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

[ICUH8N]

So will we be asking many more leading questions after this one?

 

[jane]

So is any woman who thinks that the man has rights regarding an unborn child is scared of making choices by herself?

What? Why don't I just post up a bunch of random words and you can twist them to caricature me however you like. That work?

 

[MDR]

But when there is contention, Ro is asserting that men should have the power to overule the womans desire not to be pregnant, .

Ro is saying no such thing, which is tantamount to a justification for forced impregnation of women.

 

[snakybus]

I don't think Ro is advocating overruling - I think RO is advocating having a say. It's a different thing.

 

[krystal]

So will we be asking many more leading questions after this one?

Yes.

Next up will be a discussion about the following:
Charlie Haughey - right or wrong?
Sunday Independent Journalism - good or bad?
Barrys or Lyons - you decide

 

[jane]

Never said you assumed those things.

Yes you did. About two pages ago, you said this:

Assuming every man who is anti-abortion is a misogynist is a tad anti-male.

 

[La La]

Ok. No one 'wins' in a situation where one party does something the other isn't happy about. This is one of the reasons abortion is so contentious. But ro's scenario is way more damaging than the scenario where the woman says 'tough, I hear you but it's my body and it's my decision'. I'm sure in many cases both parties are in pefect agreement and there is no problem.

But when there is contention, Ro is asserting that men should have the power to overule the womans desire not to be pregnant, not to gain lots of weight, develop varicose veins and haemmoroids, stretch marks and suffer hormonal changes. That's just the physical side of things. There's also the emotional stress of carrying a child you didn't want to have and the impact on job or education. And he should have the right to affect the womans life in this way because he will be the one raising the child.

I just don't see how that's fair in any way, shape or form to the woman who said no. Sure, it might not be fair to abort a child the father would have gladly gone ahead and had, but at the end of the day the womb is in the woman and the woman does have the greater say. Might not be fair, but neither is ro's scenario.

i was referring mainly to the posts in which sexism was being discussed and not the ones you cited.
im fully aware about what's fair and what's not, and in my first post i said i wasnt siding with anyone. i really just wanted to put in my two cents.

 

[krystal]

Ro is saying no such thing, which is tantamount to a justification for forced impregnation of women.

actually that is what you've been saying - I've posted twice to clarify what you think should happen in a stalemate situation and you've said the woman will have the child and the man will raise it.

 

[spiritualtramp]

Yes you did. About two pages ago, you said this:

Did I actually say YOU assumed that? No, I didn't.

I meant in general assuming that every anti-abortionist hates women is sexist.

 

[F. Fred Palakon]

I don't think Ro is advocating overruling - I think RO is advocating having a say. It's a different thing.

What? He has stated on several occasions that if the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, that the woman should have to have it anyway. That is overruling.

 

[jane]

I don't think Ro is advocating overruling - I think RO is advocating having a say. It's a different thing.

But the say he's advocating is a legal right for the male partner to overrule the female partner if he doesn't like her choice to have an abortion. Which is a legal enshrinement of inequality, which we should be moving away from, not toward.

Look, I totally understand the reason for the argument, and I think there are a lot of legal issues regarding parenthood, reproduction, and the body that need some serious thought. But the fact is, most people aren't ready for that. I talk about how there exist underlying things in society that we don't talk about but very much need to engage with, and people say it makes them 'squirm'. So until getting to the guts of the issue stops making people squirm, we're going to have the same circular arguments. It's sad, I think.

 

[taubstumm]

here, this thread has had over two hundred replies in less than a day; i refuse on principle to wade through so much of the internet in one go. could someone do a sum-up for me?

 

[jane]

here, this thread has two hundred posts in less than a day; i refuse on principle to wade through so much of the internet in one go. could someone do a sum-up for me?

Black and navy: worthwhile shattering of an old taboo, or fashion nightmare?

 

[krystal]

here, this thread has had over two hundred replies in less than a day; i refuse on principle to wade through so much of the internet in one go. could someone do a sum-up for me?

yes.
abortion isn't fair
the end.

 

[La La]

here, this thread has had over two hundred replies in less than a day; i refuse on principle to wade through so much of the internet in one go. could someone do a sum-up for me?

a granny's having a baby and now we're talking about abortion.

 

[Lord Damian]

i find it very helpful to imagine that men were the gender that were able to become pregnant. we wouldn't have 6 million posts about whether or not we should be able to do whatever we wanted with the fetus.

edit - a bit simple, yes, but forgive me as i'm suffering through a really wonderful hangover at the moment.

 

[krystal]

Black and navy: worthwhile shattering of an old taboo, or fashion nightmare?

no, it's ok - kate moss made it so.

And grey is the new black anyway.

 

[jane]

no, it's ok - kate moss made it so.

And grey is the new black anyway.

God, I can't believe I just went through ALL of this, when I could have just come right out and asked.

Thanks, Kirstie.

 

[MDR]

Ok. No one 'wins' in a situation where one party does something the other isn't happy about. This is one of the reasons abortion is so contentious. But ro's scenario is way more damaging than the scenario where the woman says 'tough, I hear you but it's my body and it's my decision'. I'm sure in many cases both parties are in pefect agreement and there is no problem.

Your scenario = woman has abortion against will of the father even though he would have taken care of the baby.

'Ro's' scenario = woman becomes pregnant after consensual sex and has to carry baby after which the father takes care of it. Is that really more damaging?

As for the legal argument, without a law to support a man's right he is absolutely at the mercy of what the woman wants to do, even though they are both responsible for causing the pregnancy.

As for aristotle, I don't know what he has to do with anything. I can assure you I am in full control of my own opinions and that there aren't bags of historical prejudices pushing my buttons.

 

[Dr Winston Umbogo]

Yes.

Next up will be a discussion about the following:
Charlie Haughey - right or wrong?
Sunday Independent Journalism - good or bad?
Barrys or Lyons - you decide

Blur or Oasis?