ForumGarden

I kind of ride both sides of the fence when it comes to abortion and the morning after pill. Speaking as a mother, to me, the moment my child was conceived, he or she became a person. When I decided to have my tubes tied because both pregnancies were difficult, the doctor asked, "What if your baby is deformed or has heart troubles?" to which I replied, "I will still love her all the same".

I have no problem with a woman having an abortion because that is her choice, it just never would be considered an alternative for me. I DO think the man should have some kind of say considering it takes 2 to tango.

It's ridiculous that women have paternity tests on 8 different men and still don't know who the father is. In these cases, the morning after pill is probably the best thing. Drives me crazy though that she is considered a slut, and the men are considered studs.

Sex for the sake of sex and horniness is fine as long as you are willing to accept the consequences. Not only are you risking pregnancy, you are risking AIDS, etc. You sleep not only with the person, but all their previous sexual partners.

Accountable wrote: I don't see a point in carrying this further, since you value recreation over life.



Would that I could inject you with some empathy, but empathy's the enemy of your culture.


And what culture would that be that you're referring to?

Don't have time to respond to the comments made re my previous post right now but I will try to get back tomorrow. For now... I think there are a lot of unfair assumptions being expressed about men on this thread. I have had a number of experiences which could qualify me to reasonably hate men and view them as secondary parents but it just isn't the case. I think that part of living is to challenge the assumptions that experience prompts us to make too hastily. If I met only one child that kicked me in the shin and spat on me I might "reasonably" say that children are despicable but hesitation to draw that conclusion in general allows me to see the world more clearly. Generalizations may help discussions at times but they also become barriers to understanding truths.

Later.

(Hi Acc, it's kind of fun when we agree...enjoy it while it lasts)

Scrat wrote: This is exactly why I cannot agree that men are victims in this. Any male stupid enough not to keep track of his genetic material should get a visit from a goon squad.
What about the women stupid enough to agree to sharing this genetic material?



I believe that the view that an individual is automatically a victim simply based on the general group he or she is identified with, is a bigotry far more dangerous than the more hateful type. To say it's not her fault because she's a woman insults women and ignores the strengths and virtues that makes them admirable, unique, and vital to society. It reduces them to a uterus with no self determination.

koan wrote: (Hi Acc, it's kind of fun when we agree...enjoy it while it lasts)
I guess this makes us strange bedfellows? :p

Accountable wrote: What about the women stupid enough to agree to sharing this genetic material?



I believe that the view that an individual is automatically a victim simply based on the general group he or she is identified with, is a bigotry far more dangerous than the more hateful type. To say it's not her fault because she's a woman insults women and ignores the strengths and virtues that makes them admirable, unique, and vital to society. It reduces them to a uterus with no self determination.


But what about the woman who doesn’t give a toss about genetic material and just wants to get laid?

I’ve met more than a few who simply want to spend a few hours (or days. Weeks, or even months!) just enjoying sex and a friendly but basically sex orientated relationship – many women do, you know!

Same as men! And not just from specific social groups either.

Sex is NOT just about procreation and (thank goodness) not just a ‘thing done in marriage’. Not any more – for that matter in reality it never was other than by the unfortunate creatures riddled with guilt about the joy of a bit of the old ‘in out’ to quote from A Clockwork Orange.

Concerned about genetic material? Purleese! :wah:

golem wrote: But what about the woman who doesn’t give a toss about genetic material and just wants to get laid? The phrase 'spay or neuter' comes to mind.



golem wrote: I’ve met more than a few who simply want to spend a few hours (or days. Weeks, or even months!) just enjoying sex and a friendly but basically sex orientated relationship – many women do, you know!



Same as men! And not just from specific social groups either.
It's a recreation that involves risk, just like, say, rock climbing. Use all the safety equipment you want, there is still risk. My problem with you and people like you is that you want the thrill but don't want to deal with the consequences.

What a coincidence! This is exactly what we've been talking about. They even use the same one-sided illogical arguments I've read in this thread.

Read the entire story here.

Lawsuit Becomes First to Assert a Man's Right to Choose Parenthood



Chicago Tribune

Judith Graham

March 9, 2006



CHICAGO - They had sex. She got pregnant. She sued for child support. Now, he's suing back, claiming that men have a constitutional right to "avoid procreation."



With the suit, 25-year-old Matthew Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., becomes the public face of a "men's rights" movement that claims men should have the same ability as women to decide whether or not to have children.



Supporters of the movement are calling the case "Roe vs. Wade for men" - a precedent-setting case that could define a man's right to choose parenthood.



The case is the first to assert a constitutional freedom to "choose not to be a father" under the equal protection clause, said Dubay's attorney, Jeffery Cojocar.



[....]



In the fall of 2004, he had a discussion with his then-girlfriend. Dubay told her he wasn't ready to have kids, according to the legal complaint. That's fine; I'm infertile and I'm using birth control just in case, she allegedly responded.



When the woman found herself with child, she was unwilling to terminate the pregnancy. She gave birth to a baby girl and then obtained a court order requiring Dubay to pay $500 a month in child support.



Dubay thus joined the ranks of men who argue they were duped into having children they never wanted and then forced to assume financial responsibilities for which they were unprepared.



[....]

Hmmm. Is there a witness to the conversation he had with his ex-girlfriend?

If he can prove that she lied to him then he shouldn't have to pay support. But if he was that concerned about NOT being a father HE could have taken some responsibility for contraceptives.

Should he be able to DEMAND that she have an abortion? Hell no!

BTW - I can think of 3 women I know that were told they would never have children by medical doctors. They have children now with no special help. Maybe the girlfriend WAS told that she couldn't have children. If that is the case and she got pregnant, there would be no way in hell that she would have an abortion.

Scrat wrote: So you're in favor of men being able to duck the consequences of their actions?
Not at all, but in the current society with it's f*cked up values, the best I can hope for is equality. A small victory is a victory.



A real victory would be gaining citizenship status for humans upon pregnancy.



LilacDragon wrote: If he can prove that she lied to him then he shouldn't have to pay support.I agree.

LilacDragon wrote: Should he be able to DEMAND that she have an abortion? Hell no!He's not. He simply doesn't want anything to do with a child he didn't want & had reason to believe he wouldn't have.

LilacDragon wrote: BTW - I can think of 3 women I know that were told they would never have children by medical doctors. They have children now with no special help. Maybe the girlfriend WAS told that she couldn't have children. If that is the case and she got pregnant, there would be no way in hell that she would have an abortion.But why would that give her a right to demand recompense from him?

Scrat wrote: He couldn't use a freaking condom? He couldn't pull out?



That's his problem. Selfishness and stupidity mixed together has no good end in any circumstance.



I agree, the case is DOA in court.And she bears no responsibility in this?!? Couldn't she have brought a condom, or any number of other birth control devices? She couldn't roll over?



That's both of their problems. Why do you leave her blameless in a consentual situation?

Back briefly.

I wanted to clarify that in my earlier scenario of men being allowed to veto abortions it is key to my idea that the man in question would be automatically assuming full custody when the child is born. This eliminates the idea that men can force women to have children as a control element. The woman doesn't want it, the man does. The man effectively 'buys' the infant when he pays for the expenses of the pregnancy. This would not apply to rapists as they would be inelegible for custody as they would be in jail. If they are not charged with rape and convicted then, by all counts, they are not rapists.

The problem with this scenario is obvious. A man can only exercise preparental rights if he knows there is a pregnancy.

I have known a number of women who have lied to get pregnant or otherwise tricked a man into becoming a father. I have known a couple of men who were single parents after the mother abandoned her kids. I have known a large number of women who have used their children as financial and emotional weapons. I have known a few women who had children so they didn't have to get a job. There are no generalizations that can be made here. Women are just as capable of deceit and abuse as men are. Actually, women seem to be better at it.

how many times do we have to hear "keep track of his genetic material" in this conversation? I keep imagining little sperm with tags on them. Does this include those whose destiny was merely a palm? I've heard of women trying to salvage the little fellas from discarded condoms when the guy isn't looking.

In contrast, an acquaintance of mine, after a difficult labour, was so paranoid about becoming pregnant again that she wouldn't allow her husband to masturbate because she was afraid of contacting the bed sheets or the toilet or anywhere they might have escaped to before they died. My advice to her? Swallow.

Don't cry. Buck up and do your duty.


Scrat, I get the impression you do not apply this sentiment to both sexes. Perhaps I am mistaken.

There is nothing at all wrong with abortion.

Although not a preferred method of birth control it’s better than nothing. It’s NOT murder, it’s NOT dealing with a baby, at best it’s dealing with a potential baby, and in my opinion even after birth a woman should have the right to decide if she wants the neonatal infant to be nurtured or not.

Yes, that’s right.

Quite apart from the absolute freedom to elect for a termination a woman should, in my opinion, have the right to decide that she wants nothing more than palliative care for a new born and that it should simply be left to die.

Let’s not kid ourselves, until fairly recent times this was a far from unusual situation in maternity hospitals in Europe and I suspect in the US where the severely malformed were simply given warm water to drink whilst nature took its course.

The wishes of the sentimental or religious who demand the right to impose THEIR morality on a woman who is pregnant and doesn’t want to be, or on a woman who gives birth and decides for whatever reason (and especially in the case of a severely deformed child) that she doesn’t want it to be nurtured should not be allowed to affect in any material way any decisions that the woman makes or the eventual outcome.

Scrat, once again it's clear you've given up. You don't believe the world can be a better place, so you spend your energy trying to explain how futile it is to to try to improve things.

It's also clear that you see women as brainless, clueless, automatons with no will of their own, so we can't hold them responsible for their own actions, only for the life or death of the children created by some mystic automatic function of their bodies over which they have no control. We call that bigotry where I come from; some call it sexist.

Scrat wrote: Nice try. Best distortion you have come up with yet. :p
So correct it.

but she has no choice in the event of conception.


Weak argument.



When you get to the subject of responsibilty don't even try to tell me I am biased in error when society on one hand considers a whoremaster with 10 kids to 10different women a stud


What society do you live in? Again that's a presumptive, and presumptively wrong, argument. A copout.

Accountable wrote: What a coincidence! This is exactly what we've been talking about. They even use the same one-sided illogical arguments I've read in this thread.

Read the entire story here.



Lawsuit Becomes First to Assert a Man's Right to Choose Parenthood

Chicago Tribune

Judith Graham

March 9, 2006

CHICAGO - They had sex. She got pregnant. She sued for child support. Now, he's suing back, claiming that men have a constitutional right to "avoid procreation."

With the suit, 25-year-old Matthew Dubay of Saginaw, Mich., becomes the public face of a "men's rights" movement that claims men should have the same ability as women to decide whether or not to have children.

Supporters of the movement are calling the case "Roe vs. Wade for men" - a precedent-setting case that could define a man's right to choose parenthood.

The case is the first to assert a constitutional freedom to "choose not to be a father" under the equal protection clause, said Dubay's attorney, Jeffery Cojocar.

[....]

In the fall of 2004, he had a discussion with his then-girlfriend. Dubay told her he wasn't ready to have kids, according to the legal complaint. That's fine; I'm infertile and I'm using birth control just in case, she allegedly responded.

When the woman found herself with child, she was unwilling to terminate the pregnancy. She gave birth to a baby girl and then obtained a court order requiring Dubay to pay $500 a month in child support.

Dubay thus joined the ranks of men who argue they were duped into having children they never wanted and then forced to assume financial responsibilities for which they were unprepared.

[....]
This story is really starting to stir people up. It illustrates the law of unintended consequences. It's the first step in nudging society into the realization that Roe V Wade is sexist.



By forcing women to share the decision as well as the responsibility with their male partners, there is hope that they will not be so willing to have sex with strangers. At the very least, each partner can secure from the other a decision in advance, preferably in writing.



The final step will be to legally acknowledge the fetus as human, therefore a citizen. People fought against the same concept about black people, but it eventually became law as well.

Scrat wrote:

When you get to the subject of responsibilty don't even try to tell me I am biased in error when society on one hand considers a whoremaster with 10 kids to 10different women a stud and the women with the kids are considered sluts and burdens on society.



Don't even go there.
I absolutely, wholeheartedly give a standing fu*king ovation to this comment. Way to go, Scrat. :yh_clap :yh_clap