Men's Abortion Rights.

plague311 said:
...because they're two separate things. It's a false equivalence at best.

No one forced him to have sex, but in the opposite direction someone is forcing the woman to do something she doesn't want to do.

I'm kind of surprised that needed to be explained.

j.k. I'm not.
Click to expand...

First off, I didn't endorse his argument in that post, I explained what he's talking about because you asked what he meant. Do you understand the distinction? Or did you not actually want an answer to your question?

Second, child support payments are forced.

Third, a man who is raped by a woman (and thus forced to have sex) can indeed still be forced to pay child support for a child that results from that rape. That is not a common problem, but that's still how the law is set up.
 
plague311 said:
...because they're two separate things. It's a false equivalence at best.

No one forced him to have sex, but in the opposite direction someone is forcing the woman to do something she doesn't want to do.
Click to expand...

Nobody in this scenario is forcing the woman to do something she doesn't want to do.

If she wants to have an abortion of convenience, fine.

If she wants to keep the child, fine.

If the father wants to have an abortion of convenience - not fine. That would be forcing the mother to do something she doesn't want to do.

If the mother wants the father to pay for a child he didn't want - not fine. That would be forcing the father to do something he doesn't want to do.

If the father wants to keep the child and the mother doesn't - not fine. That would be forcing the mother to do something she doesn't want to do.

In my opinion, the simplest and most ethical solution is this:

As long as we allow mothers to have abortions of convenience, we must also allow fathers to unilaterally abdicate responsibility for the child.

It is unethical to allow mothers who could simply get rid of the child if they wished, to burden the father with a child he would have gotten rid of if he could.

---

"It's not my baby. I'd get rid of it if I could. But I can't. Because it's not my baby."

"Joke's on you! It's your baby now!"

"Nope. It wasn't my baby before it was born, and it sure as hell isn't my baby now. Abort or not, that's your choice. But your choice isn't binding on me. Go find someone else to fund your lifestyle. I'm out."
 
plague311 said:
I don't agree with that at all. There are several different ways a woman can get pregnant even if both parties take precautions. If she still ends up getting pregnant he has no right to tell her what to do with the baby or her body. If wants to have a kid, find a woman that also wants to have a kid.
Click to expand...

There is a great twitter thread somewhere that talks about how pretty much every unwanted pregnancy is the man's fault.

Among the things: women are fertile for 3ish days a month. Men are fertile all the time. Who should be responsible for providing birth control? How about the person who's seed is always in the chamber!

Then again, who makes a big deal about wearing condoms? Women aren't the ones whining about how condoms don't feel good enough.

It's a whole bunch of stuff like that.

Reading it made me really think about the concept of the "unwanted pregnancy." At that point, it all kind of gets redundant, doesn't it?

I mean, consider the caveats....

"Oh, sometimes there is contraception failure. It's not perfect!" - yeah, ok. So in that case, abortion is a way to address that issue. You were wearing a condom, so you didn't want to create a pregnancy. And you can't complain that you didn't take any precautions and have to live with your decision. So why complain about terminating a pregnancy that you didn't want? Hell, even though you didn't want to use a condom, you couldn't even resort to withdrawal! I know it's not a great birth control method, but if you are so unconcerned about creating an unwanted pregnancy that you can't even cum on her stomach, then yeah, you are responsible. You are taking absolutely no responsibility for preventing the pregnancy, so that makes you responsible for creating one.

"Some women lie about being on the pill." See above about men being responsible for birth control.

"Some women sabotage the birth control by poking a hole in the condom with a pin." OK, so that means that she WANTED to get pregnant, which means it's not unwanted pregnancy. Not an abortion issue (if she does change her mind and decide to get an abortion, then she is aborting a pregnancy that you didn't want).

I like your punch line: if he wants to have a kid, find a woman who also wants to have a kid.
 
plague311 said:
I don't agree with that at all. There are several different ways a woman can get pregnant even if both parties take precautions. If she still ends up getting pregnant he has no right to tell her what to do with the baby or her body. If wants to have a kid, find a woman that also wants to have a kid.
Click to expand...

I may not have been clear (maybe refer to the OP topic or who I was responding to) but I was specifically addressing the thread subject: whether or not men should be able to "dictate" (have some say, politically) whether abortion can happen or not. I am not in the camp that believes a man should be able to force any particular woman to have an abortion, even if it's his kids. Even if he was raped.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find many people who honestly believe the man should have some say in the matter of a particular woman. And before anyone asserts the opposite, NO, MRAs generally do not believe men should be able to force or veto a woman's abortion. Many MRAs do believe men should be able to opt out of parental obligations, though, especially since woman can. I think that's a different discussion than this one, though
 
pgwenthold said:
There is a great twitter thread somewhere that talks about how pretty much every unwanted pregnancy is the man's fault.

Among the things: women are fertile for 3ish days a month. Men are fertile all the time. Who should be responsible for providing birth control? How about the person who's seed is always in the chamber!

Then again, who makes a big deal about wearing condoms? Women aren't the ones whining about how condoms don't feel good enough.

It's a whole bunch of stuff like that.

Reading it made me really think about the concept of the "unwanted pregnancy." At that point, it all kind of gets redundant, doesn't it?

I mean, consider the caveats....

"Oh, sometimes there is contraception failure. It's not perfect!" - yeah, ok. So in that case, abortion is a way to address that issue. You were wearing a condom, so you didn't want to create a pregnancy. And you can't complain that you didn't take any precautions and have to live with your decision. So why complain about terminating a pregnancy that you didn't want? Hell, even though you didn't want to use a condom, you couldn't even resort to withdrawal! I know it's not a great birth control method, but if you are so unconcerned about creating an unwanted pregnancy that you can't even cum on her stomach, then yeah, you are responsible. You are taking absolutely no responsibility for preventing the pregnancy, so that makes you responsible for creating one.

"Some women lie about being on the pill." See above about men being responsible for birth control.

"Some women sabotage the birth control by poking a hole in the condom with a pin." OK, so that means that she WANTED to get pregnant, which means it's not unwanted pregnancy. Not an abortion issue (if she does change her mind and decide to get an abortion, then she is aborting a pregnancy that you didn't want).

I like your punch line: if he wants to have a kid, find a woman who also wants to have a kid.
Click to expand...

"great" twitter thread? I believe we read the same one and it was absolute insanity. She suggested that we force boys to have vasectomies after puberty, iirc. She also suggested that ALL unwanted pregnancy was all the man's fault. Think about how insane that is - woman have so many more options of birth control (including condoms which she framed as being solely the man's option - WTF?). Men can be raped! That insane woman produced nonsense.

BTW - some woman don't like condoms either. And framing an "unwanted pregnancy" as only "unwanted" if only the woman doesn't want it is just another way we erase the male perspective on reproduction.

https://twitter.com/designmom/status/1040363431893725184?lang=en

Here's one excerpt (not the craziest part - I haven't reread it all, yet)

"I’m just saying women's birth control isn’t simple or easy. In contrast, let’s look at birth control for men, meaning condoms. Condoms are readily available at all hours, inexpensive, convenient, and don’t require a prescription. They’re effective, and work on demand, instantly."

Notice how this applies to WOMEN as well? Women can also use condoms. How anyone can take this framing as 'the best argument on abortion' (as I saw cited in one article) is laughable

Insane
 
Last edited:
pharphis said:
BTW - some woman don't like condoms either. And framing an "unwanted pregnancy" as only "unwanted" if only the woman doesn't want it
Click to expand...

She is the one who has to be pregnant, so yes, whether she wants to be pregnant or not is a significant part of the equation.

But then again, I am trying to figure out what you are suggesting here. She doesn't want to get pregnant, and he wants to get her pregnant. That means he can choose to not use birth control and impregnate her against her will?
 
pharphis said:
Notice how this applies to WOMEN as well? Women can also use condoms.
Click to expand...

What, that "female condom" thing?

Please run to the store and buy one. I'll give you an hour to find one.

Or, maybe, they aren't the same thing?
 
theprestige said:
Nobody in this scenario is forcing the woman to do something she doesn't want to do.

If she wants to have an abortion of convenience, fine.

If she wants to keep the child, fine.

If the father wants to have an abortion of convenience - not fine. That would be forcing the mother to do something she doesn't want to do.

If the mother wants the father to pay for a child he didn't want - not fine. That would be forcing the father to do something he doesn't want to do.

If the father wants to keep the child and the mother doesn't - not fine. That would be forcing the mother to do something she doesn't want to do.

In my opinion, the simplest and most ethical solution is this:

As long as we allow mothers to have abortions of convenience, we must also allow fathers to unilaterally abdicate responsibility for the child.

It is unethical to allow mothers who could simply get rid of the child if they wished, to burden the father with a child he would have gotten rid of if he could.

---

"It's not my baby. I'd get rid of it if I could. But I can't. Because it's not my baby."

"Joke's on you! It's your baby now!"

"Nope. It wasn't my baby before it was born, and it sure as hell isn't my baby now. Abort or not, that's your choice. But your choice isn't binding on me. Go find someone else to fund your lifestyle. I'm out."
Click to expand...

Your line of reasoning here is one I've wondered about before and am yet undecided.

One problem I have considered is that abortion, while mostly legal in the US, is often still considered a deeply shameful and immoral act. Even though it is not illegal, many consider it a wicked deed. One element of the pro-choice argument is that one can choose that abortion is fundamentally wrong and never have one, even if that were to be the more convenient solution for the woman.

I think the law is still very deferential to the idea that it is wrong for a man to basically leave a woman in a position with no "honorable" solution, even if abortion is a legal solution. Call this the hangover for many, many years of sex-scolds, prudes, and bible-thumping that has occurred around the issue.

It's one thing for abortion to be considered ethical or practical by the general public, quite another for it to lose it's intense stigma. Maybe the culture can change, but it will likely take a long time.

So long as this intense stigma exists, I don't really see such an argument for men being able to abandon parental duties as being viable.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
<respectful snip>

So long as this intense stigma exists, I don't really see such an argument for men being able to abandon parental duties as being viable.
Click to expand...

As a Chestertonian conservative, I'm amenable to arguments from tradition. If the stigma fades over time, great. Meanwhile we'll need to take society as it is, not as we wish it to be or expect it to be at a later time.

However, my argument here is an argument of principle, directed primarily at people who believe that in principle abortions of convenience should not be stigmatized, and also believe in prinicple that births of convenience should encumber the father against his will.

Letting the mother unilaterally choose for herself - fine.

Letting the mother unilaterally choose for the father - not fine.

That may be the best solution for our society as it is today, but it does not seem like a principled ideal for how society should be in the future.
 
applecorped said:
If women can terminate a pregnancy without the men's consent, then men should be able to terminate parental rights without the woman's consent
Click to expand...
Can you explain your reasoning, you seem to have posted a conclusion but not the reasoning?
 
Ziggurat said:
First off, I didn't endorse his argument in that post, I explained what he's talking about because you asked what he meant. Do you understand the distinction? Or did you not actually want an answer to your question?



Second, child support payments are forced.



Third, a man who is raped by a woman (and thus forced to have sex) can indeed still be forced to pay child support for a child that results from that rape. That is not a common problem, but that's still how the law is set up.
Click to expand...
Can you provide some cases of that happening?
 
Darat said:
Can you explain your reasoning, you seem to have posted a conclusion but not the reasoning?
Click to expand...
The post immediately above yours seems to give quite a good explanation of the reasoning. I don't know if I support it unreservedly but it is a good argument.
 
pgwenthold said:
She is the one who has to be pregnant, so yes, whether she wants to be pregnant or not is a significant part of the equation.

But then again, I am trying to figure out what you are suggesting here. She doesn't want to get pregnant, and he wants to get her pregnant. That means he can choose to not use birth control and impregnate her against her will?
Click to expand...

Significant, but not exclusive. It's not like men don't have responsibilities attached and very little choice once she's pregnant. Obviously he doesn't have to deal with the pregnancy or birth itself.

pgwenthold said:
What, that "female condom" thing?

Please run to the store and buy one. I'll give you an hour to find one.

Or, maybe, they aren't the same thing?
Click to expand...

There is those but there are also just regular condoms that men wear - women can tell the man to wear one and provide them. She can even provide them if she has fears with tampering. The twitter thread suggests it is solely the man's choice and that men can just easily remove the condom against the woman's wishes, or something.

Someone posted an amazon link to one, but I'm sure I could go to my local Shoppers Drug Mart. Wait, I just checked their website.

https://www1.shoppersdrugmart.ca/en...ndoms-and-contraceptives/details/048723002222
 
Puppycow said:
What is the relevance of being personally acquainted with the individual in question?

Would it be any different if I had encountered the woman before? Are men allowed to have opinions about only the women they know personally or is it possible to have a general philosophy when it comes to the matter?
Click to expand...

He's trying to make it clear that we are talking about whether men (in general) have any right to decide for women (in general) as to whether or not they should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy.

Obviously, if the man and woman are acquaintances, that adds a whole layer of complexity which PW is trying to avoid.

See posts 1, 23 & 24

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12778065&postcount=1

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12778221&postcount=23

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12778225&postcount=24

If you still can't understand, then I have run out of options to explain it to you.
 
Belz... said:
Gee, dude, I know we rarely agreed on anything but, hey, welcome back.
Click to expand...
Thanks buddy! Yes we did have a few spats in the past - that's true - all in good humour though! :) Maybe we'll find some common ground going forward! I'll check out the threads you're involved in - see if any topics pique my interest :D:thumbsup:
 
psionl0 said:
Most would try to specify some point during the pregnancy but it is like trying to say how many whiskers a man should have on his face before you call it a beard. There is no "correct" answer.
Click to expand...
... and it's not just the number of whiskers, it's the length too! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom