this auld wan that's up the duff (2 Viewers)

[jane]

I think that if you read my earlier posts you will see that we agree on this point. I have not suggested that a woman should be required to jeopardise her life to carry the child.

But the point is not that it could kill me personally, the point is really that every woman who decides she is not ready to carry or raise a child has a reason for doing so. It might not end a life, but it could severely impede one for the nine months, and that should be reason enough.

No one should be forced to be a surrogate mother because then, really, that woman is actually being reduced to nothing more than an incubator.

 

[MDR]

yes. abso-fucking-lutely. yes. unless he is willing to, i dunno, have the zygote implanted in himself and figure out how to gestate it for nine months, with all the demands on his body that that entails.

i can't believe that i'm even having to explain this to somebody.

Just because men cannot biologically carry children does not mean that they have less rights as parents. Maybe this is a point we disagree on.

 

[MDR]

No one should be forced to be a surrogate mother because then, really, that woman is actually being reduced to nothing more than an incubator.

Who mentioned surrogacy?

 

[snakybus]

hypothetical offspring, etc.

yes well that doesn't bear arguing about - whether you say that hypothetical human becomes real human at point zero, point 3 months, 6 months or 9 months (or age 25 in some cases) is arbitrary.

 

[minka]

Also, on the unpasteurised cheese thing - don't you think it's kinda heart-warming that a waiter is looking out for a mother and making sure she doesn't eat anything that might affect the baby? I think it's a little paranoid to see this as an example of society trying to control women

actually, i've been told by a microbiologist that hard unpasteurized cheeses are pretty safe (while soft cheeses of any sort carry a small risk of food poisoning), so he may have had her best interests at heart but he was also protecting her from a nonexistent danger while she may have done some research and decided it was completely fine for her to eat the cheese. why should somebody be able to make a possibly completely arseways decision on this woman's behalf?

also, i have a feeling that parmesan tends to be pasteurized anyway.

grumble, grumble.

 

[krystal]

yes but you don't actually become a parent until the child is BORN, do you? Which is why couples say 'we're going to be parents' when they're expecting a baby.

Just because men cannot biologically carry children does not mean that they have less rights as parents. Maybe this is a point we disagree on.

 

[minka]

Just because men cannot biologically carry children does not mean that they have less rights as parents. Maybe this is a point we disagree on.

it means they have less rights as parents UNTIL THE CHILD LEAVES THE WOMB.

maybe it's not "fair", then again it's not "fair" that if, say, myself and my partner want a child then he has to have sex, and i have to have sex *and* spend nine months being pregnant *and* go through labour.

 

[MDR]

yes but you don't actually become a parent until the child is BORN, do you? Which is why couples say 'we're going to be parents' when they're expecting a baby.

A pro-life father wouldn't feel that way and I think it unfair that his 'child', as he would see it, would be aborted without his consent when he is perfectly prepared to take care of it.

Also a pro-choice father would have no choice.

 

[jane]

Who mentioned surrogacy?

Because if the man is going to take on all parental responsibility after the birth, then that's all she is: a surrogate mother, and an incubator.

Oh, and guys, the person who denied the cheese to the pregnant diner was also a woman! But yeah, making arseways decisions about someone else's eating habits is dumb.

 

[jane]

A pro-life father wouldn't feel that way and I think it unfair that his 'child', as he would see it, would be aborted without his consent when he is perfectly prepared to take care of it.

Also a pro-choice father would have no choice.

So you think a pro-choice father should have the right to veto the choice of a pro-choice mother?

 

[MDR]

it means they have less rights as parents UNTIL THE CHILD LEAVES THE WOMB.

maybe it's not "fair", then again it's not "fair" that if, say, myself and my partner want a child then he has to have sex, and i have to have sex *and* spend nine months being pregnant *and* go through labour.

I am pro-choice which means I accept that not everybody feels the same way about abortion and that they have a right to choose. Your point excludes men from that decision and, while I accept that a lot of people feel that way, I think that's wrong.

 

[snakybus]

ok guys - it's fewer rights, not less rights? this has been bugging me for ages.

I agree with Ro, by the way. My missus wouldn't have an abortion without discussing it with me but if she did I'd be fierce pissed off!

 

[MDR]

Because if the man is going to take on all parental responsibility after the birth, then that's all she is: a surrogate mother, and an incubator.
.

no she isn't, she's the biological mother who became pregnant through consensual sex.

 

[jane]

ok guys - it's fewer rights, not less rights? this has been bugging me for ages.

I agree with Ro, by the way. My missus wouldn't have an abortion without discussing it with me but if she did I'd be fierce pissed off!

And you would have a right to be pissed off about it! But wouldn't it undermine the strength of you as a couple to negotiate and bridge gaps, and define your own boundaries, if you needed the law to step in, if you needed the state to give you a leg up, just because you got your leg over?

 

[MDR]

So you think a pro-choice father should have the right to veto the choice of a pro-choice mother?

yes. In my view, both parents' consent would be required for an abortion where both parents caused the pregnancy by having consensual sex together.

 

[jane]

no she isn't, she's the biological mother who became pregnant through consensual sex.

But if she is being forced into bearing the child against her will, then the value of her consent ended with the removal of her knickers, and she has been turned from an active agent into an incubator.

Ro, I really wish you could see that what your arguing for is terrifying to anyone with a womb, and if it isn't, it should be.

 

[krystal]

I agree with Ro, by the way. My missus wouldn't have an abortion without discussing it with me but if she did I'd be fierce pissed off!

yeah, sure. Jane and I agree with you about that too - in a relationship the decision making process with regards to what to do with a pregnancy is completely different. If it happened to me it'd have to be a mutual decision too and it wouldn't be made lightly, whatever the final decision was.

We're mostly arguing a single womans right to have control over her reproduction without necessarily having to have the intervention of a man.

 

[jane]

yes. In my view, both parents' consent would be required for an abortion where both parents caused the pregnancy by having consensual sex together.

So basically, you don't believe men and women should have equal choice in the matter. If the man has a legal veto, then he has MORE POWER, and thus, the woman has no choice, if the basis of that choice requires the man's consent.

THAT IS NOT EQUAL.

 

[krystal]

but you've already said if she didn't want it she'd have to have it and he'd bring it up. The sex might have been consensual but the pregancy sure ain't.

no she isn't, she's the biological mother who became pregnant through consensual sex.

 

[snakybus]

I may not have put the leg over specifically, there are many roads to Shangri-La. I think the issue of bringing in the law is a whole different thing. But the law decides that parents can't see their children all the time - it separates fathers from their children ALL the time. It would be nice if our relationships could sort everything out, but the law might be necessary sometimes.