A woman's right?

[jillio]

inherent –adjective
1. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute

I don't think there's a good way to say that money is inherent to sex. And I'm not reducing biological different to no difference, you are. The biological difference is that women have potential consequences from sex. Biologically. Men don't. You're saying that I shouldn't negate the differences between men and women, but you are essentially advocating taking away the consequences for women, and imposing new ones on men. That, to me, makes no sense.

And I'm not trying to argue the morality. That is just a dangerous and pointless road to walk down, I don't see why either of us would change our minds. I'm just trying to point out the inconsistency and sometimes illogical nature of the laws surrounding this.

Ididn't say that money was inherent to sex. I said the consequences of unprotected sex are inherent in males vs females. Males have different consequences than females inherent to their sex. Biologically, men do have consequences. They are simply different from those experienced by females.

An abortion is a medical procedure performed on a female. We cannot pass laws regarding male abortion because there is no such thing. However, if a man chooses to do so, he can have a vascectoly without informing his partner that he is no longer able to father children. A wife doesn't have to sign off on that procedure, even though it affects rights to reproduction. And a male doesn't have to sign off on a medical procedure performed on a woman, even though it affects reproductive rights.

 

[lsfoster]

It most certainly is choice. If you choose to have unprotected sex, you choose to accept the consequences that go along with it. Those consequences are different for men and women. If you choose not to be responsible, then you also choose to accept the consequences of behaving in an irresponsible manner.

See, to me, this still means that if a woman chooses to have sex, then she should be doing so with the understanding that she could get pregnant, and have to deal with that repercussion. I'm not saying you have to agree with that, I just don't understand how you can say that only men should be forced, legally to have repercussions for their actions, when a woman can choose to sidestep those repercussions

Women have the legal right to make decisions regarding their reproductive rights, and men have the legal right to make decisions regarding their reproductive rights. Those rights are different because men and women are biologically different.

But men don't. Legally, they are responsible for that baby even if they don't want it. They don't get to make a decision.

Ididn't say that money was inherent to sex. I said the consequences of unprotected sex are inherent in males vs females. Males have different consequences than females inherent to their sex. Biologically, men do have consequences. They are simply different from those experienced by females.

An abortion is a medical procedure performed on a female. We cannot pass laws regarding male abortion because there is no such thing. However, if a man chooses to do so, he can have a vascectoly without informing his partner that he is no longer able to father children. A wife doesn't have to sign off on that procedure, even though it affects rights to reproduction. And a male doesn't have to sign off on a medical procedure performed on a woman, even though it affects reproductive rights.

You don't have to pass laws about male abortion. It's actually a much easier issue because it has nothing to do with procedures, or the baby itself. When a woman has the choice to have an abortion, all she needs to do is say, "I don't want this baby", and she is no longer responsible for it. A man has no such option.

And this is not the same as a vasectomy. A woman can also go get her tubes tied if she wants. That's a separate issue, and one that has equal male and female options. In this case, the issue is "deciding to be responsible for a baby they both made", and the woman gets a choice that the man doesn't.

 

[Daredevel7]

And I'm not trying to argue the morality. That is just a dangerous and pointless road to walk down, I don't see why either of us would change our minds. I'm just trying to point out the inconsistency and sometimes illogical nature of the laws surrounding this.

Yes, there is inconsistency, but really.... do we even WANT consistency?

ex.
-We must not play god: therefore no abortion, no assisted suicide, no capital punishment, no medicine, no resurrection after flat-lining, and so on.

-Everyone has a right to marry: therefore kids can marry, threesomes can marry, related people can marry, and so on.

-Animals are living beings and have a right to live: therefore they shouldn't be killed, and people need to go to court if they killed any animal, even by accident, just like humans.

Human life is complex and it's not simple to make everything "consistent".

 

[lsfoster]

Yes, there is inconsistency, but really.... do we even WANT consistency?

ex.
-We must not play god: therefore no abortion, no assisted suicide, no capital punishment, no medicine, no resurrection after flat-lining, and so on.

-Everyone has a right to marry: therefore kids can marry, threesomes can marry, related people can marry, and so on.

-Animals are living beings and have a right to live: therefore they shouldn't be killed, and people need to go to court if they killed any animal, even by accident, just like humans.

Human life is complex and it's not simple to make everything "consistent".

No, I think you're confusing "consistent" with "uniform", or "homogeneous". (Sorry, I'm a chem dork, I can't help myself ) I'm pretty sure I didn't make any of those statements, or anything really similar. All I'm trying to get at is that there is a way to make most laws fair and consistent for all involved. So yes, everyone has a right to marry, within certain restrictions. And therefore, everyone should be able to get married with those restrictions. My point here is that the law doesn't apply fairly to both men and women in a situation where it could. If you think people should have the "choice" not to deal with the repercussions for having sex, then I think it's unfair that women get that choice and men don't, that's all.

 

[jillio]

See, to me, this still means that if a woman chooses to have sex, then she should be doing so with the understanding that she could get pregnant, and have to deal with that repercussion. I'm not saying you have to agree with that, I just don't understand how you can say that only men should be forced, legally to have repercussions for their actions, when a woman can choose to sidestep those repercussions

But the men haven't been forced to legally have repercussions. They know in the beginning that if they have unprotected sex, and that could lead to a pregnancy. They also know that deciding whether to abort or to keep the child is a decision that is placed squarely on the woman's shoulder's, and that they are bound to be subject to her decision. So if they impregnate a woman, they do so knowing full well that a possible consequence of having done so is either that the child will be aborted or they will be paying child support for 18 years. That is the consequence that is specific to the male gender.
But men don't. Legally, they are responsible for that baby even if they don't want it. They don't get to make a decision.
They made the decision to have unprotected sex. In that decision is the risk that they will, indeed have to pay child support for 18 years should a pregnancy occur as the result of that unprotected sex. They abdicate their right to decide when they decide that unprotected sex is a good idea.

You don't have to pass laws about male abortion. It's actually a much easier issue because it has nothing to do with procedures, or the baby itself. When a woman has the choice to have an abortion, all she needs to do is say, "I don't want this baby", and she is no longer responsible for it. A man has no such option.
Yes, he does. He can refuse to have unprotected sex. Since he cannot get pregnant, he has no right to decide for another.

And this is not the same as a vasectomy. A woman can also go get her tubes tied if she wants. That's a separate issue, and one that has equal male and female options. In this case, the issue is "deciding to be responsible for a baby they both made", and the woman gets a choice that the man doesn't.

But, you see, having an abortion is being responsible for the consequences of the decision to have unprotected sex. Once a child is conceived, a woman can take responsibility for it either by giving birth or having an abortion. Two choices for the responsibility. It is for her to make that choice.
A woman doesn't have much choice in the matter when the man who impregnanted her takes off and refuses to be a part of his child's life, either. She certainly can't force him to be a father. She cannot force him to be present in that child's life.

 

[KarissaMann05]

I'm sorry you haven't been feeling well, Karissa.

Thanks, Jill

*generally*

I read some pretty interesting posts here. Hmm...

 

[Daredevel7]

No, I think you're confusing "consistent" with "uniform", or "homogeneous". (Sorry, I'm a chem dork, I can't help myself ) I'm pretty sure I didn't make any of those statements, or anything really similar. All I'm trying to get at is that there is a way to make most laws fair and consistent for all involved. So yes, everyone has a right to marry, within certain restrictions. And therefore, everyone should be able to get married with those restrictions. My point here is that the law doesn't apply fairly to both men and women in a situation where it could. If you think people should have the "choice" not to deal with the repercussions for having sex, then I think it's unfair that women get that choice and men don't, that's all.

Sigh.. chem dorks and their science words.....

What other option is there? How can we make laws equal for both men and women in terms of abortion? Especially in the case where the woman doesn't want the baby but the man does.

 

[jillio]

Sigh.. chem dorks and their science words.....

What other option is there? How can we make laws equal for both men and women in terms of abortion? Especially in the case where the woman doesn't want the baby but the man does.

Perhaps he should make sure he is having sex with someone who wants a child. Then the issue is already dealt with. Personal responsibility, people.

 

[lsfoster]

But the men haven't been forced to legally have repercussions. They know in the beginning that if they have unprotected sex, and that could lead to a pregnancy. They also know that deciding whether to abort or to keep the child is a decision that is placed squarely on the woman's shoulder's, and that they are bound to be subject to her decision. So if they impregnate a woman, they do so knowing full well that a possible consequence of having done so is either that the child will be aborted or they will be paying child support for 18 years. That is the consequence that is specific to the male gender.

Right, it is currently. I'm saying that laws aren't always right. That would be like saying that since, currently, the majority of states and the federal government have said that I can't get married, I should just accept that as a consequence of my lifestyle. You don't agree in that case, because you don't agree with the law. And I don't agree with this one. I think that the men have been forced to have repercussions, and that the women haven't. The same way that I think it should be "marriage for all, or marriage for none", I think that either both parties should be able to decide they don't want the baby, or neither of them should.

They made the decision to have unprotected sex. In that decision is the risk that they will, indeed have to pay child support for 18 years should a pregnancy occur as the result of that unprotected sex. They abdicate their right to decide when they decide that unprotected sex is a good idea.

Again, a dangerous thing to say when you're arguing that women should have the choice to decide after the fact.

Ready? Tag, you're it!

 

[lsfoster]

Sigh.. chem dorks and their science words.....

What other option is there? How can we make laws equal for both men and women in terms of abortion? Especially in the case where the woman doesn't want the baby but the man does.

Well see, that's an area where I think this becomes a really hard issue. I do think that the fairest thing for now would be to remove imposed child support. I do know that there have already been court cases where a woman wanted an abortion and the man wanted her to keep it. I don't know how they've all turned out, or how I would decide on those, personally.

Perhaps he should make sure he is having sex with someone who wants a child. Then the issue is already dealt with. Personal responsibility, people.

Personal responsibility? Well then we can just get rid of the abortion question altogether! Don't have sex unless you're willing to have a baby. Whew, glad that's over.

See, I actually think that we could resolve the abortion issue between ourselves very easily. I would say that somewhere after 20-25 weeks, I don't think that abortion should be an option unless there is a health risk for the mother. I'm well aware of the fact that an overwhelming majority of abortions happen far before this. I think that's a pretty fair compromise. After that point, I think that the baby is viable, and it should be considered murder. Partial-birth abortions shouldn't even be a question, they're just sick (if you ask me).

But I do realize that "personal responsibility" is a huge factor, and that right now people do not get a good enough education on sexual topics to be able to take responsibility for their actions the way they should. Someday, though, in my perfect world....

 

[jillio]

Ready? Tag, you're it!

In what ways, exactly, have men been forced to have consequences that are not inherent in being men and fathering a child?

And, no, it is related to gay marriage in no way whatsoever. In a gay relationship, you have 2 people that have agreed on the way in which they choose to live their life together.

In the case of a heterosexual relationship, you have 2 people who have agreed to engage in a sexual relationship that could lead to different consequences for each.

And personal responsibility would certainly lessen the need for abortion, now wouldn't it?

The law is equitable. A man cannot impose his will on a woman's ability to make a medical decision between herself and her physician, and a woman cannot impose her will on a man's decision to make a medical decision between himself and his physician. And no matter how you look at it, the law says that it is a medical decision, and that the right to privacy regarding that decision is guaranteed.

 

[jillio]

Yes, there is inconsistency, but really.... do we even WANT consistency?

ex.
-We must not play god: therefore no abortion, no assisted suicide, no capital punishment, no medicine, no resurrection after flat-lining, and so on.

-Everyone has a right to marry: therefore kids can marry, threesomes can marry, related people can marry, and so on.

-Animals are living beings and have a right to live: therefore they shouldn't be killed, and people need to go to court if they killed any animal, even by accident, just like humans.

Human life is complex and it's not simple to make everything "consistent".

The point is, the law is consistent. A man cannot impose his will on a woman's medical decisions, and a woman cannot impose her will on a man's medical decisions. That is the crux of the law, and it very consistent, indeed.

 

[jillio]

Well see, that's an area where I think this becomes a really hard issue. I do think that the fairest thing for now would be to remove imposed child support. I do know that there have already been court cases where a woman wanted an abortion and the man wanted her to keep it. I don't know how they've all turned out, or how I would decide on those, personally.



Personal responsibility? Well then we can just get rid of the abortion question altogether! Don't have sex unless you're willing to have a baby. Whew, glad that's over.

See, I actually think that we could resolve the abortion issue between ourselves very easily. I would say that somewhere after 20-25 weeks, I don't think that abortion should be an option unless there is a health risk for the mother. I'm well aware of the fact that an overwhelming majority of abortions happen far before this. I think that's a pretty fair compromise. After that point, I think that the baby is viable, and it should be considered murder. Partial-birth abortions shouldn't even be a question, they're just sick (if you ask me).

But I do realize that "personal responsibility" is a huge factor, and that right now people do not get a good enough education on sexual topics to be able to take responsibility for their actions the way they should. Someday, though, in my perfect world....

I think everyone is educated to the point that they realize that unprotected sex can result in pregnancy. Just because they choose to ignore it doesn't mean they aren't aware of it.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Hmmm.... So, what I read some current posts... you said when a man finds out that his (spouse/girlfriend/roomie/partner/etc) is pregnant, he should not say a word about abortion, rising the child, adoption, or anything else that might influence her decision because he is not the one who has to undergo "the process". Is that right? Well, to me, that's a bit awkward... Here's an explain...

"Honey, I'm pregnant!"
"Oh, 'kay."
"Hm? Are you happy?"
"Can't say, might influence whether you choose abortion, or keep the child, or else."

Call me crazy.. but, to me, it sounds like a bit of retard. :/

 

[lsfoster]

In what ways, exactly, have men been forced to have consequences that are not inherent in being men and fathering a child?

Because the consequence has been imposed by a law. To say that the law already exists and is therefore "inherent" doesn't make sense. The same could have been said before Roe v. Wade. The consequence of having sex was that you might get pregnant and have to carry the child. That was an inherent consequence of being a female and having sex. Now, however, women have a choice about how to deal with that consequence, and men have had their right to choose taken away.

 

[Hwy99]

Sorry I have to disagree that men have no reason to discuss with his girlfriend or wife about abortion, because then what kind relationship is that?

If I have a female (whatever the relationship I had) that have my sperm and developed a baby, then talked to me about abort the baby, I would love to discuss with her about abortion because I know she won't like it if I just tell her it's her choice because that make me feel like I don't want to be dad or even to be part of the family, it's too careless answer to me, you know? One of my best friend sometimes got pregnanted, but wanted to abort, they (included her finance) told me that they both talked about it and decided to abort the baby because they are not ready. I am glad that they talked about it together, that make them look like they have very good relationship.

But I won't say anything if it was those kind of situation when a man rape, or forcing her to have the baby, or even forcing her to abort, I disagree with that neither.

 

[Hwy99]

Hmmm.... So, what I read some current posts... you said when a man finds out that his (spouse/girlfriend/roomie/partner/etc) is pregnant, he should not say a word about abortion, rising the child, adoption, or anything else that might influence her decision because he is not the one who has to undergo "the process". Is that right? Well, to me, that's a bit awkward... Here's an explain...

"Honey, I'm pregnant!"
"Oh, 'kay."
"Hm? Are you happy?"
"Can't say, might influence whether you choose abortion, or keep the child, or else."

Call me crazy.. but, to me, it sounds like a bit of retard. :/

*nods* Agree, too careless to left a pregnant woman behind for her own decision.

 

[KarissaMann05]

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

 

[jillio]

Hmmm.... So, what I read some current posts... you said when a man finds out that his (spouse/girlfriend/roomie/partner/etc) is pregnant, he should not say a word about abortion, rising the child, adoption, or anything else that might influence her decision because he is not the one who has to undergo "the process". Is that right? Well, to me, that's a bit awkward... Here's an explain...

"Honey, I'm pregnant!"
"Oh, 'kay."
"Hm? Are you happy?"
"Can't say, might influence whether you choose abortion, or keep the child, or else."

Call me crazy.. but, to me, it sounds like a bit of retard. :/

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

 

[jillio]

Because the consequence has been imposed by a law. To say that the law already exists and is therefore "inherent" doesn't make sense. The same could have been said before Roe v. Wade. The consequence of having sex was that you might get pregnant and have to carry the child. That was an inherent consequence of being a female and having sex. Now, however, women have a choice about how to deal with that consequence, and men have had their right to choose taken away.

Women have always had a choice. Ever hear of illegal abortion. Millions of women died and were maimed as a result. The choice has changed only in that the choice now includes a safe procedure in a medical facility.