A woman's right?

[lsfoster]

Again, you keep bringing up whether or not the man has a voice in the woman's decision. That is not what I'm arguing. And I'm not saying that the woman doesn't have responsibilities if she chooses to keep the baby. But that is the whole problem: "if she chooses to keep the baby". My point is that during the nine months before the child is born, the woman has been given an extra choice that the man has not. I'm not talking about the choices they made when they decided to have sex, and I'm not talking about the choices they have after the baby has been born. While the woman is pregnant, she gets the right to say "I don't want to have this baby", and the man doesn't. Not "he should get to make that decision for her", but he should have the right to make the same statement. A woman can opt out of the responsibilities she would have if the baby were born by saying that. A man can't.

The situation isn't fair. It is never going to be. But there are ways to make the laws more fair than they currently are. If a woman can say "I don't want this baby" during the pregnancy, and have no responsibilities for the baby after that, then the man should have the same option. Otherwise, your argument that the situation is biologically unfair could be used just as well to argue that the situation is unfair for women, and they should just have to deal with the fact that they are pregnant.

And I know that you can't compare pregnancy and the desire to amputate your limbs. That's my whole point. You compared getting pregnant to cancer. Just as insensitive. And the issue of necessity is all in the person's mind. You can't really say that most women get abortions because it is vitally necessary for their health. It's something they choose. I can guarantee that someone with a mental illness feels much more strongly about a limb they think they shouldn't have than a woman who doesn't want to have a baby. Why shouldn't that be a decision they make with their doctor? It's their body. If they don't want their arm, who are you to say they should have to keep it? It's their choice. If you want your arm, then choose to keep yours.

And the example of apples was just an analogy. In this case, I do think it is a good comparison. During the pregnancy, in terms of biology, a woman has an extra consequence that a man doesn't. Somehow, to correct that, the answer has been to give a woman an extra choice. Fine. But to take that a step farther and then remove a choice from the man makes things unbalanced and unfair.

 

[jillio]

Again, you keep bringing up whether or not the man has a voice in the woman's decision. That is not what I'm arguing. And I'm not saying that the woman doesn't have responsibilities if she chooses to keep the baby. But that is the whole problem: "if she chooses to keep the baby". My point is that during the nine months before the child is born, the woman has been given an extra choice that the man has not. I'm not talking about the choices they made when they decided to have sex, and I'm not talking about the choices they have after the baby has been born. While the woman is pregnant, she gets the right to say "I don't want to have this baby", and the man doesn't. Not "he should get to make that decision for her", but he should have the right to make the same statement. A woman can opt out of the responsibilities she would have if the baby were born by saying that. A man can't.

During the 9 months that a woman is pregnant, she is also given an additional responsibility that the man isn't. Based on that responsibility, she is also given an additional choice. Nothing prevents the man from voicing his opinion. He is perfectly entitled to voice his opinion. No law restricts him from doing so. What he is restricted from doing is making a choice based on the fact that he does not have the additional responsibility during gestation, or in this case, during the first trimester of gestation. The woman has that responsibility, and therefore, is awarded the right to choice based on that responsibility.

The situation isn't fair. It is never going to be. But there are ways to make the laws more fair than they currently are. If a woman can say "I don't want this baby" during the pregnancy, and have no responsibilities for the baby after that, then the man should have the same option. Otherwise, your argument that the situation is biologically unfair could be used just as well to argue that the situation is unfair for women, and they should just have to deal with the fact that they are pregnant.

Life is not fair. I don't know where you ever got the idea that it was. And a court of law cannot pass rulings that are founded in biological differences. No law in the world will make a man able to carry a fetus, and therefore, they cannot assign the same responsibility to a man for pregnancy that a woman has. No law in the land can make a man biologically responsible for gestation, labor and birth. No matter how you argue it, this is a difference that does not fall under law. It falls under biology. Law can only rule on what is. And what is, is that the woman is pregnant and the man isn't.


And I know that you can't compare pregnancy and the desire to amputate your limbs. That's my whole point. You compared getting pregnant to cancer. Just as insensitive. And the issue of necessity is all in the person's mind. You can't really say that most women get abortions because it is vitally necessary for their health. It's something they choose. I can guarantee that someone with a mental illness feels much more strongly about a limb they think they shouldn't have than a woman who doesn't want to have a baby. Why shouldn't that be a decision they make with their doctor? It's their body. If they don't want their arm, who are you to say they should have to keep it? It's their choice. If you want your arm, then choose to keep yours.

No, it isn't as insensitive. A cancer is a growth in the body that is removed to preserve health. Very often, in order to preserve a woman's health, the growth that is a fetus is removed. These are both physical phenomena. Mental illness is not a growth, nor can it be removed by a surgical procedure. Mental health is not preserved, nor maintained, via surgical means.
And the example of apples was just an analogy. In this case, I do think it is a good comparison. During the pregnancy, in terms of biology, a woman has an extra consequence that a man doesn't. Somehow, to correct that, the answer has been to give a woman an extra choice. Fine. But to take that a step farther and then remove a choice from the man makes things unbalanced and unfair.

The choice has not been removed from the man. He never had it to begin with. The choice was simply given to the woman based on the fundamental principle of right to privacy regarding medical decisions that affect her body, and they ruled that that right to privacy between a woman and her physician is to be upheld legally. You cannot remove what has never been there. Man has never had the choice of whether he would carry a pregnancy to term or not, because he cannot get pregnant. And that leads us right back to the basic biological differences between a man and a woman, and the fact that law can only be passed regarding what is. If and when a man is able to get pregnant, he too will be able to decide what he chooses to do in regard to that pregnancy. Until then, he does not have the responsibility of the pregnancy, and therefore, does not have a right to make a decision regarding another's body.

 

[lsfoster]

Life is not fair. I don't know where you ever got the idea that it was. And a court of law cannot pass rulings that are founded in biological differences. No law in the world will make a man able to carry a fetus, and therefore, they cannot assign the same responsibility to a man for pregnancy that a woman has.

Exactly. That's what they're trying to do: make him equally responsible. He isn't. There is no reason to hold him accountable for the next 18 years simply because life is less fair for women in this case.

I think we might just have to agree to disagree, jillio. Which I'm totally fine with doing. You've argued your side calmly and rationally. I just think we disagree with the fundamentals of the issue.

 

[jillio]

Exactly. That's what they're trying to do: make him equally responsible. He isn't. There is no reason to hold him accountable for the next 18 years simply because life is less fair for women in this case.

I think we might just have to agree to disagree, jillio. Which I'm totally fine with doing. You've argued your side calmly and rationally. I just think we disagree with the fundamentals of the issue.

He is equally responsible under the law for a living child, not for a pregnancy. The choice occurs during the first trimester of the pregnancy.

And I have appreciated debating the issue with you as well. It is refreshing to have a debate that does not deteriorate into name calling and insult. I will concede that you have supported your view well, and therefore, will agree to disagree.

 

[KarissaMann05]

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.

Actually, I was not talked about adoption. My question is: "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?"

What I meant, I keep seeing many women/girls demand them to have a child support. It was why I asked this one main question.

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.

Rest of all one post you wrote, I pretty understand except this: If it's okay for him to have a say, then why you said men shouldn't have a "no" say? It's kinda of confusion for me. I meant - Okay, *thinking* ... as long as it is legal, I do think that man can have a say to influence the woman’s choice. The woman needs to take a constitution and consideration for her own choice. So.. I cannot make compassions with any argument that lesson’s personal responsibility, with the expectation that everyone else should just submit in silence, and this unfavorable reactions to one’s own choices that are totally not fair in my opinion. It is pretty unbelievably juvenile if you ask me.

If the sentence said, ‘Should men have a say in what a woman does with *her child’, then it is an incorrect statement. It’s not just only hers, it’s their child because the child is part of the man’s blood because she is carrying his child. This goes back to the argument about biology of the science, so that is pretty sexist to me in my opinion. Just because the man cannot carry the child that doesn’t mean it is not his child. It took the both of them to create a baby because it is belong to both of them, not just the mother. Secondly, in the argument of DNA, the mother and the father gave equal amounts. Well, if somebody else thinks the man never care about having a child that he is never affected when an abortion happens without his consent, in another hand, if somebody also thinks that baby is nothing more than developing sperm to a man, then he/she is extremely mistaken. I meant, I really think if the father seriously cares about the child and is wanting to support it then they should at least to have a small say in the matter.



But I can see your point is. Great post

 

[SFShawn13]

How the hell is it in the best interest of the CHILD to deny him/her child support?

Abortion results in a child NOT EXISTING. Not paying child support seems more like a "neener neener neener" attitude.

As I see it, we don’t owe grown men and grown women any of this fairness. Y’all are talking about well the woman has xx options and the man only has xyz options and we have to make this fair for both sexes. I just find that silly. The only one we have to be fair to is the CHILD. Period.

I care strictly about what is best for children. I don’t care if things are fair for grown women or grown men, as long as living breathing children are getting their needs met. Living in poverty is NOT in a child’s best interests.



Just because a guy pays a few dollars doesn’t mean he is going to be a part of the child’s life. Even $100 can make a difference as to what kind of life the child has. Every penny counts.

 

[jillio]

Rest of all one post you wrote, I pretty understand except this: If it's okay for him to have a say, then why you said men shouldn't have a "no" say? It's kinda of confusion for me. I meant - Okay, *thinking* ... as long as it is legal, I do think that man can have a say to influence the woman’s choice. The woman needs to take a constitution and consideration for her own choice. So.. I cannot make compassions with any argument that lesson’s personal responsibility, with the expectation that everyone else should just submit in silence, and this unfavorable reactions to one’s own choices that are totally not fair in my opinion. It is pretty unbelievably juvenile if you ask me.

If the sentence said, ‘Should men have a say in what a woman does with *her child’, then it is an incorrect statement. It’s not just only hers, it’s their child because the child is part of the man’s blood because she is carrying his child. This goes back to the argument about biology of the science, so that is pretty sexist to me in my opinion. Just because the man cannot carry the child that doesn’t mean it is not his child. It took the both of them to create a baby because it is belong to both of them, not just the mother. Secondly, in the argument of DNA, the mother and the father gave equal amounts. Well, if somebody else thinks the man never care about having a child that he is never affected when an abortion happens without his consent, in another hand, if somebody also thinks that baby is nothing more than developing sperm to a man, then he/she is extremely mistaken. I meant, I really think if the father seriously cares about the child and is wanting to support it then they should at least to have a small say in the matter.



But I can see your point is. Great post

Thanks, Karissa. Let me explain to you about the influence the man has. If the woman and the man wish to discuss the pregnancy, there is absolutely nothing to prevent him from stating that he is opposed to the abortion. They can discuss it at length. But that discussion has no legal bearing on her choice. That is a personal matter between the two of them. That is something that the law cannot rule on. If they want to discuss it, the man is free to state his opinion to her as often and in as many ways as he chooses. I have never said that the man should not be permitted to state his opinion and his feelings to his partner. What I have said is that outside of that, he has no legal recourse to force the woman to make a choice that is the same as his choice. He cannot legally mandate that a woman have an abortion because he does not want a child, nor can he legally mandate that a woman carry the pregnancy to term because he does want a child. He can voice his feelings on the matter to the woman involved. Nothing to stop him from doing that. He can talk until he is blue in the face in an attempt to influence her to agree with his feelings. But, if she decides not to agree, he has no legal means to force her to do what he wants her to do either way.

Look at it this way. A man wants to have sex with a woman. She does not want to have sex. He can talk and cajole and attempt to convince her to feel the same way he does. If she listens and decides that he has made a good point, she can decide to go along with what he wants. But if she says no, and he forces her to comply with his wishes, he has invaded her personal boudaries and forced her into a position of having no say or control over her own body. He takes control of her body, and her body does not belong to him. It belongs to her. She is free to choose to share it with him, but if she chooses not to, he cannot force her to do what he wants. If he does, he is guilty of rape, because the law says that a woman is free to choose what she wants to do with her own body.

 

[jillio]

How the hell is it in the best interest of the CHILD to deny him/her child support?

Abortion results in a child NOT EXISTING. Not paying child support seems more like a "neener neener neener" attitude.

As I see it, we don’t owe grown men and grown women any of this fairness. Y’all are talking about well the woman has xx options and the man only has xyz options and we have to make this fair for both sexes. I just find that silly. The only one we have to be fair to is the CHILD. Period.

I care strictly about what is best for children. I don’t care if things are fair for grown women or grown men, as long as living breathing children are getting their needs met. Living in poverty is NOT in a child’s best interests.



Just because a guy pays a few dollars doesn’t mean he is going to be a part of the child’s life. Even $100 can make a difference as to what kind of life the child has. Every penny counts.

Couldn't agree with you more. As do the courts. Child support is not about what is fair for the adults. It is about what is in the best interest of the child involved. It is an entirely separate argument from abortion rights. Child support was brought into the abortion discussion as a way to show that because a man can be forced to pay support for a living breathing child, he should also have a choice about abortion. It was a fallicious argument then, and it remains so.

 

[lsfoster]

Couldn't agree with you more. As do the courts. Child support is not about what is fair for the adults. It is about what is in the best interest of the child involved. It is an entirely separate argument from abortion rights. Child support was brought into the abortion discussion as a way to show that because a man can be forced to pay support for a living breathing child, he should also have a choice about abortion. It was a fallicious argument then, and it remains so.

I keep saying this, but that's not why I brought it up at all. I brought it up as a way to state that you are inconsistent in your statements that "you can't take away from others a choice you want to have yourself". You want women to have a choice that you have taken away from men. I have said time and time again that it is not about him having a choice about abortion.

And I really don't think you can say it's because you're worried about the welfare of the baby if you have no problem telling the mother she can kill it if it suits her fancy. I you really cared about the baby, then the answer would be to work on solving the many economic problems in this country, fixing the health care system, and providing better sex ed and contraceptives to everyone. Then you could start getting rid of the many excuses that women use to justify their abortions. Not to say "well, if your mother doesn't decide to kill you, we'll just force your father to be held responsible for the next 18 years". Your arguments aren't consistent. You hold up one set of standards and morals for women, and a totally different one for men.

I'll say it again, during the pregnancy, women have the choice to remove themselves from the baby's life, men don't. As you've said many times, don't take away a choice from others that you want to keep yourself.

 

[heartwheel]

All I know is that if anybody had the audacity to inflict their beliefs of how I should manage my body, I would probably go off the deep end. It wouldn't be pretty.

 

[jillio]

I keep saying this, but that's not why I brought it up at all. I brought it up as a way to state that you are inconsistent in your statements that "you can't take away from others a choice you want to have yourself". You want women to have a choice that you have taken away from men. I have said time and time again that it is not about him having a choice about abortion.

And I really don't think you can say it's because you're worried about the welfare of the baby if you have no problem telling the mother she can kill it if it suits her fancy. I you really cared about the baby, then the answer would be to work on solving the many economic problems in this country, fixing the health care system, and providing better sex ed and contraceptives to everyone. Then you could start getting rid of the many excuses that women use to justify their abortions. Not to say "well, if your mother doesn't decide to kill you, we'll just force your father to be held responsible for the next 18 years". Your arguments aren't consistent. You hold up one set of standards and morals for women, and a totally different one for men.

I'll say it again, during the pregnancy, women have the choice to remove themselves from the baby's life, men don't. As you've said many times, don't take away a choice from others that you want to keep yourself.

Again, lsfoster, the choice has not been taken away from men. They never had it. Until they can carry a fetus in their body, they will not have it. Once they can, the same law that offers choice to women will offer the same choice to men.

My arguments are extremely consistent. You cannot decide law on what isn't. It must be decided on what is. A woman has a right to choice what she will do with her own body, a man has the same right. Women were denied the legal and safe option for making decisions regarding their own bodies, while men have historically had that choice. The law has made equal what favored men prior. Now both have the right to determine what will or will not be done to their own bodies. You are proposing to take what has been made equal, and make it inequitable once again.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Thanks, Karissa. Let me explain to you about the influence the man has. If the woman and the man wish to discuss the pregnancy, there is absolutely nothing to prevent him from stating that he is opposed to the abortion. They can discuss it at length. But that discussion has no legal bearing on her choice. That is a personal matter between the two of them. That is something that the law cannot rule on. If they want to discuss it, the man is free to state his opinion to her as often and in as many ways as he chooses. I have never said that the man should not be permitted to state his opinion and his feelings to his partner. What I have said is that outside of that, he has no legal recourse to force the woman to make a choice that is the same as his choice. He cannot legally mandate that a woman have an abortion because he does not want a child, nor can he legally mandate that a woman carry the pregnancy to term because he does want a child. He can voice his feelings on the matter to the woman involved. Nothing to stop him from doing that. He can talk until he is blue in the face in an attempt to influence her to agree with his feelings. But, if she decides not to agree, he has no legal means to force her to do what he wants her to do either way.

Look at it this way. A man wants to have sex with a woman. She does not want to have sex. He can talk and cajole and attempt to convince her to feel the same way he does. If she listens and decides that he has made a good point, she can decide to go along with what he wants. But if she says no, and he forces her to comply with his wishes, he has invaded her personal boudaries and forced her into a position of having no say or control over her own body. He takes control of her body, and her body does not belong to him. It belongs to her. She is free to choose to share it with him, but if she chooses not to, he cannot force her to do what he wants. If he does, he is guilty of rape, because the law says that a woman is free to choose what she wants to do with her own body.

Ah, gotcha! Understood.
Hm.. A few things that I personally disagreed with you but I think we might want to take Isfoster's post, the "disagree to agree" comment. Thanks for your fine explanation since we did the debate pretty well.

Cheers~

 

[jillio]

Ah, gotcha! Understood.
Hm.. A few things that I personally disagreed with you but I think we might want to take Isfoster's post, the "disagree to agree" comment. Thanks for your fine explanation since we did the debate pretty well.

Cheers~

Cheers to you, too!

 

[Byrdie714]

I keep saying this, but that's not why I brought it up at all. I brought it up as a way to state that you are inconsistent in your statements that "you can't take away from others a choice you want to have yourself". You want women to have a choice that you have taken away from men. I have said time and time again that it is not about him having a choice about abortion.

And I really don't think you can say it's because you're worried about the welfare of the baby if you have no problem telling the mother she can kill it if it suits her fancy. I you really cared about the baby, then the answer would be to work on solving the many economic problems in this country, fixing the health care system, and providing better sex ed and contraceptives to everyone. Then you could start getting rid of the many excuses that women use to justify their abortions. Not to say "well, if your mother doesn't decide to kill you, we'll just force your father to be held responsible for the next 18 years". Your arguments aren't consistent. You hold up one set of standards and morals for women, and a totally different one for men.

I'll say it again, during the pregnancy, women have the choice to remove themselves from the baby's life, men don't. As you've said many times, don't take away a choice from others that you want to keep yourself.

First thing I want say: HUH?! --especially in the bolded part!

Secondly--morals and standards and expectations are different in our society between men and women.

 

[faire_jour]

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.

Not true. If a woman doesn't put a man's name on the birth certificate, she can adopt the baby without his permission.

 

[jillio]

First thing I want say: HUH?! --especially in the bolded part!

Secondly--morals and standards and expectations are different in our society between men and women.

Exactly gender differences, not to mention the basic biological differences involved in applying the right to choose laws. How can you choose to end a pregnancy if you can't get pregnant?

 

[Byrdie714]

Not true. If a woman doesn't put a man's name on the birth certificate, she can adopt the baby without his permission.

How can she adopt the baby if she has given birth to the baby?

 

[jillio]

How can she adopt the baby if she has given birth to the baby?

 

[jillio]

Not true. If a woman doesn't put a man's name on the birth certificate, she can adopt the baby without his permission.

Again, faire jour, you are talking about a child that has already been born. Different topic entirely from a woman's right to choose a legal medical procedure in the first trimester of gestation.

And the man's name no doubt would be on the birth certificate if he had bothered to be involved with the pregnancy. Any man that is concerned about this can demand a DNA and has legal recourse to stop the adoption and have his name put on the birth certificate.

 

[Daredevel7]

Jillio's world:

Woman wants baby / Man doesnt: Man has to pay child support. Boo for men!
Woman doesn't want baby / Man does: Man is sad because of abortion. Boo for men!

lsfoster's world:

Woman wants baby / Man doesn't: Woman gets no $. Man is free. Boo for women!
Woman doesn't want baby / Man does: Man takes care of baby? Boo for women! (since they have to carry the baby to full term)

My conclusion: Jillio hates men and lsfoster hates women.


Interesting scenario: What if the man wanted the baby (woman doesn't), and asked her to keep it and he will take care of it, THEN he asks her for child support...?