this auld wan that's up the duff (3 Viewers)

[krystal]

it is completely contextual. In a relationship of course both parties are involved. But if you've been with a guy once and you accidentally get pregnant then no - it's actually your decision. How on earth can you agree that it's right for a man to tell a woman he has no further intention of being involved with that she must keep a child she doesn't want? That's nuts.

 

[jane]

it is completely contextual. In a relationship of course both parties are involved. But if you've been with a guy once and you accidentally get pregnant then no - it's actually your decision. How on earth can you agree that it's right for a man to tell a woman he has no further intention of being involved with that she must keep a child she doesn't want? That's nuts.

Exactly. Which is essentially the same argument against state control over reproduction. How on earth can people force women to have babies they don't want, if they have no intention of actually helping to raise those children? It's totally nuts.

 

[glen]

Being a man is great.

 

[MDR]

Giving men legal control over a woman's womb in ANY WAY is a very, very dangerous road to go down. VERY dangerous.

If a dude wants a baby so bad, perhaps he should try adopting or fostering one that someone else didn't want.

I really, really don't want to get into a discussion on abortion and all that, but suffice to say that that I disagree with you on that point. I think the father's right to have a say on what happens his child should be legally guaranteed.

 

[glen]

Bloody women eh Ro?

 

[MDR]

it is completely contextual. In a relationship of course both parties are involved. But if you've been with a guy once and you accidentally get pregnant then no - it's actually your decision. How on earth can you agree that it's right for a man to tell a woman he has no further intention of being involved with that she must keep a child she doesn't want? That's nuts.

Again, see my post to Jane. I just disagree with you on that. I don't think a man should be excluded from the decision. I'm not trying to convince anybody of my point of view, it's just how I see it.

 

[jane]

I really, really don't want to get into a discussion on abortion and all that, but suffice to say that that I disagree with you on that point. I think the father's right to have a say on what happens his child should be legally guaranteed.

So you think a man's desire for a child should override a woman's desire not to bear one?

 

[MDR]

How on earth can people force women to have babies they don't want, if they have no intention of actually helping to raise those children? It's totally nuts.

What if the man wants the child?

 

[MDR]

So you think a man's desire for a child should override a woman's desire not to bear one?

I think both parents' consent should be required for abortion.

 

[glen]

They just don't listen do they?

 

[jane]

Again, see my post to Jane. I just disagree with you on that. I don't think a man should be excluded from the decision. I'm not trying to convince anybody of my point of view, it's just how I see it.

But what both Kirstie and I are saying is that in a relationship, yes, the decision would be reached by negotiation between the partners. But you can't legislate for communicative relationships.

Because the womb is physically inside the woman, the final decision does belong to her. If she makes it against the man's will, that's a relationship problem, and not a legal one.

 

[jane]

I think both parents' consent should be required for abortion.

What about rape? In order for a woman, then, to obtain an abortion if she's been raped, then that would mean she first has to prove she's been raped, and/or pretend she wasn't raped, so that she can get her rapist's consent. Which is awesome, considering how he would have so respectfully sought her consent before sticking it in her.

I totally understand your issue, Ro, I do. But what I'm saying is that the only way to make it work would be to remove the legislation entirely, and make it up to the individual or couple to make that decision.

 

[glen]

What if the woman tricked the man?

 

[MDR]

But what both Kirstie and I are saying is that in a relationship, yes, the decision would be reached by negotiation between the partners. But you can't legislate for communicative relationships.

Because the womb is physically inside the woman, the final decision does belong to her. If she makes it against the man's will, that's a relationship problem, and not a legal one.

I think your overlooking the strong potential for disagreement between both parents on this and the fact that a man who wants to keep the child would be left with no say if the woman felt otherwise.

Seriously though, I haven't just come out with this. I've come to this view over a very long period of time. I'm not looking to win an argument, but I think I've been pretty straight about what i believe.

 

[MDR]

What about rape? In order for a woman, then, to obtain an abortion if she's been raped, then that would mean she first has to prove she's been raped, and/or pretend she wasn't raped, so that she can get her rapist's consent. Which is awesome, considering how he would have so respectfully sought her consent before sticking it in her.

I totally understand your issue, Ro, I do. But what I'm saying is that the only way to make it work would be to remove the legislation entirely, and make it up to the individual or couple to make that decision.

I agree with you that there is no manageable way for my point of view to overcome the case of a woman who becomes pregnant through rape. But I don't think that men should be excluded from the decision because of the potential for rapists to exploit it.

 

[jane]

I think your overlooking the strong potential for disagreement between both parents on this and the fact that a man who wants to keep the child would be left with no say if the woman felt otherwise.

Seriously though, I haven't just come out with this. I've come to this view over a very long period of time. I'm not looking to win an argument, but I think I've been pretty straight about what i believe.

Yes, but just because you didn't just come out with the argument doesn't mean it isn't terribly flawed. See my post above, regarding rape. If you can't explain how you'd deal with that, then your argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever. It is based on an assumption that all sex resulting in conception is both consentual and done within an established relationship.

And what you're saying, really, is that in a legal sense, a man's decision about a woman's womb should override hers. Because if a man actually had 'equal' say in it, then it wouldn't need to be legislated for at all. I don't think you are even attempting to understand my points. You can legislate in ways that promote equality, but you absolutely cannot legislate for equality itself, because equality is about individuals negotiation from positions of autonomy. It's about the absence of a need for legislation.

 

[jane]

I agree with you that there is no manageable way for my point of view to overcome the case of a woman who becomes pregnant through rape. But I don't think that men should be excluded from the decision because of the potential for rapists to exploit it.

NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT MEN SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE DECISION. And that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is that there is a huge massive hole in your argument that isn't just about rape. It's an example, but an important one. But if you think there needs to be legislation for it, then your legislation is not about babies, it's about controlling women. If it's about babies, you don't need a fucking law.

What if someone is drunk and has sex, and then she doesn't ever see the guy again, in a non-rape way? Then she can't have an abortion because she doesn't know the dude's name? Then, that brings us back to childbirth being a punishment for having sex. The very fact that a woman's decision to HAVE a baby has grown into an argument about abortion is a nice whopping piece of evidence that reproductive legislation is not about babies, but about women's bodies. Thus, as long as it's about MY body, I get to make the decision. That's in a legal sense. In a personal sense, within a relationship, it might not be about my body, it might be about a discussion of potential parenthood. But that's a totally different issue that can't be legislated for.

Really, when a woman is pregnant within a relationship, it isn't just the woman who is pregnant. I can honestly tell you that if I got pregnant, I would probably have an abortion, but I might consider having the child if I were in a situation where my partner was ACTUALLY WILLING AND ABLE to do FIFTY PERCENT of the childrearing and household duties, and saw it as 'we' were pregnant, not just me.

If, however, a partner was like, "No, I want a kid. You give up your career and take care of it because fatherhood is my legal right." I would go fucking mental if there was a law that forced me to give up a career simply because some motherfucker wants to prove he can spread his seed. Also, I'm not carrying a baby for nine months, especially considering I have a medical condition that puts me at serious risk of DYING IN CHILDBIRTH, even if I was just going to hand it over. So I should put my fucking life at risk because you want a baby? If someone wants one that badly, he can ADOPT. ADOPTION. IT EXISTS.

 

[glen]

Leave me out of this.

 

[krystal]

as someone with a womb I have a hard time trying to rationalise the fact that there are people who actually would prevent me from using it in a way I see fit. I think that's the nub of this issue - I understand that men want a say and it's good that men are responsible enough to want that - but there's having a say and then there's issuing a diktat. (or should that be dicktat?)

 

[jane]

as someone with a womb I have a hard time trying to rationalise the fact that there are people who actually would prevent me from using it in a way I see fit. I think that's the nub of this issue - I understand that men want a say and it's good that men are responsible enough to want that - but there's having a say and then there's issuing a diktat. (or should that be dicktat?)

Me, too. I have a really hard time thinking that men should have an equal say over my womb.

I will happily let a man tell me what I can and can't do with my uterus when I also have an equal say over what he does with his penis. Thing is, I don't think he'd like my ideas.