Reproductive Rights | MensRights

[–]dm28780 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]unitedamerika14 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mbjhug5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]catfingers642 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mbjhug9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]highdra0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Guys, go out and try these. I'm a guy, and these are the only ones I'll buy. My girlfriend prefers them too. I JUST got home from buying 15 of them, actually. They are so much better than regular condoms in many ways, allow me to expand.

They're not tight, and they don't squeeze your dick so they're way more comfortable.
It stays in place so you actually feel friction on your dick, as opposed to regular condom that would only allow friction in her (although it does move around a little so I think both parties get some, as opposed to her getting all of it)
They're easier to put on than regular condoms. I'd always put regular ones on inside out partially unroll it and fuck it all up. These, you can't do that with. It's like a loose fitting plastic sock, you just drop it over.
They don't break. I got sick of thinking "I should probably stop now... don't think this one's gonna hold up much longer".

That's just what I can think of right now, there's probably more ways I forgot about. Just one thing though, don't use the inner ring and have her insert it. Just take the ring out, toss it, drape the thing over your cock. and proceed with coitus. So, basically just use it as a male condom.

Take the ring out!!

[–]ExpendableOne-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Krakowianka4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

lol, wut? How are they any less effective or any more difficult to use? That doesn't even make sense. At best, you could maybe argue that not as many advancements have been made towards the female condom and, even then, that still goes back to the same issue of women not wanting to use them and men being told to get over it(sales/money tends to drive progress). Either way, it's still completely bullshit to assume that the reason couples would use female condoms is because they are "less effective or more difficult to use", because the majority of men would still probably prefer to use them over male condoms being given the choice. All other things being equal, that would mean that you would have an even split between male/female condoms being used(or maybe a 40/60 split), and it's not even close to that.

[–]Krakowianka2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

female condoms experience a higher failure rate than male condoms.

You would have to show some proof for that, really. Typically, as long as people understand how to use them, the rate of failure is close to zero(at the very least close to condoms). That is not enough to account for the disparity.

More difficult - it's a lot easier to roll a male condom down an erect penis than it is to insert a female condom.

Not necessarily but, even if that was the case, that still wouldn't really make enough of a different to account for the disparity. Something being "slightly harder to put on"(for some anyways) wouldn't be enough of an excuse for the majority of men to just give up on, or be cut off from, something that would be far more comfortable and enjoyable to them.

To say that it boils down to expecting men to bear "loss of comfort/sensation" is hilariously melodramatic.

And calling it "melodramatic" is a pretty condescending way of dismissing the issue, as well as the problems which are underlined by it without addressing any of the points being made. You are either oblivious to the issues or simply apathetic to them but, either way, you are in the wrong. If you don't understand or care about gender inequality, or sexual inequality, than what are you even doing here?

[–]Krakowianka1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You would have to show some proof for that, really. Typically, as long as people understand how to use them, the rate of failure is close to zero.

["Male condoms are 82–98% effective at preventing pregnancy... Female condoms are 79–95% effective at preventing pregnancy." ] (http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm#5)

Not necessarily but, even if that was the case, that still wouldn't really make enough of a different to account for the disparity. Something being "slightly harder to put on" wouldn't be enough of an excuse for the majority of men to just give up entirely on something that would be far more comfortable to them.

It is the case. They are damned hard to get in place correctly, which increases the risk of failure. I'm not against using female condoms, but the sheer convenience and ease of use of the male condom definitely has a lot to do with how prevalent its use is.

And calling it "melodramatic" is a pretty condescending way of dismissing the issue, as well as the problems which are underlined by it without addressing any of the points being made. You are either oblivious to the issues or simply apathetic to them but, either way, you are in the wrong.

Sure, only as condescending as "but we are just simply expected to bare that loss of comfort/sensation anyway. Funny how that works. Must be another one of those male privileges again." was. You are insistent that the only reason female condoms are less prevalent is because women don't want to lose sensation and don't care about any sensation loss men may experience. That is being melodramatic.

If you don't understand or care about gender inequality, or sexual inequality, than what are you even doing here?

I don't see a discussion on male vs female condoms as a gender or sexual inequality issue. For the topic in general, as per the OP... that's another matter entirely.

[–]highdra0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, that's kind of my whole point. The real thing is obviously much more enjoyable and the friction is a major part of that sensation. Men don't like to use male condoms because they lose that friction/sensation and find it uncomfortable. Women don't like to use female condoms because they lose that friction/sensation and find it uncomfortable. Yet, somehow, there is a significant disparity in use/popularity between the two. A disparity that heavily favors women(pretty much entirely) and essentially just falls to a unanimous social sentiment of "girls come first" and "the discomfort and loss of sensation that men end up experience does not matter". This a problem. Not just because male condoms are pretty much the only form of male contraction other than abstinence(which is not a healthy form of deprivation) or vasectomy(which is permanent or semi-permanent) but because it shows a very big disparity in terms of sexual equality, or sexual value, and in terms of personal/social predisposition towards men and male sexuality as well.

If a guy and a girl hooked up and the girl pulled out a male condom, he would be expected to wear it proudly, perform without complaint or care about his discomfort or loss of sensation(and consider himself lucky to even get the chance to use it), and would be called a deadbeat, a loser or a pussy for refusing to have sex with that girl because of the condom. If the guy pulled out a female condom for the girl to wear, however, she would probably find it offensive, get mad, refuse it outright and still call him a deadbeat, loser and/or pussy as well, and she would be cheered by other women for refusing to have sex with a guy using a female condom. These reactions may not always happen but they would be a lot closer to the typical predisposition, and those predisposition stem from double-standards and a disparity in sexual equality.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nikki850 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]enkidusfriend10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]holierthanmao1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I honestly have no clue. I just know that's what he asked her. For almost the last decade I've been with the same woman so I'm kinda out of practice with this stuff. He might have assumed she was a whore and was fucking other people and if that's the case that's pretty fucked. We might be divorced, but we're still friends. We didn't even use lawyers.

I have 3 kids and all were delivered naturally (no c-section).

EDIT:

It's pretty hard, because I think my sons should be with me, but at the same time they should be with their sister. Their sister should be with their mom. Honestly, their mom is a great woman and should be an example for women everywhere. Our kids read way above their level because of her and because of me they're way above their level at math and science. I'm about to have the ability (again go me?) to support them and support myself. It sounds shitty, but I'd rather buy them a house and support them even if she's with someone else, because my kids will know each other and be taken care of.

I am however going to get paid via a shell corp so I don't get fucked if she decides to go crazy again. That sounds horrible, but I have no problem taking care of them. I have problem with being raped financially if she goes postal.

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nikki85-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]enkidusfriend4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]uncleoce1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Canadian4Paul11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]frosttenchi6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]frosttenchi0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GaryMutherFuckinOak4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoveThemApples3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheSuperSax2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGDBatman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dm2871 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mbjhug4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheSuperSax1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoveThemApples-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cl3ft-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NothingCrazy65 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics40 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NothingCrazy12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NothingCrazy8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wellfuthen1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NothingCrazy1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wonderess28 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Since when is "several" people a blanket accusation?

Because it accuses "several" people of something with no evidence.

A more accurate "blanket" description of this group is that most people here ARE pro-choice.

This seems to be accurate.

I don't think these anti-choice people that pop up on here every now and then are representative of this group.

Much better.

Also you said "many" in your first comment to which I was responding.

If I went to a feminist thread and said many feminists support castration as the only acceptable male reproductive choice I don't think I'd fare so well (actually I'd be banned at "hi guys, as a man I . . .")

Why so defensive? Is it because my username is emotionally charged for you?

To be honest I hadn't noticed your username. I usually don't unless the same person pops up in my queue multiple times.

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've seen some reservation in situations where the man wants the child but the woman doesn't. HOWEVER, I do notice plenty of people here saying in the end, it's her body.

I've seen people saying it sucks BUT it's ultimately her choice.

And perhaps a few that are anti-abortion, but not because they want to take rights away from women specifically.

I don't think it's rare to find feminists who support such things. In fact, I noticed a mention of it on the front page here.

Could you post the link?

Every interaction I've had with a feminist on this regard has essentially boiled down to "the kid takes precedent, if you won't want to be parent keep it in your pants".

It's not RARE, it's just that you're not looking or you only see one side. I think it's more rare to find a feminist who DOESN'T support such rights.

Er, no.

Would you mind posting a new thread in one of the feminist forums (I've been banned) asking the feminist view on this issue? I doubt that the majority will say men should have this right.

I can find you some more examples, but are you really going to accept them over your own distaste of feminism that seems to be largely cemented?

Present your sources and we can find out together.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well, if you can get this through your head: If feminists don't support financial abortion, it is NOT because they don't support equal rights for men, it's because men having the opportunity (this isn't a "right") to never ever have to deal with a pregnancy they helped cause if they don't want to IS NOT EQUAL. Think about it this way, women have to "deal" with pregnancy anyways; they can't walk away from a pregnancy straight up...and, NO, abortion is not simply just walking away from a pregnancy. It's an expensive procedure.

Pregnancy is one of those things where men and women obviously are not equal. In the end, when pregnancy happens, it's a major decision for women to either have an abortion or make the even bigger decision to go through the pregnancy. In the end, it's her body, her choice.

There IS no logical equivalent to "her body, her choice" for men and there won't ever be, as they will never experience pregnancy.

If this supports your idea that feminism hates men's rights, then that's obviously something you feel strongly about and little anyone says (especially feminists) will change your mind away from this particular bias.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If feminists don't support financial abortion, it is NOT because they don't support equal rights for men, it's because men having the opportunity (this isn't a "right") to never ever have to deal with a pregnancy they helped cause if they don't want to IS NOT EQUAL.

Yeah because women never get this option. They don't have legal (often subsidized) abortions. They don't have the right to unilateral abandonment.

No, feminists don't support it because giving men anything resembling reproductive equality with women would take a lot of privileges away from women.

Think about it this way, women have to "deal" with pregnancy anyways; they can't walk away from a pregnancy straight up...and, NO, abortion is not simply just walking away from a pregnancy. It's an expensive procedure.

Oh well if it's expensive then there's no way around it . . . except I dunno, maybe make the guy pay half if he wants to opt out? That seems fair.

Pregnancy is one of those things where men and women obviously are not equal

Funny how those things where we're "obviously not equal" always seem to lead to female privileges and male responsibilities.

In the end, when pregnancy happens, it's a major decision for women to either have an abortion or make the even bigger decision to go through the pregnancy. In the end, it's her body, her choice.

Her body, her choice, his obligation.

If this supports your idea that feminism hates men's rights, then that's obviously something you feel strongly about and little anyone says (especially feminists) will change your mind away from this particular bias.

Well staunchly opposing men's rights does kind of give people the impression that you're opposed to it.

[–]Celda0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Celda1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm just gonna go ahead and let you maintain your cognitive bias here: I think financial abortion is a bad idea. Actually, it's a downright HORRIBLE idea for society, not just affecting women but men, too, who will undoubtedly grow up with less and less fathers around. I thought you all stressed the importance of fathers in children's lives here?

You're probably not in a place to listen to my reasons , as you are celebrating how "right" you were in some bullshit internet conversation. But if you actually can step back from your clear agenda to prove me wrong or paint me into the man hating feminist you know I must be....

then I could go more into why the idea of a financial abortion is an extremely dangerous idea. And then I could go into why trying to come up with things just to "spite" a social group you despise has actual negative social ramifications, but who cares about those, right?

[–]Celda0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The hell are you talking about when you say cognitive bias? Do you even know what the term means?

If I say that most feminists oppose financial abortion, that is not a "cognitive bias" - that is simply an accurate description of feminist positions.

As for the other issue (namely, whether financial abortion should be allowed or not) - sorry, you are wrong on this.

The fact is, right now any woman can force any man into parenthood against his will (assuming the man is not infertile and that the man and woman are in a sexual relationship).

By this I mean that a woman legally has the right to do so, and in practical terms has the ability to do so. (since the only birth control men have are condoms, which can be sabotaged)

This is wrong.

Your point here: "I thought you all stressed the importance of fathers in children's lives here?"

is a logical fallacy - MRAs do believe that fathers are important for the development of children, and that fathers who are fit and willing to parent should not be denied parental rights without good cause.

And they also believe that men should not be forced into parenthood against their will.

This is consistent, just as one can consistently believe in "the importance of mothers in children's lives" but also that women have the right to abortion, or abandon their actually-born children (adoption, safe haven).

And then I could go into why trying to come up with things just to "spite" a social group you despise has actual negative social ramifications, but who cares about those, right?

The fact that you seem to think that the reasons for financial abortion are to "spite a social group" (which group? women? feminists) shows your lack of intelligence.

This is analogous to claiming that supporting abortion rights is merely to "spite" men who do not wish to see their potential children killed, rather than abortion directly benefiting women.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Celda1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Celda1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Celda1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

To further expand upon what I was saying in another comment:

Allowing men to have a financial abortion literally gives them all of the power in reproductive choice (bear with me here, I Know you think women hold all of the power in reproductive rights now). Women's choices, then, would now be second to what the man decides. She's now faced with a double burdensome decision even though this is happening to her body: Have a kid with support from the dad, Have a kid but don't expect him to hang around cause he has "rights" , abort the child because she can't afford to do it alone or can't do it alone.

I'm sorry, but that's kind of REALLY messed up. If this is the case then men will literally never have to take responsibility for impregnating a woman if he doesn't want to, and she then has to deal with extremely limited choices. It's not like women literally never have to take responsibility for their pregnancies....they are FORCED to make a decision. This isn't them holding power over men, it's letting them have power over their bodies. That's important, and your are undermining that.

Like I said, this issue will NEVER be equal due to its nature.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Allowing men to have a financial abortion literally gives them all of the power in reproductive choice (bear with me here, I Know you think women hold all of the power in reproductive rights now).

Whenever men are given equal rights to women it is always presented as male dominance.

Likewise if we gave those darned negroes the right to vote it'd actually give them all the political power in this country . .

Women's choices, then, would now be second to what the man decides.

Er, nope. Not at all. Her choices would simply be her own. Including the consequences.

Isn't it odd how giving women equal responsibilities to men is always presented as horribly oppressive to women?

Think about that: making women put up with what men have to already is a human rights violation against women.

What does that say about how we treat men?

he's now faced with a double burdensome decision even though this is happening to her body: Have a kid with support from the dad, Have a kid but don't expect him to hang around cause he has "rights" , abort the child because she can't afford to do it alone or can't do it alone.

So . . . she still has all the decision making ability?

What a nightmare. Being in a position to do as you please with your life but without the ability to force others to pay for your decisions.

If this is the case then men will literally never have to take responsibility for impregnating a woman if he doesn't want to, and she then has to deal with extremely limited choices.

You mean she has the exact same number of choices as before?

Also if the father gives up his obligations he gives up his rights. I'm sorry you view men as so evil and uncaring for their own children but this isn't the case. Men who want kids would have no incentive to do this as they'd also lose custody and visitation rights automatically.

It's not like women literally never have to take responsibility for their pregnancies....they are FORCED to make a decision.

For both of them, yes. Which is unfair.

Let's relieve her of the burden of deciding for the father.

This isn't them holding power over men, it's letting them have power over their bodies. That's important, and your are undermining that.

So it's her body her choice because she is gestating the child . . . but it's still her body her choice after the child is born because she is owed support from someone?

You're using what happens post-natally to argue for rights women should be owed while pregnant.

Like I said, this issue will NEVER be equal due to its nature.

Or you know, because there are plenty of people who don't want to give up their privilege.

/due to monthly hormonal fluxuations a woman voter will never be equal to a male voter. This is just nature. I'm sorry if a few extremists believe that women should be granted oppressive equality with men in this regard. But it will never happen. To do so would be a grave injustice to men as well as women.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're giving a man the choice to decide what he prefers for something NOT happening in his body. He won't be affected if he doesn't want to. He can pressure women to have unprotected sex with him cause he can bow the fuck out whenever he wants. The parental responsibility is all on her, and now she must ALSO decide if she can even afford to do it alone, because she WILL be discriminated against jobwise. And people like you will say it's justified on account of biology.

I will fight for a man's right to waive his parental responsibility when the parents decide it's the right thing to do, NOT when he can have that decision unilaterally. (My own biological father did this, and there was no issue). Call me an evil sexist man hater if you must, because that's probably where your mind is going. That's fine, it's your right to think so. But here's what I think:

I came here to open my mind, and now I'm starting to realize what everyone is saying about you is true. That wasn't what I wanted. I've had some great conversations here but when I heard you all were a hate group I didn't want to believe it, but I definitely see why. There's someone on this board following every comment I made and just being an ass through every one. I'm lucky he didn't tell me to kill myself cause that's happened too. You all argue the same points over and over again in an echo-chamber where actual dynamic discussion goes to die. It's SAD. Your ignorance is DANGEROUS. I cannot be a part of it. And you'll think it's because I'm sexist, that's fine. It's what you wanted to believe this entire time.

Ever hear the story about a little boy who held a tiny bird in his hands went up to the old wise man and asked, "Is this bird in my hands alive or dead?" The old man said, "If I say it's alive, you'll crush it within your hands. If I say it's dead you will let it fly away from out of your hands. Is the bird alive or dead? It's what you will it to be."

I'm sure you have some retort to that and that's fine, I'm getting the fuck out of this hate chamber.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're giving a man the choice to decide what he prefers for something NOT happening in his body. He won't be affected if he doesn't want to

Once the child is born (when child support would become an issue) it's not happening in either of their bodies.

Not so?

He can pressure women to have unprotected sex with him cause he can bow the fuck out whenever he wants.

Men sure are evil.

Men could do all these horrible things if given the same rights women have today. But of course women would never abuse their privileges and say get pregnant intentionally even knowing he has no interest in being a father . . .

The parental responsibility is all on her,

No it isn't.

Repeating this doesn't make it true.

and now she must ALSO decide if she can even afford to do it alone, because she WILL be discriminated against jobwise. And people like you will say it's justified on account of biology.

Or maybe I dunno, only have a kid if you can support it or know there is someone there who also wants to raise the child with you?

You're advocating giving women the entire authority here because otherwise it would be inconvenient for them. Men should have no say because if they do they might decide something the woman doesn't want.

That is sexism.

I will fight for a man's right to waive his parental responsibility when the parents decide it's the right thing to do, NOT when he can have that decision unilaterally.

So you favor men having a say . . . so long as the woman has ultimate veto power and his say counts for nothing?

Awesome.

I came here to open my mind, and now I'm starting to realize what everyone is saying about you is true. That wasn't what I wanted. I've had some great conversations here but when I heard you all were a hate group I didn't want to believe it, but I definitely see why

Male equality = hate.

There's someone on this board following every comment I made and just being an ass through every one.

What you're experiencing is debate.

As a feminist you may not be familiar with it.

But basically what happens is you state your views and then someone else responds with (gasp!) different views.

On a feminist thread this would immediately lead to censorship of the dissenting views.

That is not the case here.

You all argue the same points over and over again in an echo-chamber where actual dynamic discussion goes to die. It's SAD. Your ignorance is DANGEROUS. I cannot be a part of it. And you'll think it's because I'm sexist, that's fine. It's what you wanted to believe this entire time.

Actually I think A) you're projecting and B) you're using ad hominems because you can't substantiate your argument (giving men equal rights is oppressive to women!).

I'm sure you have some retort to that and that's fine, I'm getting the fuck out of this hate chamber.

I really wish we'd get some actual open minded feminists that don't view any dissent from their edicts as "hate".

Oh well. Maybe next year.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So in order to prove me wrong for my supposed prejudice against you you acted in exactly the way I was supposedly prejudiced against you?

To prove me wrong for thinking feminists are terrified of debate you became hysterical when presented with debate and started screaming "hate" and then refused to carry on.

Well you sure showed me.

You've made actual discussion impossible.

To a feminist actual discussion is only possible when all parties agree with them.

Members of this subreddit are harassing me

No they aren't. You just want the attention that comes with being a perpetual victim. Responding to your comments with disagreement =/= harassing.

I'm wrong no matter what as a feminist,

No, for what you say.

and if I don't believe in one aspect of your movement...."Typical closed minded feminist." Round and round and round.

Funny, you just accused us of being a hate group for not agreeing with you.

What you are doing is classical projection.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm talking about this subreddit in general, and I do admit there is also some good conversations happening.

This can only happen in an open environment. Hence why you don't see good conversations on feminist forums.

But the hate and defensiveness and paranoia and anti-feminism far outweighs concern for men's well being.

Given that you labeled my support for male equality as hate-filled I will take your concerns with a grain of salt.

Also since feminists are flat out opposed to male equality (here you have blatantly stated that you do not think men should be equal when it comes to reproduction, even after adjusted for biology) it is necessary that MRAs are opposed to feminists.

Just as the klan and the civil rights movement often were at odds.

You'd see a lot more support for feminists if feminists would stop opposing men's rights. Or even better, supporting them from time to time.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I see them; I know why you don't. I'm going to probably end up over there because I know I will actually learn something, and that's all I'm really about.

Not really. All the feminist forums on here are heavily moderated (even have rules stating that all posts must assume feminism to be correct in every way).

It may seem lively to you because that's what you want to see.

But they don't exactly foster open debate.

Yawn I've heard this all before. Feminism is doing just fine without people like you.

I'm not trying to help feminism. I'm explaining why you're seeing a lot of negative attitudes towards feminism on a forum for men's rights.

You directly oppose our goals. Of course we won't have a chummy relationship. Especially when you argue that men's equality is oppressive to women, as you have done here.

Go to a civil rights forum and tell them that blacks being equal is highly offensive to whites so they should just shut up about the whole thing.

See if you get a friendly reception.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I actually WANTED to see more lively discussion here but I didn't.

Of course not.

All you saw was hate and harassment and probably literal-violence. Because people dared not agree with you.

"HOW CAN WE HAVE A DISCUSSION IF YOU HATE-MONGERS WON'T AGREE WITH ME ON EVERY POINT!?!?!"

but I did NOT anticipate the anger and "go kill yourself" stuff. That's not an open discussion, that's people talking over other people, and this is you HATING a group,

Feminists killed my dog.

No I have no proof. But I'm a VICTIM. Sympathize with me and denounce fellow feminists based on this made-up anecdote about how terrible you are.

You hate feminism first, care about men second, if at all.

If you say so . . .

I've found a community that talks about men from a feminist perspective

So . . . what to do about the male problem?

and that's where I am going to start spending more of my time, sorry you couldn't "persuade" me and vice versa.

I'm sure we will recover for this lose. In time.

Perhaps we've both convinced ourselves further of our own original positions, who knows? Either way, I'm bored here.

I thought you were fleeing persecution?

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ManhattanT57 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'd say the opt-out period needs to be somewhere between when a sexually active woman should reasonably know she's pregnant, and before the abortion deadline of the state in question.

It needs to give the woman enough time to know she is pregnant and inform the man, to give the man enough time to make a big decision, and to then give the woman enough time to decide which of her options she would like to select from given the man's decision.

It doesn't seem like it's right or even necessary to introduce a child that's already born to an unsuspecting individual and say "BTW, this is yours." If the man wants to assume responsibility if that happens, that's fine. I do not think he should have any legal obligation at this point, however (unless they want to draft up some type of contract).

Edited for clarity.

[–]payback17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MrCaffeine4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheSuperSax4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ManhattanT53 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kyote422 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A couple thoughts. First, all things equal, I think the man should help in the financial responsibilities during pregnancy, but no longer than the duration of the pregnancy. They together made the choice to engage in sex, so they both are in it for the pregnancy. At the end of the pregnancy, then each has the choice to make about choosing to stay involved. The end of the pregnancy could be abortion or birth. After that choices could be adoption or keeping, etc.

Second, he is not responsible for financial support up through the point of being told if such knowledge was withheld. Being told 5-6 months in? No "back taxes" on pregnancy, but he is responsible to help from that point until pregnancy ends.

The woman is obviously and physically impacted by a pregnancy and has a number of choices that may not include the man. The man needs to be responsible for "his" choices, but also have as close to equivalent options as the woman does. On the hook for the pregnancy, but having a choice about the childhood seems appropriate.

[–]Morichalion7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NothingCrazy2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wonderess6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising--7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Well ultimately the only one who had a say in whether or not there was a child

Unless the man was raped, he had a choice. He could have chosen to not have sex or could have chosen to use birth control. If I have sex with a woman, I knowingly take upon myself the risk that a child may result.

I agree that it is extremely unfair that a woman has an additional choice of abortion and the male is required to support that child should she choose to not have an abortion, but it is not correct to claim that the man had no choice.

In a perfect world, both mother and father would have to consent to having a child and have to agree to it before having sex. If one partner didn't agree, then there would be no child. However, we can have that functionally bu simply not having sex if we don't want a child or taking responsibility for our own reproduction and using birth control.

The man that chooses to have sex with a woman, causes her to get pregnant because of failed or absent birth control, has no basis to later claim that he was unaware of the possible consequences.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Unless the man was raped, he had a choice.

No he didn't.

Whether or not a child was carried to term is something that he, legally, has no say in. He can voice his opinion. But it means nothing.

He could have chosen to not have sex or could have chosen to use birth control.

So if you don't want to be a parent don't have sex (I assume you're aware that BC is less than 100% effective)?

I agree that it is extremely unfair that a woman has an additional choice of abortion and the male is required to support that child should she choose to not have an abortion, but it is not correct to claim that the man had no choice.

He doesn't.

He can consent to sex.

His opinion on whether or not a child is produced counts for nothing.

In a perfect world, both mother and father would have to consent to having a child and have to agree to it before having sex.

So let's work on that.

The man that chooses to have sex with a woman, causes her to get pregnant because of failed or absent birth control, has no basis to later claim that he was unaware of the possible consequences.

Neither does she.

However anyone who said a woman who consents to having sex ever is necessarily consenting to being a mom would be denounced as a sexist.

[–]Popular-Uprising-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No he didn't.

Hmm. Stick it in or don't stick it in. What the fuck should I do? Let's see, I don't want a child. I know! I won't stick it in. Oh wait. I really want to stick it in. Maybe I'll reduce my risk by using a condom, spermicide, pulling out, anal sex, or a vasectomy. However, there's still a real non-zero chance that she'll get pregnant. Either I'm okay with that risk and I'm willing to take responsibility if it happens, or I DON"T STICK IT IN. Either way: A choice was made.

Whether or not a child was carried to term is something that he, legally, has no say in.

He fucked her. True, he has no choice after the matter. Why does that matter? He already made that choice. Are you just whining about the fact that women have one more choice than men? How are you any better than the feminist that whines because men get to stand up and pee and are stronger than them?

So if you don't want to be a parent don't have sex (I assume you're aware that BC is less than 100% effective)?

Yep. Either accept responsibility if the unlikely happens, or don't have sex. Or masturbate.

He doesn't.

He does. He just has it a different time than she does.

He can consent to sex.

He can also choose between several methods of birth control.

His opinion on whether or not a child is produced counts for nothing.

His opinion mattered when he chose to have sex.

So let's work on that.

Then write up a contract that states: "I agree that, despite using birth control, we both understand that a child is a possible result of having sex. I also agree that any child that is conceived with our DNA is 100% my responsibility and I will not ask for any future financial support for either myself or such child." and get her to sign it before sex. If you do, I'll back you 100% in changing the laws so that such a contract is honored.

Neither does she.

Agreed.

However anyone who said a woman who consents to having sex ever is necessarily consenting to being a mom would be denounced as a sexist.

I'm fine with that. I've been called worse.

[–]EricTheHalibut2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How are you any better than the feminist that whines because men get to stand up and pee and are stronger than them?

Because the biological difference is made relevant by a matter of law, and law is entirely an artificial human construct which can be changed to do anything. If those feminists wanted a law which gave them whatever benefits they see in men standing up to pee, and such a law were meaningfully possible, I'd be more than happy to see it passed.

Then write up a contract that states: "I agree that, despite using birth control, we both understand that a child is a possible result of having sex. I also agree that any child that is conceived with our DNA is 100% my responsibility and I will not ask for any future financial support for either myself or such child." and get her to sign it before sex. If you do, I'll back you 100% in changing the laws so that such a contract is honored.

Apart from the obviously biased language (something like "I, A, agree to adopt any child conceived by B and myself. Signed A. I, B, agree to give up any child conceived by A and myself for adoption by A. Signed B" would be perfectly adequate), that would be satisfactory to most people here, at least as an interim measure. However, to correct an obvious injustice and to give women some benefit for signing, I would add that by signing the man takes responsibility for a half share of the cost of abortion, at least in countries where abortion isn't free at the point of use (which would make actually enforcing that aspect of the agreement more expensive than the cost in most cases).

Obviously if such contracts became the norm, it would make sense to change the law to reverse the default, but it is much harder to argue against an agreement like this.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising--1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just thought I would point out, there are plenty of examples of men who thought they had chosen birth control, and then their SO is pregnant because she "forgot".

Granted. However, the male took that risk when he chose to leave the birth control up to the woman. I have worn condoms before when a woman has sworn up and down that she was on the pill and current.

Also, why is a man punished for failed birth control, when the mother can still choose adoption or abortion?

A lot of reasons, and most of them have nothing to do with female privilege. Forced abortion is not an option for a variety of reasons. However, I am against abortion. I don't believe that women should have that choice either.

It seems that a financial abortion should still be an option for a man if the woman doesn't want to have a real one.

It doesn't seem like a good option to me because it allows a a man to claim one thing before sex and then claim another after a pregnancy occurs. This absolves the male from all responsibility for his actions while leaving the woman on the hook.

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

However, the male took that risk when he chose to leave the birth control up to the woman.

Would you say the same thing if a man poked a hole in his condom? The woman left it up to him, right? I never said forced abortion. I said financial abortion, where a man may forfeit his parental rights and the woman loses the ability to get child support from him. Obviously, a financial abortion would need a deadline before a real abortion is no longer an option.

It doesn't seem like a good option to me because it allows a a man to claim one thing before sex and then claim another after a pregnancy occurs.

This is almost the same thing that women can do today. Say they are on the pill and for abortion, and then all of the sudden they aren't. Trust is important in a relationship, but shouldn't be the basis for equality. Once men can walk away from a woman that lied about her birth control, I bet we'll see a lot less women "forgetting" their birth control.

Edited for clarity

[–]Popular-Uprising-0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Would you say the same thing if a man poked a hole in his condom? The woman left it up to him, right?

Absolutely. If you leave your birth control up to another person, then you are partly responsible for the consequences. However, I did forget that such actions by either party are considered assault and can be prosecuted if proven.

I said financial abortion, where a man may forfeit his parental rights and the woman loses the ability to get child support from him. Obviously, a financial abortion would need a deadline before a real abortion is no longer an option.

I'd agree if such things were agreed upon before the sex happened. To me, it's simple. Either take responsibility for your child, or agree (in writing) before you have sex with a woman that she is solely responsible for any possible children.

This is almost the same thing that women can do today.

So? Are you just whining about the fact that women have some things better than men, or do you actually want to solve any problem? The solution is: DON'T FUCK SOMEONE UNLESS YOU ARE READY TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR A FUCKING CHILD.

Everything else you do only reduces the risk of pregnancy, not eliminates.

If you want sex free from responsibility and consequences, use your hand or a sex doll.

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising-0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising-6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dannyigl3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dannyigl1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I was giving my opinion as to why I believe abortion is wrong, but current laws do not agree with me. However, nearly 50% of the general population of both men and women tend to be pro-life. In discussing paper abortion, it seems like those supporting it are equating consent to sex with agreement to have an abortion should accidental pregnancy occur.

It seems to me that if paper abortion became a thing, women (especially pro-life women) would then counter it with a pre-sex contract stipulating the father's responsibility should accidental pregnancy occur. The good thing about this is that it would tend to seperate pro-abortion people from having sex with anti-abortion people.

Since women would be going in to sex with 100% responsibility. They would counter this by only choosing sex with men who would be willing to relieve some of the risk for them (by a pre-sex contract). If paper abortion was legal, woman would have the right to this type of contract, wouldn't they?

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First, the way you're framing the argument is odd, to me. I'm pro bodily rights, but that doesn't mean I'm pro abortion.

In discussing paper abortion, it seems like those supporting it are equating consent to sex with agreement to have an abortion should accidental pregnancy occur.

Just so we're clear, what exactly do you mean by "paper abortion"? I'm presuming you mean the ability for the male side of the equation to opt out of any legal and financial responsibility should the sexual encounter lead to the pregnancy of the woman. I'd define it this way because the abortion decision is one that is ultimately, legally a decision that can be made only by the female. It is her body, so she has the ultimate say regardless of the feelings of her partner or her parents or her siblings or her next door neighbor. So it would be fallacious and legally incorrect to equate "consent to sex" with any decision regarding abortion or adoption.

It seems to me that if paper abortion became a thing, women (especially pro-life women) would then counter it with a pre-sex contract stipulating the father's responsibility should accidental pregnancy occur. The good thing about this is that it would tend to seperate pro-abortion people from having sex with anti-abortion people.

I personally have very little issue with an actual signed contract stipulating one's terms in the event of a pregnancy, so long as the contract doesn't violate anyone's rights (meaning the man can't stipulate that the woman must abort the child, but he can certainly stipulate that he has no desire to uphold emotional, financial or other legal obligations in the event of a pregnancy, thus legally abdicating himself from said obligations). Obviously, these protections for men don't exist, but I'd be willing to explore their use and the consequences of their use.

The more communication and understanding between the two individuals, the better.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If she chose to get pregnant, I do not believe that she has the right to kill another human.

Having sex does not equal choosing to get pregnant.

Sure, it would be ideal (for her) if the baby could be removed and she could go on with her life like nothing happened, but that's not reality. She chose to accept the risk of getting pregnant.

She chose to accept the risk of having sex, either with or without certain contraceptives. That doesn't mean she chose to get pregnant or consents to pregnancy.

Bone marrow is not a different human being.

The analogy doesn't equate bone marrow to a fully formed human being. Let me put it another way. Let's say you get a genetics test done to see what you're at risk for and what your children would be at risk for. You get the result back and it shows that if you have a child, it has a 75% chance of having a terminal kidney disease. You choose to have a child despite this risk, and it turns out that your child has the active gene for this disease and he or she gets it.

Can the state, despite the fact that you knew the risk of this happening, force you to donate your kidney to your child? No. You have the right to refuse to donate your kidney to your child, even if this refusal results in the child's death.

It's a simple bodily rights argument.

[–]Popular-Uprising-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Having sex does not equal choosing to get pregnant.

She knows what causes it. She chose to take the risky behavior. She may not have chosen to get pregnant, but she certainly still bears responsibility for getting pregnant. If you choose to go base jumping, you bear some responsibility if you end up getting hurt.

The analogy doesn't equate bone marrow to a fully formed human being.

Now you're changing the goal posts. I didn't say "fully formed". I said "human". Is it okay to kill someone who not fully formed?

Can the state, despite the fact that you knew the risk of this happening, force you to donate your kidney to your child?

This is irrelevant. You may not be forced to donate a kidney, but you should be forced to take care of that child. If that includes working your ass off so that child has the best chance of survival. You made that choice when you chose to have the child.

It's a simple bodily rights argument.

Yes it is. The baby has a body and you're not allowed to kill it.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

She knows what causes it. She chose to take the risky behavior. She may not have chosen to get pregnant, but she certainly still bears responsibility for getting pregnant. If you choose to go base jumping, you bear some responsibility if you end up getting hurt.

And none of this means she can't refuse consent to carry the child to term.

Now you're changing the goal posts. I didn't say "fully formed". I said "human". Is it okay to kill someone who not fully formed?

I'm not moving the goal posts because my point doesn't hinge on that qualifier. Remove "fully formed" and my point stands, if not more so. And that's the reason I said "fully formed". EVEN a fully formed human being does not have the legal authority to infringe upon anyone else's bodily rights when their life is at risk. Why would a not fully formed human have that right?

This is why the argument from bodily autonomy is so persuasive. It applies regardless of whether or not you deem the fetus to be "fully human" and have "personhood" and all the rights we associate with personhood because we can consistently apply it to examples between two adult human beings.

This is irrelevant. You may not be forced to donate a kidney, but you should be forced to take care of that child. If that includes working your ass off so that child has the best chance of survival. You made that choice when you chose to have the child.

It's not irrelevant because it directly deals with your bodily rights as a parent, an American, a human. The state can not legally force you to donate a kidney, even if it thinks you're a terrible person for refusing to donate your kidney to your child. That's what we're talking about here, not about your legal obligations as a parent (which is the truly irrelevant portion of the discussion here).

Yes it is. The baby has a body and you're not allowed to kill it.

The baby has a body that is using the body of the mother. Just as the child in the kidney transplant scenario also has bodily rights, this doesn't mean the child has the right to infringe on yours by legally forcing you to donate your kidney even if this results in its death.

Just as you have the right to waive your bodily rights or exercise them, so does the mother in a pregnancy situation.

I'm sorry, but you haven't formulated a cogent rebuttal to the bodily rights argument that also doesn't logically necessitate the removal of bodily rights in any situation in which someone is in near future danger of death.

[–]Popular-Uprising-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And none of this means she can't refuse consent to carry the child to term.

She consented to carrying a possible child when she had sex. Whining about it after that consent and trying to change her mind is like whining about your imminent crash to earth after jumping off the cliff.

Remove "fully formed" and my point stands, if not more so.

Okay. Then back to your point without the words "fully formed".

The analogy doesn't equate bone marrow to a human being.

Your analogy certainly did equate bone marrow to a human being. Bone marrow is not a different human being.

EVEN a fully formed human being does not have the legal authority to infringe upon anyone else's bodily rights when their life is at risk.

Moving the goal posts AGAIN? Who said the mother's life is at risk? Not I. We were discussing the common act of abortion. Not the very rare special cases. They have nothing to do with this discussion.

This is why the argument from bodily autonomy is so persuasive.

I agree. It's very persuasive. Why do you deny it to the unborn child? Why is it okay to murder it and take away it's rights in order when the mother already made an informed choice that put it there?

It applies regardless of whether or not you deem the fetus to be "fully human" and have "personhood" and all the rights we associate with personhood because we can consistently apply it to examples between two adult human beings.

Then let's use an example to apply it to adults then. If you leave the front door to your house open and post a sign at the front door that says "come on it and have some food in the fridge, take a nap if you'd like", you are not allowed to kill anybody who comes in and makes themselves a sandwich. In a similar manner, you are not allowed to kill a child that is merely accepting your invitation to live in your body for a short time. Especially when that child is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

The state can not legally force you to donate a kidney

A child is not a kidney. A kidney is your DNA. A child is a separate human being that you have invited in to your body for a short time.

The baby has a body that is using the body of the mother.

So? She invited it. Why is it okay to kill the child?

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

She consented to carrying a possible child when she had sex.

Sex and pregnancy are two separate things and must be consented to separately. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this? Consenting to sex does not equal consenting to carry a child to term.

Whining about it after that consent and trying to change her mind is like whining about your imminent crash to earth after jumping off the cliff.

Even if you consent at first, you can still change your mind.

Your analogy certainly did equate bone marrow to a human being. Bone marrow is not a different human being.

No it didn't. It equated the bone marrow transplant to the violation of ones bodily autonomy that is required to keep another human being alive. The other human being in question, the bone marrow receiver, would be most closely analogized to the fetus.

Moving the goal posts AGAIN? Who said the mother's life is at risk? Not I. We were discussing the common act of abortion. Not the very rare special cases. They have nothing to do with this discussion.

I never said the mothers life is at risk, nor does my example analogize this, but my wording can be confusing so I'll say it differently.

Even a human being dieing of a terminal illness does not have the legal authority to infringe upon someone else's bodily autonomy to save their life from this terminal illness. It also doesn't matter whether this other person is themselves healthy or sick.

I agree. It's very persuasive. Why do you deny it to the unborn child? Why is it okay to murder it and take away it's rights in order when the mother already made an informed choice that put it there?

Biology. The mothers bodily autonomy is being if she refuses consent to carry the child to term. Whether or not the termination of this pregnancy results in the death of the child does not change this, nor does it remove her bodily rights. The termination of pregnancy is not a violation of the baby's bodily rights, even if it dies. To better understand why, I recommend reading Judith Thomson's essay on this issue.

In it she posits the hypothetical situation that you are kidnapped and hooked up against your will to the body of a talented violinist for 9 months in order to save this violinists life. If you remove yourself from being hooked up to this violinist, and as a result the violinist dies, in the USA you would not be legally responsible for this death because of your bodily rights. Nor would you be legally prosecuted for violating the violinists bodily rights, because all you did was remove the violinist from the non-consensual use of your body (which is not a violation of the violinists bodily rights, even if the violinist dies). That's just a synopsis, and it's been a while since I've read it so I recommend reading it for yourself.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Then let's use an example to apply it to adults then. If you leave the front door to your house open and post a sign at the front door that says "come on it and have some food in the fridge, take a nap if you'd like", you are not allowed to kill anybody who comes in and makes themselves a sandwich. In a similar manner, you are not allowed to kill a child that is merely accepting your invitation to live in your body for a short time. Especially when that child is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.

Again, you're equating consent to have sex with consent to carry the child to term and then ignoring the ability to remove consent. If you're not doing that, then your analogy doesn't appropriately analogize that consent to have sex and consent to carry to term are two different issues.

If you make a sandwich in your house, and a passerby see's through the window this delicious sandwich and is hungry and decides, because of his or her biology, that eating this sandwich is good for him/her, this doesn't give the person the right to enter into your house without consent. Even though they are hungry, and even though there is food in your house, the only thing you've consented to as homeowner is making yourself a sandwich. You have to separately consent to this individual entering into your home and eating your sandwich, and you can tell them to leave at any time (thereby removing consent).

A child is not a kidney. A kidney is your DNA. A child is a separate human being that you have invited in to your body for a short time.

The analogy doesn't equate the kidney to the child, it equates the kidney donation with the violation of bodily rights, and the kidney receiver would be most related to the fetus in this analogy.

So? She invited it. Why is it okay to kill the child?

What do you even mean by "invited it"? If the mother doesn't consent, then her bodily rights are being violated.

[–]Popular-Uprising-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sex and pregnancy are two separate things and must be consented to separately.

I disagree. That's the whole point. I've given reasons and analogies as to why they are connected. So far you have just repeated your point of view with no supporting reasoning. It would help if you could tell me why you think they are separate and/or debunk my analogies or claims as to why I think they are connected.

You seem to have started with the premise of: "I want abortion to be legal and easy." and are back-filling any reason to justify your premise.

Even if you consent at first, you can still change your mind.

Once I consent to jumping off a cliff and act upon it, I cannot then change my mind and reverse time. Once a woman consents to sex, she must accept the risks. One of those risks is getting pregnant. You want to mitigate that risk by saying that she has an extra chance by killing the baby. I'm saying that she made a choice to accept the risk of being pregnant for 9 months and becoming a mother when she had sex. By giving her an extra chance to terminate the pregnancy, you are destroying the baby's right to its own body when the baby did nothing to deserve death.

Even a human being dieing of a terminal illness does not have the legal authority to infringe upon someone else's bodily autonomy to save their life from this terminal illness.

Agreed. That's not the case here. In this case, the woman already made her choice. She consent to actions knowing full well that one possible result could be getting pregnant. The fact that she got pregnant may not have been intended, but she certainly knew that it was a possibility. None of that makes it okay to violate the baby's body and take it's life from it.

The mothers bodily autonomy is being if she refuses consent to carry the child to term.

She already consented. She had sex. She knew the risks.

The termination of pregnancy is not a violation of the baby's bodily rights, even if it dies.

I disagree strongly. All humans have a right to life and ownership over their own bodies. The mother already consented to sharing her body by having sex. The sex was a positive act that she knew might result in pregnancy. Just as you cannot invite a human into your home and kill it once it enters, you should not be able to have sex and then kill the baby once you get pregnant.

In it she posits the hypothetical situation that you are kidnapped and hooked up against your will to the body of a talented violinist for 9 months in order to save this violinists life.

The analogy is fatally flawed. The mother was not kidnapped. She went with her kidnapper voluntarily, knowing full well that there may be a specific outcome that she didn't like. She still did it.

Again, you're equating consent to have sex with consent to carry the child to term and then ignoring the ability to remove consent.

Yes. That's my point. Consent is at the time of sex. Not after one of the known consequences of sex has occurred. Once a baby is conceived, it is wrong to kill it because it is another human being. The fact that it's in the mother's body is irrelevant.

If you make a sandwich in your house, and a passerby see's through the window this delicious sandwich and is hungry and decides, because of his or her biology, that eating this sandwich is good for him/her, this doesn't give the person the right to enter into your house without consent.

If you post a sign that says "come on in" it does. Shooting her would be murder.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I disagree. That's the whole point. I've given reasons and analogies as to why they are connected. So far you have just repeated your point of view with no supporting reasoning. It would help if you could tell me why you think they are separate and/or debunk my analogies or claims as to why I think they are connected.

Not consenting to pregnancy while still consenting to sexual intercourse is one of the, if not the largest reason contraceptives exist. Putting a condom on or taking birth control for the soul purpose of trying to prevent pregnancy is the act of not consenting to pregnancy.

I guess I don't know why you disagree. I've stated my reasoning which is clear in the actual statements of consent. Consent to sex is exactly that. Consent to sex. Sex is not pregnancy. I honestly don't know why that's so difficult to understand. Please elaborate.

You seem to have started with the premise of: "I want abortion to be legal and easy." and are back-filling any reason to justify your premise.

Incorrect. The premise I have started with is one of bodily rights.

Once I consent to jumping off a cliff and act upon it, I cannot then change my mind and reverse time.

You can certainly change your mind. I'm not arguing about reversing time, though.

Once a woman consents to sex, she must accept the risks.

I never said otherwise. Accepting the risks is not consenting to having those risk fulfilled. Accepting that you might get rear-ended at a stop light is not consent for someone to go ahead and rear end you.

One of those risks is getting pregnant. You want to mitigate that risk by saying that she has an extra chance by killing the baby. I'm saying that she made a choice to accept the risk of being pregnant for 9 months and becoming a mother when she had sex.

I'm saying abortion is a legitimate solution to an unwanted pregnancy. And abortion just means terminating the pregnancy. Whether or not the child is viable outside the womb is not relevant just as the violinists viability unconnected from your body is irrelevant to whether or not your bodily rights have been violated.

By giving her an extra chance to terminate the pregnancy, you are destroying the baby's right to its own body when the baby did nothing to deserve death.

No. An abortion is protecting the mothers bodily rights. Your argument continually presupposes that the baby has a right to use the mothers body even against the mothers will. Why do you believe this? I've shown you through analogy that bodily rights proves this presupposition incorrect.

The only thing that is relevant here is whether or not the woman has waived her bodily rights in this instance. Nobody can be legally forced to act as a human incubator against their consent. The health and viability of the incubated human is not relevant as far as your bodily rights are concerned.

She already consented. She had sex. She knew the risks.

Please explain to me how consenting to sex equals consenting to pregnancy. Does it consent to any and all sexually transmitted diseases, too? Can a doctor legally infect someone who has been sexually active in their lifetime with HIV, simply because they've had sex before? Can we forcibly implant a viable fertilized egg into a woman simply because she has had sex before?

I disagree strongly. All humans have a right to life and ownership over their own bodies.

Except, as in your case, anyone who is sexually active.

The mother already consented to sharing her body by having sex.

The woman consented to having sex one particular time with one particular individual. Is this consent absolute? Does this mean anyone can have sex with her now? Does this mean that any other human being can use her body as they see fit? These questions are not rhetorical, and I'd like explanations with your answers to help alleviate confusion.

Just as you cannot invite a human into your home and kill it once it enters, you should not be able to have sex and then kill the baby once you get pregnant.

You can invite a human into your home and then have them forcibly removed. You still haven't fixed this analogy.

The analogy is fatally flawed. The mother was not kidnapped. She went with her kidnapper voluntarily, knowing full well that there may be a specific outcome that she didn't like. She still did it.

Let's say the individual goes with the doctor and isn't kidnapped. What you're saying is this action of consenting to go with the doctor to the doctors office is also consent to be hooked up to the violinist. Can you give a reason why you hold this position?

Yes. That's my point. Consent is at the time of sex.

How do you come to this conclusion?

[–]Super_delicious10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jonas223XC1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]9iLsgs1TYI40 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tHeSiD8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CptSeaCow4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nightfalls2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoveThemApples2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FlaiseSaffron2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fortytwo44221 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iheartbakon1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nightfalls1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CosmicKeys35 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roharareddit17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising-3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roharareddit6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lurlur3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roharareddit2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lurlur1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Drainedsoul-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lurlur-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Drainedsoul1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lurlur1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Drainedsoul1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lurlur-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]isaackleiner27 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty25 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Collective825 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Collective822 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nightfalls1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iongantas4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Nightfalls2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Collective821 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iongantas2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iongantas1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GiskardReventlov18 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fifa71086-24 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kikolin12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]2wsy12 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wulibo7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]catfingers643 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pretzelzetzel5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Collective822 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MaK_Ultra5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dexter4324325 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rykocolor3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dannyigl2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gadflyii1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rykocolor1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gadflyii0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gr8WhiteGrammarNazi3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Troll_Dik1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gr8WhiteGrammarNazi-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Troll_Dik0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gr8WhiteGrammarNazi1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gr8WhiteGrammarNazi0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gr8WhiteGrammarNazi0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gr8WhiteGrammarNazi1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]seanicasxc2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rj208762 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gadflyii1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rj208761 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rj20876-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]starbuxed2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Troll_Dik2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gadflyii0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Troll_Dik2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gadflyii2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cl3ft1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]thereverendwho1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGDBatman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]iggybdawg1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purp1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gadflyii2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purp1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gadflyii1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dannyigl0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dannyigl1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purp1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purp2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Purp2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dannyigl1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If paper abortion became a thing, then I think women would start demanding men to sign a pre-sex contract saying that they would share in the financial responsibility if any accidental pregnancy resulting in children. This would still give women the option of abortion as that would be impossible to take away since it is based on privacy and bodily autonomy, and basically health risks. While still giving her the option to go through childbirth if she doesn't want an abortion.

If sex contracts became a thing then you would get women refusing to have relationships with men who do not sign, and of course there would be many men who would, being as it would be the only way to have a relationship with a woman, even if it is just casual dating. Most men who date and trust there girlfriends have no problem sharing in the responsibility of pregnancy.

Of course this would obviously help separate the pro-lifers from dating pro-abortionists, which is a good thing.

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dannyigl1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

See, I think you are dead wrong. If sex contracts became a thing, they could be unique, but lets say a typical contract says that if an accidental pregnancy occurs, the man will either pay for half the cost of abortion,plus related expenses or he will contribute to half of the necessities of raising a child. The women will get to choose because legally she should be allowed to choose risks to her body.

Even if a woman does not particularly want a child at the time of sex, she would likely have enough sense to know that her feelings may change should a pregnancy actually occur or that she may not even realize she is pregnant unitl too far along to abort and she would want a contract in place to protect herself from taking on the whole responsibility. I don't think religios beleifs has much to do with it.

There will be men willing to sign such a contract and men who wont. What type of guy do you think a woman is more likely to have sex with? A guy that says he wont do anything and will walk away if she doesn't abort, or a guy that says he will do half of raising a child? Why would any women go in to sex with 100% responsibility for accidental pregnancy, including those casued by vasectomy fail or condom breaking that she might not even know about?

If I were single and dating I would sign such a contract with a woman. When I was dating my wife, one of the first things she wanted to know was what would happen if an accidental pregnancy occurred (of course the law is pretty clear of my financial responsibilities). It was important for her to know, and I think it would be especially important if men could legally walk away from pregnancy as women would then need to get it in writing.

[–]dannyigl1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]drinkthebleach0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LoveThemApples3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Drizzle0550 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dannyigl3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dannyigl0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The male benefit of creating offspring is the genetic longevity. If paper abortion becomes a thing, then men would get to spread their genetics without any responsibility.

Does anyone really think like that on a conscious level? I mean, sure, genetically, all men "want" to have children with as many fertile women as possible, but on the genetic level they don't know about all the laws and customs which make that a bad idea, and at a conscious level, they generally don't want that many children (although there are a few who want lots of children for religious reasons).

For those of you promoting paper abortion, would their be any revocation of the paper abortion if it could be proven the father was actively seeking a relationship with the child?

I'd simply copy the rules for adoption - so the other parent (typically the mother) is the sole legal parent and has the ability any parent has to block their child's relationship with a stranger (and the same limitations, once the child is old enough to make their own friends).

Once the child is an adult, the surrendering parent would have no particular right to find the child but no specific prohibition either: it would be up to the child to decide if they want a relationship or not, and up to the mother to persuade them not to if that is her wish (provided she doesn't cross the line into defamation).

[–]dannyigl1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Many adoptions are "closed" where neither party identifies themselves. This way the adopting parents can be assured that birth parents will not harass them. So paper abortion is a quite different as there would be a good chance that the mother and father are in close proximity and have mutual friends. The most extreme example I can think of would be if the couple already had one child and were living together and a second pregnancy occurred that the father signs a paper abortion.

I cannot really see why unmarried fathers would sign up for taking responsibility if they didn't have to. It seems they would have the benefits of taxpayers footing their bill for the child, and they could still live in the same house as their child. I don't think society will ever accept this.

In cases where the mother and father are not together I think society will recognize the extra effort placed on the mother to see that no relationship forms with the paternal family. Society also recognizes that it is the right of the child's to have a relationship with his or her paternal relatives. Also the mother has no way of prohibiting a child/father relationship once the child is an adult. Society will recognize that the father got a benefit of a child (and then grandchildren) for free.

The best angle I see would be child custody and support reform, where fathers have more parenting rights and less financial responsibility.

[–]LoveThemApples-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gadflyii1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gadflyii2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]griffin8116-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theran444-15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jcoe4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theran444-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theran4440 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jcoe2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jazzeki1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jcoe1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]uncommonman-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	Reproductive Rights
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	839
Comments	302
Date	March 14, 2013 4:54 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1a9n2a/reproductive-rights/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/reproductive-rights.1608197 https://theredarchive.com/post/1608197

Comments