A woman's right?

[jillio]

Yeah, Puyo, I can understand what you do meant. I think a man should to share some of his opinion with a woman when she is pregnant...

There is nothing to stop him from sharing his opinion.

 

[faire_jour]

I think that women get an "extra" chance to decide what to do with a pregnacy that a man doesn't. A woman can get an abortion without telling the father of the child, she can choose to give it up for an adoption without informing him, or she can keep the baby and he is forced to pay for 18 years. Where is his "second chance"? His "morning after pill"?

 

[jillio]

I think that women get an "extra" chance to decide what to do with a pregnacy that a man doesn't. A woman can get an abortion without telling the father of the child, she can choose to give it up for an adoption without informing him, or she can keep the baby and he is forced to pay for 18 years. Where is his "second chance"? His "morning after pill"?

A woman gets the opportunity to decide after pregnancy has occurred because she is the one that is pregnant.

A man can decide to walk away from his pregnant partner. That is his second chance.

Again, it is all very gender specific. Ask men if they would like to have the menstrual periods and all that goes with it, not to mention pregnancy and the risks involved, just to have the oppportunity to make the decision of whether to continue the pregnancy or not. You won't find many that would make that trade.

And, come on. How many women do you think would choose abortion if the father of the baby was willing to support it for the next 18 years financially, emotionally, physically, and spritually?

 

[faire_jour]

A man can decide to walk away from his pregnant partner. That is his second chance

And a woman can walk away from the man, that is unrelated to the legal obligations. Once the woman decides to keep the baby, the man is responsible for life.

 

[jillio]

And a woman can walk away from the man, that is unrelated to the legal obligations. Once the woman decides to keep the baby, the man is responsible for life.

The man is legally responsible only until that child turns 18.

And a woman that walks away from a man, and refuses to allow him contact with his child when he is attempting to have contact and be a father most certainly does suffer legal consequences, not the least of which can be jail time for refusing to follow a custody order.

And you all also seem to forget that a man is not obligated to pay child support unless the woman seeks such through legal means. Just because the baby was born does not mean the father is obligated to pay child support. What if he never wanted the child to begin with? She is forcing her decision on him in this case, too.

 

[Daredevel7]

I understand the arguments about the guy having a lack of choice, but really... what other solution is there???? What laws can make men have a "choice"? lsfoster said remove imposed child support. Unfortunately, that's gonna cause a lot of anger for women and happiness for men to be free of any ties with his baby. Imposed child support right now angers a lot of men, so which is the lesser of two evils? It shouldn't happen, but child support is actually probably a main reason why men have ANY ties with their "unexpected" child.

 

[jillio]

I understand the arguments about the guy having a lack of choice, but really... what other solution is there???? What laws can make men have a "choice"? lsfoster said remove imposed child support. Unfortunately, that's gonna cause a lot of anger for women and happiness for men to be free of any ties with his baby. Imposed child support right now angers a lot of men, so which is the lesser of two evils? It shouldn't happen, but child support is actually probably a main reason why men have ANY ties with their "unexpected" child.

Exactly.

 

[lsfoster]

The man is legally responsible only until that child turns 18.

And a woman that walks away from a man, and refuses to allow him contact with his child when he is attempting to have contact and be a father most certainly does suffer legal consequences, not the least of which can be jail time for refusing to follow a custody order.

And you all also seem to forget that a man is not obligated to pay child support unless the woman seeks such through legal means. Just because the baby was born does not mean the father is obligated to pay child support. What if he never wanted the child to begin with? She is forcing her decision on him in this case, too.

I understand the arguments about the guy having a lack of choice, but really... what other solution is there???? What laws can make men have a "choice"? lsfoster said remove imposed child support. Unfortunately, that's gonna cause a lot of anger for women and happiness for men to be free of any ties with his baby. Imposed child support right now angers a lot of men, so which is the lesser of two evils? It shouldn't happen, but child support is actually probably a main reason why men have ANY ties with their "unexpected" child.

Right, but see, that's my point. There isn't really a way to make this "fair" for everyone. But it's currently being made unfair in favor of women. I think that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't say "Women should have a choice" and then say that it's too bad men don't get the same choice because that would make a lot of women angry.

The same argument for why gays should be allowed to marry applies here. They should either both get the choice, or neither of them should. If a woman can walk away, then the guy should be able to also. And however you try to spin it, jillio, he really can't. It's not his choice, it's hers. You keep saying that you can't take away someone's choice if you want that choice yourself, but that's exactly what you're doing. A man can't actually walk away as his "second chance" unless she lets him. Her choice, not his.

I also think it's downplaying it a little to say that he's only responsible until the child turns 18. Carrying the child takes nine months, and that is not even currently required of the woman. Child support takes 216 months, and the man has no say in it at all. Sounds a little unfair to me.

 

[jillio]

Right, but see, that's my point. There isn't really a way to make this "fair" for everyone. But it's currently being made unfair in favor of women. I think that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't say "Women should have a choice" and then say that it's too bad men don't get the same choice because that would make a lot of women angry.

The same argument for why gays should be allowed to marry applies here. They should either both get the choice, or neither of them should. If a woman can walk away, then the guy should be able to also. And however you try to spin it, jillio, he really can't. It's not his choice, it's hers. You keep saying that you can't take away someone's choice if you want that choice yourself, but that's exactly what you're doing. A man can't actually walk away as his "second chance" unless she lets him. Her choice, not his.

No, dear, the argument for gay marraige does not apply here. Unless of course, you care to approach it strictly from a legal civil rights perspective. In that case, in the case of abortion, the law upholds the civil rights of the woman to privacy regarding her medical decisions and treatment. It upholds the rights of the male in the same way. So both have had their civil rights upheld. However, in the case of gay marraige, one couple is having civil rights denied. So you cannot even, from a civil rights perspective, compare the two. Gay marraige has absolutely nothing to do with the right to privacy regarding medical decisions. The right to choose a legal and safe medical procedure in the privacy and confidentiality of a medical setting is a medical issue. You could, if you wish, compare it to a woman who has been diagnosed with breast cancer. Should her mate be able to object and prevent her from getting a mastectomy simply because he derives some pleasure from her breasts and the medical decision to have a mastectomy will take that away? Should a woman be able to prevent a physician from prescribing high blood presssure medication for her mate because they can, and do, cause impotence? Or better yet, removal of the prostrate for cancer?

And you are right, that is the whole point. It is not his decision, it is hers. And until the time when a biological male is able to conceive, carry, and give birth, it will remain hers. When a man can do all of the above, he will be protected regarding the right to choose to teminate his pregnancy.I also think it's downplaying it a little to say that he's only responsible until the child turns 18. Carrying the child takes nine months, and that is not even currently required of the woman. Child support takes 216 months, and the man has no say in it at all. Sounds a little unfair to me.

Once again, the man is only responsible for paying child support until the age of 18, and only if such support is sought through legal means by the biological mother of the child. Nor is he responsible for the support during gestation

You keep talking about fairness. How about this? The vast majority (I believe it is 98.2%) of single parent households are headed by women. The vast majority are receiving noassistance from the father of their children. The vast majority are living in poverty. Working women still make $.74 on the dollar when compared to men doing the same job, are responsible for the support of the majority of single parent families, between housework and paid employment, work the equivilent of 2 full time jobs, in 2 parent homes are responsible for 80% of the childcare and the majority of the house work. How fair is any of that? How equitable is any of that? When the playing field has been leveled from the distinct advantage that men have in this society, you can talk about laws that are unfair to them in favor of women. Until then, you don't have a case.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Well, that's not exactly the point. But the situation that you described would be something for the couple to settle between themselves.

Indeed.

There is nothing to stop him from sharing his opinion.

Nothing at all? Hmm... Okay - if it is true, then... why should a woman be the only voice in the matter when deciding to keep a child, yet may ask/demand child support, after not giving the man a chance to voice his opinion? Is that really fair?

I know it is hard to mutually have a decision when a somebody’s opinion is set in a firm way and the other person wants to do the opposite. Well, I propose that child support be ultimately left up to the man, and on the other hand, an abortion be ultimately left up to the woman as long as the man keep to himself. Would you accept that?

I stand on my thought..

 

[jillio]

Indeed.




Nothing at all? Hmm... Okay - if it is true, then... why should a woman be the only voice in the matter when deciding to keep a child, yet may ask/demand child support, after not giving the man a chance to voice his opinion? Is that really fair?

I know it is hard to mutually have a decision when a somebody’s opinion is set in a firm way and the other person wants to do the opposite. Well, I propose that child support be ultimately left up to the man, and on the other hand, an abortion be ultimately left up to the woman as long as the man keep to himself. Would you accept that?

I stand on my thought..

When deciding to keep a child, the woman's voice isn't the only one. If the woman decides to give that child up for adoption, the father must sign over his parental rights and agree to the adoption as well, provided the mother knows who the biological father is. The father has a voice in anything that happens to that child after birth. All he has to do is exercize it.

In the first trimester of pregnancy, provided the father has been told that he has fathered a child, he is free to offer an opinion. Nothing in the world stops him from voicing his opinion. What he cannot do is demand the the woman carrying the child not be granted a medical procedure that the law states she may elect to have. In the case of abortion, it is the woman who is the patient, and the woman who makes her own medical decision between herself and her physician.

The law as it stands certainly does nothing to prevent a man from offering his opinion.

 

[lsfoster]

This isn't letting me post my reply for some reason...

 

[jillio]

This isn't letting me post my reply for some reason...

Must be editing it for you! j/k

 

[lsfoster]

Must be editing it for you! j/k

Could it be too long? I'm fairly certain I've seen longer posts than the one I'm trying to put up. It keeps telling me it's too short, and to increase the length to at least one character...

 

[lsfoster]

No, dear, the argument for gay marraige does not apply here. Unless of course, you care to approach it strictly from a legal civil rights perspective. In that case, in the case of abortion, the law upholds the civil rights of the woman to privacy regarding her medical decisions and treatment. It upholds the rights of the male in the same way. So both have had their civil rights upheld. However, in the case of gay marraige, one couple is having civil rights denied. So you cannot even, from a civil rights perspective, compare the two. Gay marraige has absolutely nothing to do with the right to privacy regarding medical decisions.

I wasn't saying the civil rights, I meant what I had said before about "marriage for all or marriage for none". Maybe I should have clarified. Again, I'm not talking about Roe v. Wade, and I'm not talking about the privacy of medical decisions. That is completely unrelated to my point. My point is that a woman can choose to have no involvement with her baby, and a man can't.

The right to choose a legal and safe medical procedure in the privacy and confidentiality of a medical setting is a medical issue. You could, if you wish, compare it to a woman who has been diagnosed with breast cancer. Should her mate be able to object and prevent her from getting a mastectomy simply because he derives some pleasure from her breasts and the medical decision to have a mastectomy will take that away? Should a woman be able to prevent a physician from prescribing high blood presssure medication for her mate because they can, and do, cause impotence? Or better yet, removal of the prostrate for cancer?

Not the same at all. You are comparing a totally elective and unnecessary procedure with life-threatening illnesses. I've already said that if the pregnancy is endangering the mother that I think that is a separate issue. Also, I never said that the man should be able to make the woman have the baby. All I'm saying is that if you don't think he should be able to do that, then you can't advocate her being able to make him support the child for the next 18 years.

And you are right, that is the whole point. It is not his decision, it is hers. And until the time when a biological male is able to conceive, carry, and give birth, it will remain hers. When a man can do all of the above, he will be protected regarding the right to choose to teminate his pregnancy.

He doesn't have to be able to carry the baby. The whole point is that he can't. A man has no direct consequences from having sex other than those that have been imposed on him by discriminatory laws. It simply isn't fair to say that a woman should have a choice to "terminate" and end her involvement with a pregnancy, but a man doesn't when his "termination" doesn't even have an effect on the baby. A woman can choose to kill her unborn baby, but a man can't decide he doesn't want to pay for it for the next 18 years? Just doesn't make sense to me.

Once again, the man is only responsible for paying child support until the age of 18, and only if such support is sought through legal means by the biological mother of the child. Nor is he responsible for the support during gestation

You keep talking about fairness. How about this? The vast majority (I believe it is 98.2%) of single parent households are headed by women. The vast majority are receiving noassistance from the father of their children. The vast majority are living in poverty. Working women still make $.74 on the dollar when compared to men doing the same job, are responsible for the support of the majority of single parent families, between housework and paid employment, work the equivilent of 2 full time jobs, in 2 parent homes are responsible for 80% of the childcare and the majority of the house work. How fair is any of that? How equitable is any of that? When the playing field has been leveled from the distinct advantage that men have in this society, you can talk about laws that are unfair to them in favor of women. Until then, you don't have a case.


That's the whole point. You're saying that the situation isn't fair to men according to the laws, and they should just deal with it because that's the consequence of their actions. Well, the work situation isn't fair to women right now. Should we just deal with it because we have the choice to work there or not? I'm not saying that society will suddenly be fair, just that we can try to make our laws as fair as we can.

Also, the fact that most things favor men does not mean it's fair to penalize them without reason in other situations. Two wrongs still don't make a right.

Never mind, it was because all the text was inside a quote.

 

[jillio]

Could it be too long? I'm fairly certain I've seen longer posts than the one I'm trying to put up. It keeps telling me it's too short, and to increase the length to at least one character...

Ah, I recongize the problem. You are posting in text. You have to put at least a portion of your reply after the end of the quote you are replying to.

Never mind...I see you figured it out. Guess I'd better get busy reading.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

That word " abortion " is a terrible and even murder. It's an ugly choice to make.

Is those word "fetus removal" okay with you?

 

[jillio]

Okay, here we go:

A man can chose to have no involvement with his child at any point in time. It happens on a daily basis. Seen the posters for the deadbeat dads hanging all over lately? And if men did not have the option of choosing to be uninvolved with their children, the majority of single parent households would not be headed by women receiving no support other than that which they provide. If men did not choose on a daily basis to uninvolved in their children's lives, the court dockets would not be backed up with child support cases. If men did not choose to be uninvolved in their children's lives, we would not be seeing the epidemic proportions of children being raised with no contact with their fathers. To say that a man can not choose not to be involved in his child's life is absolutely presposterous, given the statistics on families in this country.

What you are failing to understand is that it is a civil rights issue. Perhaps the moral implications are not a civil rights issue, but then, neither are they a legal issue in any perspective. But when it comes to the legality of choice, it most certainly is a civil rights issue, just as gay marraige is a civil rights issue.

Who determines whether the procedure is a necessary one or not? And on what grounds. Whether the medical procedure is necessary is a decision left to the woman and her physician, as it is her body the procedure is performed on and her body that will suffer the consequences of either a pro or con choice. What may seem uneccesary to you may, to a woman and her physican, indeed be a very necessary procedure.

Yes, the whole point is that he can't carry the pregnancy. Therefore, the laws are not constructed to assume that he can. His body doesn't suffer any of the consequences of gestation, labor, or delivery. He is not at risk for the complications that could disable him or end his life during the birth process. He doesn't risk preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, stroke, blood clots, calcium depletion, rupture of the womb, post partum depression, post partum psychosis, or any of the other numerous and well documented risks of pregnancy, labor, and birth. Therefore, he is not in the position to determine if one should accept those risks. Risks can be accepted only by the person who experiences them.

Women deal with inequities in law and social structure on a daily basis, and they do so at a greater prevalence than do men. And despite those inequities, they continue to head single family homes, work outrageous hours in order to support themselves and their children, and in 98.2% of the cases, do so without any assistance from the man that fathered their children. Do you really think that allowing a man to determine whether or not a woman can choose a legal medical procedure would create greater equity? It most certainly would not. In fact, it would serve to remove what little autonomy and independence women have fought so hard to achieve. You are asking that women take a giant leap back into the days when they had no rights at all.

 

[lsfoster]

Okay, here we go:

A man can chose to have no involvement with his child at any point in time. It happens on a daily basis. Seen the posters for the deadbeat dads hanging all over lately? And if men did not have the option of choosing to be uninvolved with their children, the majority of single parent households would not be headed by women receiving no support other than that which they provide. If men did not choose on a daily basis to uninvolved in their children's lives, the court dockets would not be backed up with child support cases. If men did not choose to be uninvolved in their children's lives, we would not be seeing the epidemic proportions of children being raised with no contact with their fathers. To say that a man can not choose not to be involved in his child's life is absolutely presposterous, given the statistics on families in this country.

What you are failing to understand is that it is a civil rights issue. Perhaps the moral implications are not a civil rights issue, but then, neither are they a legal issue in any perspective. But when it comes to the legality of choice, it most certainly is a civil rights issue, just as gay marraige is a civil rights issue.

Who determines whether the procedure is a necessary one or not? And on what grounds. Whether the medical procedure is necessary is a decision left to the woman and her physician, as it is her body the procedure is performed on and her body that will suffer the consequences of either a pro or con choice. What may seem uneccesary to you may, to a woman and her physican, indeed be a very necessary procedure.

Yes, the whole point is that he can't carry the pregnancy. Therefore, the laws are not constructed to assume that he can. His body doesn't suffer any of the consequences of gestation, labor, or delivery. He is not at risk for the complications that could disable him or end his life during the birth process. He doesn't risk preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, stroke, blood clots, calcium depletion, rupture of the womb, post partum depression, post partum psychosis, or any of the other numerous and well documented risks of pregnancy, labor, and birth. Therefore, he is not in the position to determine if one should accept those risks. Risks can be accepted only by the person who experiences them.

Women deal with inequities in law and social structure on a daily basis, and they do so at a greater prevalence than do men. And despite those inequities, they continue to head single family homes, work outrageous hours in order to support themselves and their children, and in 98.2% of the cases, do so without any assistance from the man that fathered their children. Do you really think that allowing a man to determine whether or not a woman can choose a legal medical procedure would create greater equity? It most certainly would not. In fact, it would serve to remove what little autonomy and independence women have fought so hard to achieve. You are asking that women take a giant leap back into the days when they had no rights at all.

I didn't say that a man should be able to choose for a woman. I said that a woman shouldn't be able to choose for a man. And sure, he can "choose" to walk away. Kind of like I can "choose" not to pay my taxes, or "choose" not to register my car. But there are legal consequences if I make those "choices", and there are for the man as well. Legally, he is responsible for that child, and will be held accountable if he "chooses" not to be.

Again, I think you're placing all the blame unfairly on the father. All of your statements can be argued just as well against women. If women didn't have unprotected sex with men who didn't want babies, then there would also be fewer single parents households. If they didn't have sex with men who don't want babies, they wouldn't have to clog up the courts trying to force those men to support the children. "To say that women aren't making poor choices is absolutely presposterous, given the statistics on families in this country." All just as valid with the evidence you're presenting.

And I wasn't arguing the medical decision, but I really don't think you want to compare it to life-threatening diseases. If everyone could make that choice, then you would not have anything to say about those people who desperately want amputations in that other thread. To them, that is probably a necessary procedure also.

Again, I said nothing about whether or not a man should be able to decide on the risks a woman should take. I just don't think he should have consequences invented to make his role in this something that it isn't. A man doesn't take those risks when he has sex, a woman does. The law doesn't reflect that. I never said he should be able to make the woman's choice for her, but he should have the right to make the same choice she gets to.

Here's how I see it. The issue at hand is this: deciding that you don't want to be responsible for a baby you created. Naturally, biologically, the situation is unfair for women. A man has no direct consequences, and a woman can get pregnant. If Timmy has an apple, and Johnny doesn't, does it make the situation fair to give Johnny one and then take away Timmy's? No, you either give Johnny one, or take away Timmy's. Then they either both have one, or neither of them has one. If you want to say, a woman has to deal with the consequence of a baby, and a man is legally responsible for that baby as well, then that is fair. If you want to say, both can choose not to be responsible for the baby, fine. But to say, let's give a woman the right to decide not to be responsible, but also impose a new consequence on men just because society tends to be unfair to women more is also unfair. It just happens to be unfair to men, which still doesn't make it ok to me.

 

[jillio]

I didn't say that a man should be able to choose for a woman. I said that a woman shouldn't be able to choose for a man. And sure, he can "choose" to walk away. Kind of like I can "choose" not to pay my taxes, or "choose" not to register my car. But there are legal consequences if I make those "choices", and there are for the man as well. Legally, he is responsible for that child, and will be held accountable if he "chooses" not to be.

And there are legal consequences for the woman if she chooses to not support her children. Just the same as their are legal consequences for the man who chooses not to support his children. Men are not the only ones who pay child support, and men are not the only ones that go to jail for failure to do so. Again, the laws are equitable in this case. Why? Because both are capable of earning an income and supporting their child. However, both are not capable of pregnancy. You are asking for a type of equity that is physically and legally impossible. Legally, a female is just as responsible for a child that has been born as is the man.

Again, I think you're placing all the blame unfairly on the father. All of your statements can be argued just as well against women. If women didn't have unprotected sex with men who didn't want babies, then there would also be fewer single parents households. If they didn't have sex with men who don't want babies, they wouldn't have to clog up the courts trying to force those men to support the children. "To say that women aren't making poor choices is absolutely presposterous, given the statistics on families in this country." All just as valid with the evidence you're presenting.

I'm not placing blame on anyone. I'm telling you what the reality of the situation is. The burden of child raising and maintenance of a home for those children falls far more often to the female and the male, and the disparate number of female headed single parent households in this country show that very clearly. Your argument about sex is moot. If men didn't have unprotected sex with women who don't want children, they wouldn't have an issue over whether they had a voice when a woman chooses an abortion. That all goes back to personal responsibility. Women and men both make poor choices. I certainly haven't disputed that. But when it comes to the responsiblity for an unwanted pregnancy, or a pregnancy that carries a risk of complication, it is the woman that carries the lifelong responsibility of that choice, not the man.

And I wasn't arguing the medical decision, but I really don't think you want to compare it to life-threatening diseases. If everyone could make that choice, then you would not have anything to say about those people who desperately want amputations in that other thread. To them, that is probably a necessary procedure also.

You cannot compare pregnancy to a mental illness. To do so is not only insensitive, it is fallicious. And I said, the decision is left to the doctor and the woman when neccessity is the issue. Doctors don't amputate limbs as a treatment for mental disorders. At least not in this day and time.

Again, I said nothing about whether or not a man should be able to decide on the risks a woman should take. I just don't think he should have consequences invented to make his role in this something that it isn't. A man doesn't take those risks when he has sex, a woman does. The law doesn't reflect that. I never said he should be able to make the woman's choice for her, but he should have the right to make the same choice she gets to.

His situation is not the same as the woman's and therefore, his rights are not the same. That is the whole point. You cannot achieve the kind of equity you are proposing until men and women are biologically the same being. And the law does reflect the differences in risk. That is why a man has no say in a woman's right to choose an abortion. A man can't get pregnant, therefore, a man has no right to choose or interfere with the choice of the woman who can get pregnant. The law reflects the reality of the situation. The man is not pregnant. The woman is.
Here's how I see it. The issue at hand is this: deciding that you don't want to be responsible for a baby you created. Naturally, biologically, the situation is unfair for women. A man has no direct consequences, and a woman can get pregnant. If Timmy has an apple, and Johnny doesn't, does it make the situation fair to give Johnny one and then take away Timmy's? No, you either give Johnny one, or take away Timmy's. Then they either both have one, or neither of them has one. If you want to say, a woman has to deal with the consequence of a baby, and a man is legally responsible for that baby as well, then that is fair. If you want to say, both can choose not to be responsible for the baby, fine. But to say, let's give a woman the right to decide not to be responsible, but also impose a new consequence on men just because society tends to be unfair to women more is also unfair. It just happens to be unfair to men, which still doesn't make it ok to me.

Apples and division of them is hardly an apt comparison to a woman's right to choose. Please don't use such fallicy. Both can choose not to be responsible for a baby. Both have the option of choosing not to be in a child's life. If a woman chooses to have a child and to deal with the consequences of such, then the father of that child can also be made to be legally responsible for that child. So both do have a choice where the responsibility to a child is concerned. But we are not talking about legal responsibility for a child that has been born. The laws are very equitable in those cases, and choice is available to both men and women in those cases. What we are talking about is the right to terminate a pregnancy. A man cannot be forced to provide support for a fetus. He cannot be forced to provide support for the woman carrying that fetus. He cannot be forced to provide medical care for that fetus. He cannot be forced to carry the pregnancy for her. He cannot be forced to provide support for a possibility. The responsibility for that falls squarely on the woman in these cases, and therefore, the decision also falls squarely on her shoulders.