this auld wan that's up the duff (1 Viewer)

[oh shit]

The woman did not grow the 'organism' in her womb herself - it was done through a consensual act by two people. To undo that act you should need the consent of both people. That's my view. It's not a question of control. If the woman had created the foetus herself it would be none of the man's business.

this point is interesting. it has some very serious implications about sex. do you think that every time people have sex they should be fully aware that they are potentially creating a foetus and act accordingly? is it therefore immoral to have casual sex? should casual sex always carry the potential that you will be forced into parenthood (under your idea of a legal right) if one partner doesn't want an abortion?
isn't that equivalent to punishing women who take a different moral outlook and want to enjoy sex because it's enjoyable?

 

[oh shit]

So "people think women are whores and liars" is, for you, equivalent to saying "people are sexist"? That strikes me as bizarre

egg, all women are not whores and liars. nuns are fine. faithful wives are fine too. spinsters are ok once they grey a little and hit the menopause. young single women in skirts tho... put it this way, i'd keep my wallet in my pocket at all times.

 

[oh shit]

in other words maybe, i think ro's point focuses on the sex act as the moral event that the responsibility comes from, whereas others are focusing on the pregnancy, which lasts a bit longer, hurts a lot more, carries greater risks to health, and leaves bigger stretch marks. ouch!

 

[ICUH8N]

women who take a different moral outlook and want to enjoy sex because it's enjoyable?

WHAT WHAT
*splutters

 

[jane]

So "people think women are whores and liars" is, for you, equivalent to saying "people are sexist"? That strikes me as bizarre

No, I didn't say that. But many of the behaviours that are manifest as sexist are underpinned by a cultural perception that women are not to be trusted. There are plenty of gender perceptions that harm men, too. They're just not the same as those that harm women, and which sometimes involve perceptions that women's bodies must be controlled by legislation in order to protect us from ourselves.


I'm not blaming you for anything except insulting people who don't deserve it, and refusing to acknowledge that it matters[/quote]

By saying that sexism is hurts everyone, and that it is everywhere? And that no one is immune to it? If you were insulted by anything I said, perhaps you just misread something. If you were insulted by the fact that yes, the anti-choice position is -- regardless of how it is framed -- underlined EITHER by an inability to recognise that abortion laws are about controlling women's bodies, or by a somewhat more conscious belief that women's bodies need to be controlled by law, then that was not intended as an insult. It is not something I made up. I am absolutely not arguing that everyone who believes that abortion is wrong wants to control my womb -- I never even said that. I have, for the last however many pages, been quite careful to distinguish between people's personal opinions on abortion and the legal realities of abortion law.

 

[Wilbert]

egg, all women are not whores and liars. nuns are fine. faithful wives are fine too. spinsters are ok once they grey a little and hit the menopause. young single women in skirts tho... put it this way, i'd keep my wallet in my pocket at all times.

Ok, there are some exceptions. You're such a nit-picker!

 

[ICUH8N]

I heard that if you do sex right it doesn't leave marks. Any truth?

 

[MDR]

this point is interesting. it has some very serious implications about sex. do you think that every time people have sex they should be fully aware that they are potentially creating a foetus and act accordingly? is it therefore immoral to have casual sex? should casual sex always carry the potential that you will be forced into parenthood (under your idea of a legal right) if one partner doesn't want an abortion?
isn't that equivalent to punishing women who take a different moral outlook and want to enjoy sex because it's enjoyable?

1 - yes
2 - no
3 - yes, although based on my answer to q1 re awareness I don't think 'forced' is the correct word. It carries the potential that a pregnancy will result for which both partners should accept responsibility.
4 - no. the risks exist irrespective of whether the person has sex for fun or not.

 

[La La]

this painting is called "Woman Giving Birth to a Man's Head"

my work here is done.

 

[taubstumm]

list of potential puns that i am astonished have not yet been used in this thread:

- chill-out womb
- womb with a view
- womb for maneuver
- womb for two more
- bedwomb

 

[oh shit]

1 - yes
2 - no
3 - yes, although based on my answer to q1 re awareness I don't think 'forced' is the correct word. It carries the potential that a pregnancy will result for which both partners should accept responsibility.
4 - no. the risks exist irrespective of whether the person has sex for fun or not.

but then it isn't 'casual'
contraception changed the world but accidents happen.

 

[MDR]

in other words maybe, i think ro's point focuses on the sex act as the moral event that the responsibility comes from, whereas others are focusing on the pregnancy, which lasts a bit longer, hurts a lot more, carries greater risks to health, and leaves bigger stretch marks. ouch!

I have never mentioned morality. The father's rights don't stem from any moral issue but from the fact that he is jointly responsible for the causing the pregnancy - it's a biology issue. That said, you're probably right in describing where the two respective sides have focused the energy of their arguments.

 

[jane]

1 - yes
2 - no
3 - yes, although based on my answer to q1 re awareness I don't think 'forced' is the correct word. It carries the potential that a pregnancy will result for which both partners should accept responsibility.
4 - no. the risks exist irrespective of whether the person has sex for fun or not.

But ONCE AGAIN, how is it anything other than forced?

 

[MDR]

but then it isn't 'casual'
contraception changed the world but accidents happen.

by casual i thought you meant sex that was not intended to create babies.

 

[Juno]

So "people think women are whores and liars" is, for you, equivalent to saying "people are sexist"? That strikes me as bizarre

On this "people think women are whores and liars" point...look at the amount of legislation that's been thrown at women over the years (much of which still exists in law in Ireland) relating to restrictions on a woman's free choice over her own body. I'm talking laws on contraception (the availability of the morning after pill for example) and abortion. It's never spelled out but being told what we can and can't do with our own bodies certainly leads to a suspicion that the powers that be (traditionally male and this hasn't changed much) don't trust women (liars). They seem to think that giving us full control over our own fertility would lead to a situation where we'd be ridin' everything that moves (whores) and then necking packets of the morning after pill or having abortions as a form of contraception. Maybe a deep mistrust and lack of faith in the ability of women to make responsible decisions (not to mention a reluctance to relinquish control) isn't what's behind these laws but it sure as fuck feels like it.

This isn't directly referring to your quote above Cormac, it's an aside on the same point.

 

[jane]

by casual i thought you meant sex that was not intended to create babies.

Wait, sex creates babies?

Now I'm really stumped.

 

[taubstumm]

I have never mentioned morality. The father's rights don't stem from any moral issue but from the fact that he is jointly responsible for the causing the pregnancy - it's a biology issue. That said, you're probably right in describing where the two respective sides have focused the energy of their arguments.

there can be no 'joint' ownership of a pregnancy, legally speaking, even though many (most?) pregnancies-which-result-in-children occur in the context of a relationship. so of course, ideally, the man should 'have a say', but ultimately, it comes down to an irreconcilable choice - in a case where there is disagreement, if the man has 'a say', it is implicit that the woman has no say. so at the end of the day, in that situation, either the woman would have the last word, or the man would. given that assumption, the only sane thing to propose is that the woman's say trumps the man's. i can't see how anything else would ever be workable, let alone desireable. am i taking you up wrong or is that a fair extrapolation from what you're proposing?

 

[MDR]

But ONCE AGAIN, how is it anything other than forced?

For millionth and final time.

The woman wasn't forced to become pregnant, it was due to a consensual sex act in which a risk of pregnancy existed. My view is that if the pregnancy is to be undone, the both partners must consent to that, just as they did to the creation of the 'organism', or more specifically the taking of a risk that they knew may result in the creation of an 'organism'.

There's no point arguing with you jane. You have no interest in learning about my point of view. You just want to shout down and cavil with my view because you don't like it. You keep asking me whether it will be a summary/criminal offence, what about health risk, what about rape. I give you my view on all these but it becomes clear that you don't care what the answer is. You're very intolerant. All I am doing is holding a viewpoint. I'm not legislating for this single handed. You seem to have a problem with me disagreeing with you. You're so concentrated on your competitiveness that you are not open to accepting any point I make.

 

[MDR]

there can be no 'joint' ownership of a pregnancy, legally speaking, even though many (most?) pregnancies-which-result-in-children occur in the context of a relationship. so of course, ideally, the man should 'have a say', but ultimately, it comes down to an irreconcilable choice - in a case where there is disagreement, if the man has 'a say', it is implicit that the woman has no say. so at the end of the day, in that situation, either the woman would have the last word, or the man would. given that assumption, the only sane thing to propose is that the woman's say trumps the man's. i can't see how anything else would ever be workable, let alone desireable. am i taking you up wrong or is that a fair extrapolation from what you're proposing?

I think that's an articulate precis of the viewpoint I am disagreeing with. Although i understand where it comes from and respect it as intelligently worked out, the import is that a pregnancy caused by two people can be ended by the woman without the father's agreement. If the pregnancy continues against the woman's wishes, it is still true that she had an equal part in bringing it about. that's why i hold the views i hold. Again, I have never once asked anybody to agree with me; I am merely explaining why i think the way i do.

 

[cheryl]

1 - yes
2 - no
3 - yes, although based on my answer to q1 re awareness I don't think 'forced' is the correct word. It carries the potential that a pregnancy will result for which both partners should accept responsibility.
4 - no. the risks exist irrespective of whether the person has sex for fun or not.

of course there's always a risk when you have sex. they should both accept responsibility but she shouldn't be forced into having the child. that's just bizarre and inhumane.

there will NEVER be a fair solution to this until men can give birth. it is not an equality issue either because only women can get pregnant.