General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQuestion: Why Do MEN Have ANY Say In A WOMAN'S Right To Choose ???
Anybody ???
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
we can do it
(13,024 posts)sheesh
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)we can do it
(13,024 posts)Nothing appeals to women more than a cheap-assed man.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)we can do it
(13,024 posts)Have fun there cheapo.
delete_bush
(1,712 posts)I see nothing's changed much over the last six years.
Xipe Totec
(44,558 posts)
Isoldeblue
(1,135 posts)
we can do it
(13,024 posts)
WillyT
(72,631 posts)But until you can carry the pregnancy for her... shut the hell up.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)
polly7
(20,582 posts)That said ............, only the woman / girl knows what is best for herself and everyone else needs to stay the hell out of it.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)at least until someone calls the cops on you.
Gore1FL
(22,951 posts)They have complimentary peanuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Guys
Squinch
(59,522 posts)
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)As in, don't even make your opinion or preference known?
Sounds like a basis for a great relationship...
WillyT
(72,631 posts)She might not even let you know she's pregnant.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Seems to be to encourage people to speak out so you can then either high five them, or tell them to shut the hell up.
Congrats on such a thoughtful thread.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Half the time they can't....and then complain when you pick for them when they wouldn't lol ha ha.
It is a trap! !!!
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Want to sleep with?"
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)gopiscrap
(24,734 posts)
leftstreet
(40,682 posts)Male or female
They should all stfu and butt out of any woman's reproductive business
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)before you knocked it out of the park? +1000
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)you win this subthread
PDJane
(10,103 posts)of the Patriarchy. They hold the levers of power, and they are going to ensure that we know it.
Warpy
(114,615 posts)Yeah, that's just some men, but that "some" is the noisiest about women who might undo the holy work of their golden rods by having an abortion.
Control-Z
(15,686 posts)RC
(25,592 posts)That man has a right to voice his opinion. The woman has the right to decide for herself. Other than necessarily involved medical personal, no one else even needs to know.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
RC
(25,592 posts)Oh yes it does. But just a say, as it is still the woman body and the woman's decision. When men are no longer involved in getting women pregnant, them and only then, will the have no say in the matter.
CTyankee
(68,202 posts)Last edited Sun Nov 3, 2013, 09:50 AM - Edit history (1)
He can use a condom or have a vasectomy if he does not wish to become a father. If he DOES want to become a father then he should talk to his partner about their becoming parents of a child and what that would mean.
If a man is not willing to make any of those efforts to avoid causing an unwanted pregnancy, then I don't see how he should have any further say in the matter...
RC
(25,592 posts)Therefore he does have a say. If he does not have any say in the matter, then he also should have no responsibility, either, correct?
Is this not the same thing women are fighting in many areas? You know, just shut-up and do as you are told?
The man was a partner, regardless of whether he used a condom, or the woman said it was OK because it was the 'safe' time of the month, or even if they were both drunk as skunks at a recreational sex party. If it was consensual, the man has a say. However it is still the woman's body and the woman has the last word and responsibility for making the decision.
I don't understand why in partnership activity, one partner, either partner, has no say in the matter.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)When a person has the potential of dying, then its their own personal decision on what to do. Some pregnancies result in life-long disabilities. No woman knows what the future holds when it comes to a pregnancy. Thereby lies the ultimate reality and why the woman alone needs to evaluate what she's willing to endure.
Caring individuals can advise but until the man faces the EXACT same stakes as a pregnant woman, his POV is advisory only.
RC
(25,592 posts)Why do so many on this thread thinking like Republicans in deny the man the same rights, as others are trying to deny women in personal, private matters? Without him, there would be no pregnancy in the first place. He is involved. Why the double standard here? Where are the equal rights, in denying the man any say?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)You do not seem to be on my page at all.
A man can't possibly interject a man's "superior" wisdom on this situation.
Only the woman faces a potentially life changing event like death from pregnancy. Or permanent bodily harm.
Therefore everything else is irrelevant.
Besides this is a privacy concern. These medical decisions are between a woman and her doctor
RC
(25,592 posts)I keep saying the woman has the final decision, but some people here seem to just skip over that part. They can't seen to wrap their heads around a male agreeing that the woman has the final decision. Either that or because I am a male of the species, I automatically don't know what I am talking about, regardless.
Maybe you should go back and read my posts on this thread.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)The biological father, in such discussions here, is a mere worm, the biological mother a Goddess of Sweetness and Light of the Universe.
I just don't even bother anymore.
RC
(25,592 posts)All too often, the man is the source of the child support. Other than that he is told to get lost. DU has its loud contingent of that mind set, as is obvious here. Clear concise, correctly spelled English is overlooked and misinterpreted, to read as they want to see it.
CTyankee
(68,202 posts)really comment on your post...where is that scenario occurring?
RC
(25,592 posts)The man has a responsibility in a woman getting pregnant, so therefore, he also has a say in the matter. But the woman has the ultimate decision, the ultimate say, in keeping or aborting the pregnancy. But the man involved DOES have a Right to have a say in the matter, to voice his opinion.
I don't know how many times, in how many different ways I have said this in this thread and still someone doe not get the clear meaning of what I said.
CTyankee
(68,202 posts)(or just refusing to have sex, for that matter, a man does that have that choice, too, right?.) What are you saying about "a say in the matter," then?
RC
(25,592 posts)The answer is because the man is needed for a pregnancy to take place. But the woman also has access to birth control and has a responsibility here. Since she is the one that gets pregnant, the bulk of the responsibility for birth control is hers. There are two people involved in a consensual relationship/intercourse. Therefore both have responsibilities in any resulting pregnancy.
CTyankee
(68,202 posts)can get a vasectomy, or they can use condoms during sex. So this can be planned and thought about by men who care about such things. Andit can be discussed between two people who are in a relationship.
I don't think it is mean of me to suggest that men have this responsibility over pregnancy...all I am saying is "let's have a talk about it..."
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)In a perfect world, maybe, but if a woman (or girl) finds herself pregnant and doesn't want to carry to term, if she tells the male involved, he may put undue pressure on her to keep the child or bully her into doing something she doesn't want to do.
What if a woman is having an affair (not that I would advise that, just playing "what if" here) and accidentally gets pregnant, but her husband has had a vasectomy? Would you think she needed to tell the bio dad? Her husband? Could the BD use that info to blackmail her if he was an asshole? (These things do happen, I know for a fact.)
It's a complicated issue, but in my mind, at least, it is always the woman's decision whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term and whether or not to tell.
RC
(25,592 posts)CTyankee
(68,202 posts)It's nobody else's business, right?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)who will write an amendment to the constitution that makes explicit each woman's right to choose.
And that amendment is needed to curb states, commonwealths, and territories persistent attempts to subvert that right.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Though that too may change
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)An amendment takes 66% of Congress and 75% of the states.
That's going to take at least a couple of us voting with you.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)clffrdjk
(905 posts)Yea I feel so welcomed from what I have read so far.[sarcasim/]
Maybe that will change down thread.
niyad
(132,446 posts)sex with that woman, if she chooses to elicit that opinion. and, even then, his opinion is NOT the deciding one.
MANative
(4,188 posts)
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)Ultimately her body, her decision.
frogmarch
(12,251 posts)not his, that's used as the container, no.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)I will note that your question is "why do men..." not "why should men...."
tecelote
(5,156 posts)Why do is very different than why should.
They do because they can. We elected them or we support their business. It's because they are empowered by us.
That's changing.
I'd love to be the first man to vote Elizabeth Warren for President.
Deep13
(39,157 posts)because of time zones. 
So, I would have beat you to it. But, it's going to be corporatist, war-mongering Hillary. 
malaise
(296,118 posts)Patriarchy!
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)and a baby, they think they're "defending" the rights of an actual child. A man doesn't have a say when a woman cuts her hair or her nails, so he shouldn't have a damn thing to say when she practices her reproductive rights.
AAO
(3,300 posts)They should decide together, with any tiebreakers going to the woman.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
AAO
(3,300 posts)
mythology
(9,527 posts)Because some men are threatened by the idea that women are fully functioning human beings who don't need us manly menfolk to do all the thinking so we don't stress their fragile little female brains.
Because some people believe that there is a religiously sacred duty toward a clump of cells that magically overrules a woman's right to her own body.
Because enough of those people who vote to elect idiots who will enact laws and appoint/elect judges that will uphold such laws that deny women the right to control her own body.
As for whether a man should have a say (as in a veto), I say no. I think in a healthy relationship, a couple should have a discussion on the subject, but that ultimately it's the woman's choice since all of the physical ramifications of pregnancy are on the woman.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Legal or illegal, the wealthy will obtain abortions for their daughters with ease because they have money, which gives them near ultimate power in our country. All these things we fight over, they get them automatically.
Regardless, it is essential for this debate to continue, because they can use it to get people who have no self-interest in Republican policies to vote Republican. This helps them achieve the two goals which they care about to the exclusion of all others: keep their wealth, and accumulate more wealth as easy and tax-free as possible.
So while we're battling fundamentalist Christians for the right to choose, the rich sit in their manor houses on the hills and laugh at us while they concentrate all the country's wealth in their hands. You think the Koch and Walton families care about your abortions? Your gay marriages? They've got hundreds of billions to protect and hundreds of billions more to make, they don't give a fuck about social issues.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Yes, most of the criminal elite, with maybe only a few exceptions, *DO* give a fuck about social issues. It is, in fact, the majority of their control mechanism; to be frankly honest, even if we did manage to prosecute Wall Street(even some libertarians are calling for it), the useful idiots who stayed could still keep the status quo going for a while if we stop attacking them on social issues as well; those who could or would leave, certainly would just take their assets out of the country. But if we keep a two-front war going, they'd be in real trouble, in that not only would their economic hegemony collapse, but the social corruptions that ultimately upheld them would also be knocked down as well, ensuring that the chance for another Gilded Age would be virtually zero, at least for the time being.
It's a noble goal to work towards, but we have a long way to go, and they *will* keep dividing us with bullshit like "all blacks are gangsters", or "all whites are racist", "all women are irrational train wrecks", "all Mexicans are illegal aliens", "anyone who supports universal healthcare is a Stalinist Commie", etc.
Triloon
(506 posts)in a committed partnership then maybe that's the best way to dispose of one too.
Isoldeblue
(1,135 posts)That seems crass. I'm not sure how you meant that.
Aldo Leopold
(687 posts)think this way regard women as property.
seattle15
(45 posts)By calling them men, you aren't telling the truth about what their kind really is. Why defend them?
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)what happens in the affairs of peoples lives is no ones business. Not the states, not the fed, not mine, not politicians not the pope, not the preacher, not the teabaggers etc. Now if you want to ask me on a personal level I may give you a different answer, depending on many things. I will not play in the black and white world that some suggest.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)but it is a minority opinion. The rest of the world has no right to an opinion at all.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Seems pretty simple...
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Egnever
(21,506 posts)
efhmc
(16,667 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Point well taken but that is the reason.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)choose together. But in the patriarchal world we actually live in, men should not have any right to have a say. But you knew that.
After many miscarriages, some desired losses, I made a pact with myself and I informed every partner I had from that point on. I decided that if I got pregnant by accident, I would not abort, nor would I take the tests that might show that I had a Down's kid. I always used protection and never had sex with anyone without having that conversation. The situation never came up, luckily, but I know I would have stuck to my choice. But that was my choice. I've also nursed many a woman through second trimester abortions when other nurses refused for "moral" reasons. I had no such issue. I'm completely pro choice, with others and myself.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)ever in the background. That's my short answer to the OP.
The long answer starts with: Going along to get along with these presumptions is what women practice. Males think women agree with them, but men would be wrong. It's just because women won't fight or kill them over these issues, and men push women's peacefulness, and take unfair advantage of their now-institutionalized dominance to send the message, "We'll decide what's best for you. Like it or lump it."
Out of 100 men, it only takes one violent act by one man to make women not trust the other 99 men, and secretly, silently the other 99 men might just let that guy 'off the hook,' since they gain some power as 'protectors' from his creating a kind of power association they can have because of him. It can be discussed, joked about and rationalized by men all they want, but ... Women know the deal. Women can turn prey at any moment.
The civilizing forces of institutions might buffer these 'in the wild' realities...and women can sometimes win safety and restitution within these arenas... but when away from civilization... women know the bottom line. There's a reason 51% of the world's population only owns 1% of its property and 5% of its money -- in the west the amount is only about 10% higher...but really, no one really believes that women historically have just given all that wealth away. Sounds dark because it is. Thus, the war against women across all continents.
On a lighter note, If I could convince men that it's in their best interests to live by what a priest told me 40 years ago, I'd have hope for the end of patriarchy. He said that God (and I'm an atheist, so, the universal system could now work for me just as well) has given equal spiritual authority and free will to both men and women, with women deciding who/what goes into and out of their bodies, a decision which is between them and their God. When men respect that, they will stop trying to control women's bodies as a show of their male Pride, which is a 'deadly sin', according to that priest and the Catholic Church. I couldn't agree more. But men, unfortunately, don't see equality as in men's ego or financial interests to respect the equality of women, so here we are.
polichick
(37,626 posts)And most do if the relationship is good.
Chaco Dundee
(334 posts)They don't.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)Or they shouldn't at least.
amerciti001
(158 posts)Question(?): Why Do "MEN" Have ANY!?! Say In A :WOMAN'S: Right To Choose !?!?!?
Now that the questioned!? is ASKED... let's all answer it!!
(I'm assuming that a (thoughtful or insightful) "Women" [of the Female Species] is asking us "Male"[of the species], why in the hell are "We" so concerned with what a "Women's"... Rights to Choose and make these decision about herself, without the "Male of the 'Species'" objecting to "Her" decision or Chioces...
Let me be clear... First and foremost, these so call issue are really "Women" issue and should be resolve by "Women" themselves, without any input ( or influence), by those of us of the "Male" species.
We, "Males" have really no say in a Women's choices or desions in her Rights to Choose. We, "Males" can only-accept- that which the "Women"-Chooses, if you don't agree with her rights to choose, just move on in life, you'll find someone ( or something ) that be more in agreement with your views ( of F'd up way ok thinking(sic)), and life goes on.
So, any "Male" that feel that he has a say (and a right) in a "Women's" rights to choose... get pregnant a**hole and then you might have something to say on a "Women" rights to "Choose"
Response to WillyT (Original post)
Cronus Protagonist This message was self-deleted by its author.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)Geneva Conventions, right??? 
Response to ancianita (Reply #58)
Cronus Protagonist This message was self-deleted by its author.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)Men conveniently pat themselves on the back for their innocence in these conversations, as if the statistics for each group don't even exist. Go on ahead witcha bad self.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)We have a right to keep penises. Maybe not bare them, though.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)Therefore 2nd Amendment is moot. Jokes aside, one's "tool" cannot be used as a weapon.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)penises kill people?
It's not the penis that does the raping. Prosecute the criminal not the weapon.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)never just hand the weapon back to a criminal. I know you probably can't face this, but contrary to what most men think, penises are no more sacred than vaginas and wombs, which can get pretty damaged -- and are all over the world by such criminals. There's no sacred taboo against disarming a male who uses his penis as a weapon. Contrary to penises and their criminal wielders, wild vaginas don't go around raping and ruining male lives. And don't think you can cite sexual harassment stats that prove "both genders do it." You can't. 
Initech
(108,783 posts)Why is it near impossible for women to get birth control pills through insurance, but Viagra and Cialis are advertised during prime time? 
Lots of insurance companies cover birth control pills (not that I want to be an insurance company defender).
elzenmahn
(904 posts)It speaks to over 7,000 years of paternalism which has formed much of the bedrock of western culture.
Changing this, thought, will not occur overnight. It took us thousands of years to get here, it will likely take at least several generations to get ourselves out of it completely.
Keep chipping away at it.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)ancianita
(43,307 posts)For thousands of years. It's called peer pressure and peer advantage by group dominance held up by the "might makes right" standard.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)"Religion is the only thing that keeps Women from slaughtering most of the Men" 
ancianita
(43,307 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)it's a woman's body.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Though I do have a voice and speak up in favor of it.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)That prevents a sperm donor from disappearing whenever he wants then maybe their input can be considered. I know hundreds of Mothers left to raise a child on her own. If a woman abandons her children they are consider scum of the earth. If a man does it. It's just Tuesday. I know husbands who just abandon their families. Some even start families with other women. The woman 95% of the time is saddled with ALL of the responsibility.
And Childsupport is a joke. The collection agency for child support is more concerned with earning interest off the father's money, than they are in making sure the money gets to the child. I knew a father who started paying the mother directly for CS instead of using the system. Because the Collection Agencey was not getting the mother the full amount of $865.00. She was only getting $165 every two weeks.
So the father begain paying her directly. The Mother reported the payments made to the Child Support office. They told her Unless the money is paid through them. The payments don't count.
Stupid
rrneck
(17,671 posts)MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)adopt a child if their spouse or even the state objects? Maybe it means they can choose to Father a boy child or a girl child? Or maybe it means they can choose to support one child but not another child? A white or black child? Maybe it means they choose to Father a disabled child, or not?
Husbands have a right to decide if they are going to be a Daddy. Whose Daddy and when?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)that the husband has the right to determine whether or not he assumes the responsibilities of parenthood.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)Because men say rights are what one can enforce... isn't that the logical end of your "rights" line of reasoning?
It means that husbands should have a say in whether or not they will assume the responsibilities of parenthood.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)no, the OP question isn't really answered here, except by your implication that if married, the man's will prevails. It does not. It's usually a matter of timing. Men's reproductive time frame gives them a lot more leeway than does that of their wives.
Within the context of marriage, anything by agreement is fair. But husbands deciding for other women what to do with their bodies is, by universal ethics, out of the question. And yet both single and married men continue to presume that privilege. History shows it, no matter how you think individuals like you behave.
Male dominance is a lot like racism. Almost no men claim it individually, yet collectively, there it is. Someone please explain this to me.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I gave you one reason. You assume implications that did not exist.
I suspect the bulk (although not all) of male dominance is actually class dominance.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)arise? They close ranks.
You're in denial. Enjoy your lofty male view of men.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)If they can figure out a way to pay left handed redheads a nickle less, they will stir up a culture war to make it happen.
Ever hear of a guy named Jay Gould? He is reputed to have said, "You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half." While there is factual basis for most of the culture war issues that rage today, there is a cadre of 1%ers and wannabies who are making a good living off telling people what they want to hear.
Are you aware that you hadn't even considered the possibility that a man might not want a child? Why not?
ancianita
(43,307 posts)There are men all over the world who don't want a child. Yet, most of them have them. The statistics on male abandonment of women and children are all over the planet for anyone who cares to read them.
As for the 1%, they care only for themselves and theirs. At any time, almost all of them men, they can switch wives, abandon existing children and start over with no one, or any new wife and children, with little to no social, financial or legal repercussions. Sure, anything's possible. I'm talking about what's true for most 'people' most of the time. Existing stats prove that reality. Are you aware of that reality?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)The impossibility of legislating interpersonal relationships? The impossibility of legislating morality? Or how about the impossibility of legislating how one group of people perceives another?
Which "people" are we talking about here? Women are oppressed for a number of reasons depending on the culture in which they live. What do you want me to say? Do you think I will try to deny the injustice? Why are we having this conversation?
ancianita
(43,307 posts)I'm calling the injustice that you say you don't deny, the probability of male dominance in legislating male morality, which you prefer to dismiss as impossibility. Or needing 'reform' -- as if all the efforts of women in law in what, the last fifty years, haven't been blocked by men who presume the privilege of knowing better what's best for women -- for thousands. It's the old biological determinism argument that clouds such legislating. Then there's the biological determinism clouding the enforcement.
My use of 'people' was meant as a frequently used euphemism that covers most men and some women.
What do I want you to say? I only wanted you to say what you meant by "rights" in the first post. If you don't care to address any larger context that buttress those rights, fine by me.
Then there's you asking me why "we" are having this conversation when you blithely assert that men have "rights." That's like asserting that birds fly. If you want no response to your declarations, fine by me. My attempts to place your meaning in a larger context are well intentioned, but right now you're just peevish.
We're having this conversation because I thought you might respect a woman's viewpoint. You present several questions that I'm to infer can't possibly have answers, that make male behaviors and "rights" sound more like some 'natural' phenomenon than laws can possibly govern.
You don't have to say anything. Thanks for sharing. Make your declarations and leave this conversation in peace. It's all good.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I already told you what I meant by "rights" in the first post. Men have the right to not have the responsibilities of parenthood forced upon them by fiat. And you agreed.
What in jumping jesus is "male morality"?
ancianita
(43,307 posts)You said: "Husbands have a right to decide if they are going to be a daddy."
To be read: "Birds fly."
My response: "Agreed. And...."
Now you want to claim that you meant: "men have the right to not have the responsibilities of parenthood forced upon them..."
Now my response: Sounds like a woman's argument to me. If only men thought and acted as if they had no say in women making that same argument.
http://reproductiverights.org/sites/crr.civicactions.net/files/documents/crr_2013_MidYear_Legislative_Report.pdf
rrneck
(17,671 posts)We agreed, a long time ago, about the rights of men and women. And yet, you don't seem happy. Why is that?
ancianita
(43,307 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)what women want. I asked why you don't seem happy. I agreed with you. What's the problem?
ancianita
(43,307 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)your feelings become the concern of others when you approach them in such a confrontational manner. It's rude.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)I'd say that calling some honest reasoning a "confrontational manner" is a little passive aggressive rude, y'know? But it takes all kinds to make a world. No hard feelings whatsoever.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Let's have a look.
rrneck
82. It means that the husband has the right to determine whether or not he assumes the responsibilities of parenthood.
I don't think any reasonable person could rightfully force the responsibilities of parenthood on another. Just as it is wrong to compel a woman to carry a pregnancy to term and assume the responsibilities of motherhood, it's wrong to compel a man to assume financial and emotional responsibility for a child.
But here's where you went with it (even after I repeated myself in post 81):
ancianita
72. Even if the wife says no? So then, they can rape their wives all they want?
Because men say rights are what one can enforce... isn't that the logical end of your "rights" line of reasoning?
My assertion of choice assumes no sexual contact at all by either party. It it the right to not have a child enjoyed by both genders. Three posts into the subthread and you leap to a worst case scenario founded on a non sequitur.
ancianita
89. Subject only to his wife's agreement. His rights, or "say" don't give him any right to coercion.
Another non sequitur since the choice to do nothing precludes coercion on the part of the male. Note no such preclusion exists on the part of the female to coerce him by initiating a pregnancy without his consent.
ancianita
97. Collective male class dominance.
106. There are men all over the world who don't want a child. Yet, most of them have them.
(Wait, what? If they didn't want kids, whose fault is that?)
I'm calling the injustice that you say you don't deny...
Then there's you asking me why "we" are having this conversation when you blithely assert that men have "rights." That's like asserting that birds fly.
(Wait, you mean they don't? Aren't you asserting biological determinism here?)
...that make male behaviors and "rights" sound more like some 'natural' phenomenon than laws can possibly govern.
So after a flurry of non sequiturs and confrontational assumptions, post #116 quickly devolves into what would appear to be word salad. It's not. I have a fairly thick accent, and when I get upset or in a hurry a sort of "Ricky Ricardo" thing happens and nobody can understand a word that I say. What we have in this post is a flurry of feminist ideology shorthand. It appears as well when you refer to Chauncer.
Now, I obviously can't tell you how to feel but it's pretty obvious you're feeling something pretty strongly. And there's nothing wrong with that either. But the way this subthread has evolved displays what would appear to be an interesting set of objectives for those feelings.
A fundamentalist religion is just another ideology. It seems to me that it is characterized by, among other things, the understanding of the ideology as an end rather than a means. That understanding results in the creation of specific ingroups and outgroups and the application of a moral standard for both which is designed to favor the ideology. In my experience, the embrace of religion as an objective in itself can be seen with a retreat to litany, discounting of the rights of members in an outgroup, and the presentation of sacred text as a rebuttal.
Feminism is, well, an "ism" not unlike Catholicism or Buddhism, and people can feel any number of different ways about it. Nobody has any right to define those feelings for another. The question is not how they feel, but who profits from those feelings. In the case of conventional religion it's pretty obvious. In the case of feminism, not so much.
Just like most religions, feminism has played and continues to play an important part in the development of a just and compassionate society. The feelings that drive dedication to the cause of feminism also represent the source of a lucrative revenue stream for ideology producers interested in expanding their market. The conversion of a set of valid ideals into little more than a product happens when it is presented as something to be possessed and defended in it's own right like any other precious object. Dedication to an ideal becomes brand loyalty.
We have been in agreement about the facts of human rights throughout this entire conversation. The source of our disagreement is my lack of emotional conformity. I don't seem to share your dedication to feminist ideology, and you have flung everything but the kitchen sink at me for it.
And that's how the 1% makes money off ideology. Not only do they get to sell you the books, internet access, and other media to support your faith, it becomes a lever to divide you from others that share your ideals. That's how the rich are able to pay one half of the poor to kill the other half.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"that the husband has the right to determine whether or not he assumes the responsibilities of parenthood...."
You seem to be using two wholly separate words interchangeably.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)If the man doesn't want to be a daddy, he should speak up, and he has the right to do so.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)As long as women have to be the ones carrying the children, men's reproductive rights need to take a back seat.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)contribute in the raising of the child. That's a heavy responsibility that should not be forced on him by fiat.
Husbands and wives should work out the details between themselves and of course there are happy accidents. I have two(!) nephews because of such little surprises.
Now that's not to say that the husband should abandon the wife because of such surprises, and there are laws in place to insure that they will live up to their responsibilities.
ancianita
(43,307 posts)Read the latest "family" statistics of the census from this christian nation and you'll see that that assumption had better be backed up by law enforcement and the social contract for children, or it's honored more in the breach than in the practice.
Child support laws are randomly enforced and undependable, or over 50% of children in this country would not be in poverty. You're really going for the old 50's standard here, which men have ignored for decades, no matter how you put it.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)ancianita
(43,307 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)How do you propose we go about it?
ancianita
(43,307 posts)entertain reform. These guys are so busy trying to roll back what they already reformed, we have to reform the compositions of both houses altogether.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Why is it necessary to have a female majority in both houses?
ancianita
(43,307 posts)Now, why is it necessary to have a female majority? Seriously? You can't see the 20+ state and national legislative push against women's privacy rights? Do I have to do all that substance work for you? Where on this Earth do you see any women's rights being upheld without women being in big legislative numbers? Northern Europe, you say? Then why not here? You tell me, since you're so concerned with substance.
You explain to me how reform works in half the population's interest, if women's presence in government isn't any measure of secure and enforced rights. You can go all textbook ethics and theory if you want, but links would be more substantive.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It is argued that one of the key determinants of group biases is the need to improve self-esteem. That is individuals will find a reason, no matter how insignificant, to prove to themselves why their group is superior.
Do you think that men, as a gender, are unable to equitably legislate?
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Yes...thank you. And even single men have a right to decide if they are going to be a suppportive daddy. If they don't want a child and the woman has it anyway, I personally believe she should be willing to carry the load of support on her shoulders. She willingly had sex with the man too...she took a chance, no matter how well protected she thought she was.
I am a woman, and I think it's the woman's choice, but that does not mean the men involved don't have a voice in some of the terms of that choice.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I don't think a husband has the right to force a woman to have an abortion, or a child, against her will...but he still has the right to voice his concerns.
the choice goes both ways for the woman...the choice to have a child, or not to.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)But if sex results in a pregnancy and the woman determines to keep the pregnancy, the mans choice is going to be responsible for child support. I hope that helps!
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Unless they had a previous agreement that any sexual "accidental pregnancies" would be handled in such and such a way, I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the law makes him responsible, even if he doesn't choose to be, but I think the woman can decide for herself if she is taking that responsibility on for herself. I think I would choose to not hold him liable (if he is not willing), considering I get to make the final decision about whether or not a baby is born.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Get back to me when you find yourself pregnant and the man is unwilling to pay support. OK? Thanks.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)The woman is not dependent on the man in preventing childbirth. If she makes a mistake and gets pregnant, when he was clear about not wanting to have a family, then why make him responsible.
If it was never discussed, they are both responsible...but if he takes precaution and she gets pregnant because she does something to bypass his precautions, does that make him liable to support a child?
Do you not realize that women sometimes trap men into a relationship by getting pregnant when they tell the man they are on the pill (but they really aren't).
Do women have no responsibility in having unprotected sex?
I think you really need to think about this before you automatically assume it's the father's fault.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Why is it the woman's mistake if they conceive? Do you think all people talk about responsibility for pregnancy before having sex? REALLY?
Yes a woman has a responsibility, even if she is trapping as you say, she has a potential pregnancy to concern herself and body with. BUT and it is a big BUT, if the man has sex with a woman and he isn't ready to deal with the consequences...ALL CONSEQUENCES then he needs to zip it up and go home. So please stop with the fault argument, it is specious and very flawed.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Whether the child is planned or not both parents chose to have sex. The child has to eat and has to have a place to live and has to have someone take care of it. That is why the law requires (rightfully so) that both parents must pay for that child.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)to a point.
If a woman traps a man with pregnancy he thought he was protected against (she said she was on the pill, when in fact she wasn't and was intentionally hoping to get pregnant)...doesn't that put more weight on the woman who deliberately chose to have a child, over the man who said he didn't want it. They both chose to have sex. Not just the man.
Sex is going to happen. I don't blame either side for having sex. It's a natural thing. But the results and responsibilities of that encounter can be swayed deliberately with someone with a motive, and I just think all scenarios need to be open to the conversation. Not just a cut and dried indictment against a man who chose to have sex. The woman chose to have sex too...the blame can lay on either side, or both.
It's complicated. That is why society needs to be ready to support children, regardless of how they were conceived.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)and her boyfriend believes her, why would he use a condom?
You know, of course you know, that condoms reduce some of the pleasure in a sexual encounter. So you know that young people having sex will avoid them if they think they aren't necessary.
Of course you know that.
I'm not saying they are not both responsible for the results of a sexual encounter...but some consideration does need to be given to the circumstances.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)become pregnant she should insist he use a condom. That is a personal responsibility that every person has to take on for themselves. If you don't you are putting yourself at risk for disease or pregnancy.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)When I was young and sexually involved, I believed in trust. I used birth control and my ex didn't have to wear a condom (sexual disease was not as prevalent then). I would never have tried to trap him with a child if my BC pills failed. I felt it was my responsibility to not get pregnant, if I wanted to have sex, regardless of what a man would say or do. But he was also trustworthy and would never have abandoned me to a pregnancy without support. Maybe things were different then.
I think it depends on the relationship, and maybe even on the times. Things change from one generation to the next. I just know that women can be manipulative in trying to lock a man into marriage, and I don't approve of that. I believe trust is a valid part of any good relationship.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Women used to trust the man when he would say "oh, I"m sterile.", or "if you really love me you won't make me wear that thing. I can't feel anything with it on." But in today's world a woman has to tell a man "look if you're not going to wear one, we're not having sex." The men have to do the same thing. If they don't want a sexually transmitted disease or a baby then they have to wear a condom. It's not about trust. It's about having enough self esteem to know what you want or don't want, and enough self esteem to take care of yourself.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Today things may be a lot different than in my day. I still think that any woman who agrees to have sex, has to be willing to take the consequences of her actions, if she does not protect herself. I'm not saying that she should shoulder the burden alone all the time. It's just that things can happen. It is not a perfect world and lots of things can happen to disrupt the support of the man in raising a child. Like he might die. And if it was consensual and not a trap, the man should be just as responsible as the woman in supporting any child resulting from consummation.
But then...we all know how child support from an unwilling partner turns out, don't we? The woman is still stuck with the cost of raising the child if the man refuses to pay and evades child support.
Women have the choice in what happens to their bodies. There is no denying this. They also have the "ultimate" responsibility in what happens to their bodies, if they choose to have sex.
That is also not to say men don't also have a responsibility. But woman can use (and have used) their pregnancy as a weapon to trap men into marriage, and I don't think that is fair. A man could do that too, but I doubt it happens as often as the other way around.
I'm not denying a child needs support and both parents should pay in most situations...I'm just saying maybe women should not be able to trap men into child support, if they have deceived that man into the situation.
Here is another question...I really don't know the answer to this. How many women have to pay child support if it's determined the man gets custody?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)freakin condom. I forgot the golden rule. Stay out of the sex wars on DU. Never mind. I will bow out. I am not getting in this mess.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I thought this was a discussion, not a war. I did not mean to make you angry. I'm merely trying to point out my personal feelings that women should have equal responsibility in the act of having unprotected sex, and that maybe the man's feelings and beliefs should have some consideration as well as her beliefs and feelings, and her sole right to choose not to have a child if it's the wrong time for her.
I do understand your views, and just wish it were not such a confusing and emotionally charged issue. My mother had a child out of wedlock...my little sister, and the man took off for the hills. She had no way of tracking him down and abortion was not legal then...so she raised her along with the rest of us, as a single woman. It was not easy, as she already had three children from an abusive marriage she left.
My little sister chose to have an abortion, when the man she was living with refused to accept her pregnancy. He had congenital health issues and did not want to pass them on. They broke up over it, and she chose not to try to raise a child alone at that time. It was the right decision for her at that time. This is not an issue I take lightly.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)If a woman is the non custodial parent she will be ordered by the court to pay child support, determined by the income ratio of the parties. Goggle could help you out here, but you seem very concerned with the trapping meme. Curious.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Just using it to make a point that it isn't just the man's responsibility to not get pregnant.
Maybe the woman should wear a condom, and/or be on the pill, if she or her sex partner do not want to have children.
The problem is that unprotected sex happens too often for too many different reasons. It always has and always will. Accidents happen with condoms. Like coming off inside the woman. Condoms, if used correctly, and if not defective, can be pretty good, but not absolutely safe. Birth control is even better if used correctly, although not 100%.
Having a child is the responsibility of both partners in a consensual sex act, not just the man. That is the only point I'm trying to make. It seems a lot of people are so hung up on fighting for a woman's right to choose an abortion, that they forget that it takes two to tango. They want the woman to have complete control over her body (which I 100% agree with), and yet if she chooses to keep an unwanted baby, and the man doesn't want that, it leaves his feelings completely out of the process.
Maybe that is what is fair because of the child...but then it's her decision to have that child. I just don't see it as completely black and white. I used to, but I keep having this nagging feeling that men should have some role in the decision about parenthood...not be shut out entirely.
Perhaps this stems from the fact that I am an atheist and I don't believe children need to be born once conceived, and I don't believe in having unwanted children either. The world is full of them. Everyone talks about how the woman in inconvenienced by having to raise the child for eighteen years, so it's important that she get to choose not to do that; but her decision to have an unwanted child has a lasting impact on the man as well, if he is paying support for a child he did not want and wasn't ready for. Either way, it can screw up two lives. Or more.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)This isn't complicated.
If a man doesn't want to be a "surprise" father, and he doesn't want to be a father, then he needs to wear a condom.
Every. Time.
Also, to prevent the transmission of STDs.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)In a perfect world
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)A child deserves support from their parents, their parents feelings about their existence are not relevant to the cost of school supplies and new shoes.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)The woman is the only one with a right to decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term because she is the one in whose body the pregnancy resides, and she is the one assuming the risk of pregnancy and birth.
But once a baby is born, the baby's rights become an issue, and the baby has a right to financial support from both parents.
SchmerzImArsch
(49 posts)If she chooses to seek counsel, she chooses to seek counsel, just like every human and their personal choices.
gopiscrap
(24,734 posts)SchmerzImArsch
(49 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Well, it's biology that makes it a woman's ultimate choice since her body is involved.
Trying to have it both ways doesn't make sense. Or perhaps men aren't the pragmatic overseers they claim to be.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)has any right to tell me what to do with my body. that included my late husband.
Response to WillyT (Original post)
cheapdate This message was self-deleted by its author.
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Because there's some ambiguity over the question of when "personhood" begins and because there are enough of them (men who claim an interest in fetuses) they're able to assert their will through the political process.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)See it all the time though, even on progressive boards. Why should one choice not be as sacred as another a person wants to make if you really believe in freedom to choose?
Kath1
(4,309 posts)At least in my world!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The arguments that "well, a guy should be able to determine if he wants to be a father or not!" From a perspective of fairness, that's a valid argument - if women have the right to have an abortion, to decide to not be a mother, then so too, to be fair, should men have the option to walk away from the situation if they do not wish to be fathers. And the argument being used against this line of argument - "The man had sex, hes should face the consequences" is as fucking stupid coming from a choice-supporter as a choice-denier, sex is a mutually consensual act that humans engage in mostly for recreation, and offspring are not "consequences" or "punishments" - that mentality is mired in puritanical "SEX IS BAD FOR SHAME!" thinking.
But of course... life isn't fair, and reproduction, being more or less the defining point of life, is especially unfair. The pregnancy takes a toll on the mother that is simply not shared by hte fatehr - biologically and in our case, culturally and socially, her life gets flipped upside down. But that's not all, after the birth, the pregnancy doesn't just dissipate into the nether, problem solved - now there's another human being that needs over a decade (at the least!) of parenting and education.
If then, we go with the "fairness" argument and give both genders equal say in the pregnancy, then the reality becomes that women get the unfair treatment, just to create the illusion of "fairness." Essentially, fairness simply isn't a feature here, and there's no reason to try to pretend otherwise. The woman carries the burden of the pregnancy in all its forms, and will in most cases also bear the heaviest burdens of parenting - her voice, therefore, needs to be the deciding factor about the pregnancy, because the brunt of its implications are on her shoulders - because nature is not fair.
Silent3
(15,909 posts)...nevertheless putting the view that WE BOTH DISAGREE WITH in the best possible light?
I've tried to play devil's advocate like that before on DU, but a lot of people don't get it. They really just want everyone to join in expressing their shock and disgust at something like anti-abortion views. They don't want to try to sympathetically explore viewpoints that they feel deserve no sympathy.
I personally think it's a good mental and philosophical exercise to try to understand an opposing view, to try to represent it as something better than an easily defeated straw man, but too many people here on DU have a siege mentality, they can't be bothered with any caveats or disclaimers one tries to make before exploring alternate views, they react just like white blood cells to what they perceive as an invading infection, with disgust and contempt and ridicule as the antibodies.
So perhaps all I should do is join in with an indignant harrumph, and just say "Well, they shouldn't!!!!", which is all most people here want to hear anyway.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)The first reason is because that is how the US system of government works. One's gender, ethnicity, etc., doesn't keep one from participating in the system. At least it is not supposed to.
The second reason is perception. Not everyone views it as "a woman's right to choose." Some view it as "baby murder," and believe adults who are US citizens have a duty to protect babies from murder.
This view may not reflect reality, but the only reality that really seems to matter in politics is reality doesn't matter in politics.
There might be other reasons, but these two are the most obvious.
Response to WillyT (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The choice belongs to one person- the person whose body it is that is pregnant. No one else.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)a valid opinion, but no authoritative say.
If a man doesn't want to support a child, then he shouldn't make one with a women who would force him.
The whole issue is really that simple.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)No. (Meaning we shouldn't. Can't give a single solid reason to change that.)
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)Seems simple enough to me.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)
moriah
(8,312 posts)But my opinion on that: You should have made better decisions about where to spread your seed, Mr. Man.
I firmly believe that life is life, and life begins at conception and ends at death.
But *pregnancy* begins at implantation and ends at delivery, whether unnatural or natural. Forcing a person to support another being with their very body for months is not something that we consider ethical in any other circumstance -- we don't even require parents to donate kidneys or bone marrow for their children, though most would if they could. Even if it's the only way to save a life.
Nurturing a child in your womb should be a choice, and fortunately is in this country.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)Until then, it's her body and her choice.
And no, women only have a choice in urban areas. Most women in rural areas (and many women in Texas even in urban areas) are prevented from making that choice thanks to TRAP legislation).
moriah
(8,312 posts)If paternity can be established in utero, and women can use that ability to ensure that a child they *want* to keep gets supported by the father, then it's their kid -- in or out of the womb.
But it is *still* her body that has to support the child for the first nine months in a way that "child support" even for 18 years cannot match, and therefore why I said that men who are going to be upset about a kid they want to raise getting aborted need to think before spreading their seed. For Goddess's sake, if people would just TALK to each other about this kind of thing before they started fucking, it wouldn't be near the issue. Discussions about each person's opinion on abortion should be part of the same talk that includes when each person was last tested for STDs and what kind of birth control they should use. If a man just screws a woman without bothering to ask her how she would handle an unplanned pregnancy (specifically whether or not abortion is an option she felt she could ever consider -- no one knows until that moment exactly what they will do) he is not in a position to bitch much, IMHO.
If you're adamantly pro-life and male, only screw women who are also adamantly pro-life if you want to avoid the possibility of your child getting aborted. Simple!
redqueen
(115,186 posts)His financial obligations don't hinge on whether it's a fetus or a child.
His responsibilities hinge on whether she decides she wants to have the baby.
That's it.
moriah
(8,312 posts).... a pregnancy loss. Considering the grown men I've seen cry over a miscarriage, and talking to several men who left women who chose abortion (they begged, they pleaded, they offered to pay whatever, but when her choice was final they couldn't handle being with that person anymore and ended the relationship) -- I think that's completely unfair. If the man has gotten attached to the idea of being a Dad and that changes, I think their right to grieve the loss of their child is something that should not be questioned. Now, none of those men have said they think their exes should have been forced to have the baby. They wished they'd been willing to, but did respect their right to make the choice. They just disagreed with it mightily.
And each one of them admitted they knew the woman they were with might choose an abortion. When I asked this, they also admitted they had made their own beds, so to speak, by choosing to be with women who disagreed with them on that issue. But their emotions and loss were genuine, and they learned from the heartache.
Men may have no rights or responsibilities until the child is born, but denying that men may get emotionally attached to children while they are still in the womb is wrong.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)If a woman wants to carry the pregnancy to term then sure they can call it that.
Generally speaking, though, using such loaded and scientifically inaccurate terms is distinctly counterproductive
moriah
(8,312 posts)When the being growing inside a womb is wanted, it's a "child", and few ever disagree with that assessment. People who get emotionally invested in a wanted pregnancy grieve the loss in a way that is close enough to the loss of a born child that they might as well be considered the same for that purpose. Many times they are buried the same way a child would be, pictures are sometimes taken, etc. For families that are that emotionally invested, those things help them heal.
But when the thing growing inside the womb isn't wanted... we tend to use more scientific terms. I find it to be tiresome, and also find it a sign that people are uncomfortable with the rights for which they advocate. A fetus has the potential if it continues to grow and develop to be born and therefore become "a child" to you, so does an embryo, so does a fertilized egg (and technically even the sperm and egg are living even if they don't have all our DNA). It's all life. Denying that is pointless.
Pregnancy starts at implantation, ends at delivery whether unnatural or natural. That's what involves the woman, that's what involves her body, and the fact that life can't survive on its own IMHO does not trump her right to bodily autonomy any more than if a rapist HAD to rape to survive would make a woman somehow morally obligated to allow rape.
redqueen
(115,186 posts)I said that a woman who wants to carry the pregnancy to term is free to use such incorrect terminology if she chooses.
Others doing so in a general sense do nothing but serve the aims of misogynists and the religious right.
moriah
(8,312 posts)I also find it unnecessary to do so, when I use comparisons to born beings to express why forcing anyone to have their bodily autonomy violated to save a life is wrong.
I often only end up having this discussion with people who are very pro-life. I've had an abortion, and one of them actually stopped me before I could start to tell about the situation that he didn't want to know if I'd ever "killed my child" because he didn't think he could look at me the same way. I was far younger, had no family that I could depend on (was actually caring for my mother who was psychotic at the time, my dad was a deadbeat drug addict dying of HIV and on SSI), and while I regret that it was necessary I do not regret the choice I made, given the circumstances I was in.
His opinions were due to a very early pregnancy loss (ectopic) that reduced his wife's fertility. I think he felt like it was an abortion, even though it was necessary to save his wife's life, and that's part of why he was so touchy on the subject. I also suspect, since it was unplanned, that he'd been ambivalent about the pregnancy until it ended. But I'm not about to say either of those things to him, except that I felt that treatment of ectopic pregnancies in Catholic hospitals was piss-poor, and explained why. In his wife's case, they didn't catch it until it was too late to save the tube anyway, but he agreed that methotrexate use was better for the woman if possible.... so he's not as fanatical as some.
Still, at least in debates with them, I don't bother to argue the point. It's semantics, terminology, and often it's easier to speak to people in their own language.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Much as the yolk in a chicken egg is called a chick if it's to hatch in the near future, yet it's called breakfast if it's not?
Or does merely our own status as human beings change that equation?
Or is that "far from PC here" too...?
moriah
(8,312 posts)It's when you have your own chickens you have to make sure you didn't harvest the wrong ones.... heh.
IronLionZion
(51,269 posts)Is someone taking note of the responses and studying the psychology of DUers? If that's the case, I'd like to read the final report.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)"How can I help you?"
And that's it.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)Unless a women wants and needs input from her partner/friend/relative and asks for advice, they don't.
Turbineguy
(40,077 posts)should it not be a decision both take part in?
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)I have no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)the RIGHT TO CHOOSE...if they can't support, or can't convince or it was Rape or Misguided Youthful Adventure.
It's the Woman's Right to Choose...but, certainly the other partner has a right to try to work out something.. But in the end...it's the Woman's Right. Because our Biological Construction gives us a right over our bodies.
SIMPLISTIC...but...what I think.. is the FAIR WAY! But I'm talking about "Discussion" and not some Legal thing where the other partner can usurp the Woman's Right to Choose.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I have zero rights and zero say in any fully valid, legal medical procedures anyone has (other than me).
My girlfriend has zero rights and zero say in any fully valid, legal medical procedure I have.
It's pretty simply people... and if you're having a tough time following that simplicity and are making it tougher than it really is, well, buy a sign that says "Idiot" and wear it around your rneck...
dchill
(42,660 posts)in other words they don't.
lostincalifornia
(5,362 posts)body and health, and no one should have any say in that except the woman herself
Avalux
(35,015 posts)They call the shots...make the rules....a lot of them believe women should be subservient and have no voice, or no choice in regards to their bodies.
It's been this way since the beginning of recorded human history for most societies.