly say you believe that all fathers are going to be supportive, loving, whatever for that child? What portion of those children do you suspect will end up in the state cycle, unwanted? Who pays for these services already, and whose taxes will increase as a result of further "strain" on the system? I hate to put it this way, but it is a factor.

- There are ways around this law for pregnant women, too. "I don't remember who I slept with. Here's a list, but he might not be on there."

- Who needs more laws to control us? If the man is not considered in the decision about the life of a fetus and he has a problem with that, perhaps he should have considered his partner's perspective on that ahead of time and used a condom? Or, perhaps he might have determined his partner's perspective on having children, before he started having sex with her? Same goes for the woman. If she didn't want to get pregnant, perhaps she might have taken precautions? Both parties have responsibility in this, but once a woman gets pregnant, she has full physical responsibility for that child. Only she can eat right, not lift really heavy things, etc. to take care of that child while in the womb. If she chooses to abort the baby, obviously she isn't prepared for the responsibility. The man has no physical obligation to the child, so naturally his perspective is going to be different.

- What about situations where the man makes the woman keep the baby and she later decides she wants to be a mother? I have heard of this happening in situations where the intent is to give the baby up for adoption.

This is so case by case, therefore, putting a law around it is just dangerous. I realize my points are "obvious" but they are still valid and need to be addressed.

Rage, like I said, I respect how you feel about this, but I suspect you are putting yourself in the place of one of the men whose child is aborted without your consent and thinking "what would I want?" Not all men have the same connection to their emotions that you do. Not all men would respect a woman enough not to control her or use her. I don't believe you are archaic or domineering. I just think you are looking at this without considering other perspectives.

Not to mention the really obvious way: pick any random male friend, assert he's the father, have him sign the permission slip, and go on your merry way. Paternity tests are expensive and take a long time, there's no way they could legislate it to be a requirement for every abortion.

I thought my "possession for dummys" post was pretty clear.
So blind they can't interpret their own laws anymore. Or provide any valid justification.
Just don't spit in my coke and think it's yours.

Isn't there a fairly high risk associated with paternity tests performed in utero? I know that invasive prenatal testing, such as amniocentesis, which detects genetic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities, carries with it a high risk of infection or complication.

And what about the old oops-I-"accidentally"-fell-down-the-stairs-and-lost-the-baby trick?

Wow someone said it....and it was LJ. Awesome!
:D

Here, you say that the law doesn't force the woman to get permission. When you are reminded that it, in fact, does, you say:

Now might be a good time for you to do so.

But let's take your proposed alternate law into consideration:
If you don't agree with the "woman needs permission" part of the law, how do you propose that this should work? How would he know? If the woman tells him that she is pregnant, she risks losing her ability to make the choice herself. It would be much safer for her to make the decision without his input, which I think most would agree would be a bad outcome.

And if the man decides that she can't have an abortion, how would the doctor know?

I fail to see any moral or ethical difference between the proposed law which imposes on the woman a need for paternal permission, and rk's proposed paternal veto.

Forget moral and ethical, there is no practical difference. Exercising a veto power is the same thing as refusing to grant permission.

I, of all people, have always been hugely in favor of father's rights (you want to see some angry women's rights proponents, find the thread where I argued that in many cases child support is merely punative, and actually contributes to a worse situation for the child,) so I am sympathetic to your emotions on this one, rkz. But you're wrong. The best you can hope for is that the woman would be reasonable and choose to take the man's feelings into consideration.

Just an aside - Where is that thread Clod? I've been dealing with that issue personally.

Unless it's a virgin birth, the male contributor of DNA should have a say in the decision-making, with the balance weighted towards completing the pregnancy (i.e., man cannot force an abortion that the woman does not want and vice versa).

Not in the United States.

The "up to the end of the first trimester" is a matter of convention, not law.

Why?
Is there a baby shortage?
More importantly, is a there a baby shortage among people who don't fully have their shit together in the relationship/family unit department? I don't think there is.... :headshake

That'd be fine as long as the only body in question was that of the foetus/baby. As long as the woman's body is having decisions made about it, its the woman's decision. End of story.

Here it is. Ah, good times.