|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 11, 2009 15:45:42 GMT -5
Well he should of used a condom if he didn't want to be a daddy. Simple, isn't it. At the risk of being unpopular, that sounds awfully similar to the "blame the victim" rape defense.
|
|
Sayna
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by Sayna on Apr 11, 2009 18:37:46 GMT -5
Let's get one thing straight: Pro-life is generally accepted to mean that one is opposed to abortion and wants it either illegalized or severely restricted. Pro-choice means that you support the full range of reproductive options, including the right to abortion. A third stance is that someone is morally opposed to abortion but would not make it illegal, which is called "pro-life personal, pro-choice political". Honestly, I think you're rare because it's incredibly hard to justify forcing a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will without religion. This blog post was written by Amanda Marcotte shortly after "The Raving Atheist" went from "The Raving Anti-Abortionist" to "The Raving Theist": Theocratic or pro-choice: Not much middle ground between them. It gets a bit angry, but that doesn't invalidate the excellent points she brings up. And, as PZ Myers pointed out: I don't see how you justify the idea that a blastocyst is a person without believing is something akin to ensoulment. I noticed that you support exceptions for rape, and this strikes me as very odd. A fetus conceived through rape is every bit as much alive and human as a fetus conceived through consensual sex. If you really believe that abortion is akin to murder, why do you think that someone should be able to murder a fetus just because of how it came to exist? Is this really about fetal life, or is this about making sure that the woman "learns her lesson" and "takes responsibility"? Forcing a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will is cruel if she's a rape victim, but it's equally cruel if she isn't. Another question: If you really believe that it is akin to murder or should be illegal, you should have no problem telling me exactly how much jail time a woman ought to do if she has one anyway. Don't try to weasel out of it by saying you'd jail the doctor, because the woman hired that doctor to do it or, as is often the case when safe and legal abortion is unavailable, she may have induced it herself. If having an abortion is worse than forcing a woman to have a baby, then there is nothing wrong with not allowing any woman to have one (with exceptions for health) and giving them a severe legal punishment if they do. I despise people who believe this, but I respect their honesty and consistency. At least then I know that it's not just about punishing women for sex. As far as abortion reduction goes: The pro-choice movement is built on supporting all reproductive health options, including the right to contraception and comprehensive sex education. Reducing unwanted pregnancy is a major part of the agenda. I don't know of a single pro-choice group doesn't stress the importance of prevention, or a single pro-life group that does. I know of plenty pro-life people who support sex ed. and contraception, but I don't know of a single pro-life organization that does. Most of them are explicitly opposed to them! If most pro-life people don't think this way, why do they identify with a movement that does?
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 11, 2009 21:52:08 GMT -5
Well he should of used a condom if he didn't want to be a daddy. Simple, isn't it. At the risk of being unpopular, that sounds awfully similar to the "blame the victim" rape defense. And I shouldn't post when I'm tired. He wanted to be a daddy, she didn't want to be a mommy. So yeah, I guess he didn't want to use a condom.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 12, 2009 0:18:06 GMT -5
The bottom line is that the woman has the final say in whether or not she's going to bear a child. This SUCKS for a man if she tricks (known as 'oops-ing') him, but it's just as wrong to force a woman to HAVE an abortion as it is to force her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want to continue. If you, personally, don't want any children, then depend on NOBODY but YOURSELF for contraception. That means, men--WRAP IT UP; women, take your pill or get your IUD or do whatever it is that works for you.**
**Of course, there's a special degree of contempt in my mind for the women who oops their partners when they're in committed long-term relationships and have had the 'contraception talk' and have agreed that SHE is going to use birth control--and then they decide unilaterally that they're going to stop taking BC and accidentally-on-purpose get pregnant. That's deceitful, bitchy, horrible, and you deserve to get hit by a truck for that.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 12, 2009 0:23:57 GMT -5
Well he should of used a condom if he didn't want to be a daddy. Simple, isn't it. At the risk of being unpopular, that sounds awfully similar to the "blame the victim" rape defense. Meh, I don't feel the least bit sorry for some dumbass male who has unprotected sex and then decides he doesn't want a child. People should exercise some responsibility; however, I cannot, in good conscience, say that a woman is raped because of irresponsibility on her part.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 12, 2009 5:55:12 GMT -5
**Of course, there's a special degree of contempt in my mind for the women who oops their partners when they're in committed long-term relationships and have had the 'contraception talk' and have agreed that SHE is going to use birth control--and then they decide unilaterally that they're going to stop taking BC and accidentally-on-purpose get pregnant. That's deceitful, bitchy, horrible, and you deserve to get hit by a truck for that. Agreed, and you know it's just going to do wonders for the relationship too. I hold a couple of oldies but goodies in equal contempt: getting her pregnant so she has to stay home and can't go to college, and having a kid to try and improve a shitty marriage that's doomed to failure.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 12, 2009 8:15:50 GMT -5
At the risk of being unpopular, that sounds awfully similar to the "blame the victim" rape defense. Meh, I don't feel the least bit sorry for some dumbass male who has unprotected sex and then decides he doesn't want a child. People should exercise some responsibility; however, I cannot, in good conscience, say that a woman is raped because of irresponsibility on her part. Two things: one, I don't literally mean that women are asking for it. I figured that would stand on its own. Two, do realise that a lot of pro lifers take the exact same stance towards women, that if they didn't 'want kids, they should have been responsible.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 12, 2009 10:23:53 GMT -5
Meh, I don't feel the least bit sorry for some dumbass male who has unprotected sex and then decides he doesn't want a child. People should exercise some responsibility; however, I cannot, in good conscience, say that a woman is raped because of irresponsibility on her part. Two things: one, I don't literally mean that women are asking for it. I figured that would stand on its own. Two, do realise that a lot of pro lifers take the exact same stance towards women, that if they didn't 'want kids, they should have been responsible. These are the same pro-lifers who want to take birth control away from the woman. Note I said use a condom, not don't have sex. And yeah, if a woman doesn't want to be a mother, she should take precautions as well, not cross her fingers and hope. If birth control was easier to get, and people were better educated in its use, abortions would basically become a non-issue.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 12, 2009 11:20:53 GMT -5
Well, I DID say at the risk of being unpopular.
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Apr 12, 2009 13:05:25 GMT -5
**Of course, there's a special degree of contempt in my mind for the women who oops their partners when they're in committed long-term relationships and have had the 'contraception talk' and have agreed that SHE is going to use birth control--and then they decide unilaterally that they're going to stop taking BC and accidentally-on-purpose get pregnant. That's deceitful, bitchy, horrible, and you deserve to get hit by a truck for that. Agreed, and you know it's just going to do wonders for the relationship too. I hold a couple of oldies but goodies in equal contempt: getting her pregnant so she has to stay home and can't go to college, and having a kid to try and improve a shitty marriage that's doomed to failure. I don't know why people think that having a kid will improve what's essentially a doomed relationship. Children can make a good relationship better (or just not change it at all), but if there are any problems with the marriage or relationship, having kids CAN and usually WILL make things fifty times worse. Just gives you more shit to fight about. Also, while I still want to see male oops-ers mauled to death by dogs, at the VERY LEAST the woman in this situation has the final say and gets to abort the fetus if she wants. (But then, any man who wants his womban pregnant and barefoot so she can't get a job/go to college/leave him will probably bludgeon the woman to death with a hammer before she can have an abortion, so... yeah.) Female oopsers know that THEIR decision is the final one--and they take full advantage of that regardless of what their partner wants. It almost makes me wish that there were some equivalent 'abortion' option for men who don't want to be fathers and were tricked. (Of course it would never work, because you'd have to PROVE that the woman tricked him, and that there was some kind of agreement between them that children were not going to happen. Plus there's the potential for spectacular abuse, so I can't see how it could possibly work.)
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 12, 2009 13:08:22 GMT -5
All the comments are good.
Sayna, in particular, I wanted to say that your post was awesome. An exalt for you!
|
|
|
Post by jaydubs on Apr 12, 2009 21:34:02 GMT -5
^^ As well they should have. I know that it might be a controversial statement to make; but again, we're back to the ethical viewpoint and rights of women. I am the one who feeds the baby with my own body, the one who carries it for nine months, lives with its kicks and movements and constant reminders that it exists inside of me, suffers the abortion or miscarriage in a psychological way that men simply could never experience, and suffer the hours of labor it takes to make my body physically push out the baby. Not to mention the brunt of care an infant needs immediately after birth, which it is then biologically wired to smell for its mom and take comfort from it's mother's heartbeat. To have a man (or anyone else) come in and say that he should have an equal right to make the decision for me to continue or reject the pregnancy, when he could never possibly experience any of that, is NOT his right. To assert he somehow has an equal experience or say in the matter is to purposefully ignore that the bulk of the experience, physically, psychologically and emotionally, is the woman's to deal with. Her rights should trump his in this situation, just as it should trump that of his or her parents, or others who do not have to use their bodies to confirm or deny a baby. Claiming otherwise is negating a big part of the total body & mind experience of pregnancy--and that experience is only in the body of the woman who is pregnant. It's her call, because it's her body & mind that are affected by this. Anything else, as I said earlier, reduces that experience to one of a gestating womb. I can't support that. I can respect this argument. Pregnancy and motherhood are definitely things that a man can hardly begin to understand next to a woman. But, just to play devil's advocate here: I've heard many women saying that men should take greater responsibility for the consequences of sex, namely conception; that men need to see that an unintentional pregnancy is equally their problem. I agree with these arguments. For women to enjoy true equality with men, men need to accept that they have responsibilities to women whom they impregnate. Frankly, I think that the "not my problem" attitude that, unfortunately, is so common is what drives many women to get abortions: They fear, rightly so, that the man will leave them alone to deal with the child, and cannot face this prospect. I know that paternal responsibility does not preclude the role of mothers, and that this is not an either/or issue. But still, I think that there is, at the very least, a vague connection here.
|
|
Panthera
Full Member
Here kitty kitty...
Posts: 229
|
Post by Panthera on Apr 12, 2009 23:31:14 GMT -5
Another question: If you really believe that it is akin to murder or should be illegal, you should have no problem telling me exactly how much jail time a woman ought to do if she has one anyway. Don't try to weasel out of it by saying you'd jail the doctor, because the woman hired that doctor to do it or, as is often the case when safe and legal abortion is unavailable, she may have induced it herself. (I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but...) And what if a woman has a miscarriage? Say she was sick, and neglected to see a doctor soon enough, or she didn't eat right, or exercised/worked too vigorously - are you going to charge her with manslaughter? What if it happens "just because," since nature is cruel like that? What then? If abortion is classed as "murder," then you cannot ignore the fact that that would, effectively, classify miscarriages as "manslaughter."
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 13, 2009 9:10:22 GMT -5
I can respect this argument. Pregnancy and motherhood are definitely things that a man can hardly begin to understand next to a woman. But, just to play devil's advocate here: I've heard many women saying that men should take greater responsibility for the consequences of sex, namely conception; that men need to see that an unintentional pregnancy is equally their problem. I agree with these arguments. For women to enjoy true equality with men, men need to accept that they have responsibilities to women whom they impregnate. Frankly, I think that the "not my problem" attitude that, unfortunately, is so common is what drives many women to get abortions: They fear, rightly so, that the man will leave them alone to deal with the child, and cannot face this prospect. I know that paternal responsibility does not preclude the role of mothers, and that this is not an either/or issue. But still, I think that there is, at the very least, a vague connection here. Which works if you relegate the majority of women to the mentality of abuse victims, but not if you actually treat them as people.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 13, 2009 15:00:56 GMT -5
JayDubs--I don't see how the "men taking more responsibility" for the pregnancy argument and the fact that women get the final say are at odds with each other, actually.
I would argue that for women to enjoy true equality with men, women need to continue to enjoy complete freedom and control over their bodies. If someone can force you to do something with it, you are not free by any stretch of the imagination. There is a huge cognitive gap between taking responsibility for birth control, which is what you mean by "conception", and having control over the outcome of the pregnancy. So, it's not playing "devil's advocate", because the two issues are entirely unrelated. Men can both take more responsibility and women can continue to maintain control over their bodies.
I believe that men should exert control over what they can legitimately and ethically control--themselves. Wear a condom to prevent conception. Pony up part of the money and the parental responsibility after conception. I also believe, though, that if men are opposed to pregnancy and the woman wants to go through with it, that there should be no social or legal ramifications for men who want to sign their parental rights away. I know in some cases, men can sign their rights away and sometimes still be held liable for the support of the child. I think that is very wrong. My two cents, anyway.
|
|