"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[Luminesa]

I think the site is cute myself (then again, I like pink and softness and sweetness), but okay. How's this?

http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/babies-w ... s-emotions

The baby's emotions form along the mother's. If she is happy during her pregnancy, the baby has a higher chance of being happy and healthy when born. If she is depressed, the baby may not only develop depression, but they may also suffer physical effects. So their emotional bonds are very close indeed.

While the actual article looks intersting it does not support the claim the poster made, all it says is that the mother's psychological state during pregnancy may have an actual physical effect of the development of the fetus and baby (due to chemicals from stress). It says nothing about them actually feeling anything.

Well...depression and happiness...but I suppose I can find better articles later, when I'm not so tired.

[Neutraligon]

Me, yeah, but my brother has two - he's a chimera. Very rare.



Neither does my brother's skin and his blood.



Let's say I accept this.



This is only true beyond a certain point. About 24 weeks, iirc.



So I'm going to go back to Neut's question earlier. A woman cuts off her body's attachments to the fetus, not touching the fetus.

What happens next?



My parents created me. Do they have a right to take a pint of blood from me against my will?

If the woman cuts off the fetus it dies.

Yes it does, and yet not once was the fetus touched. Basically the point that the fetus has a separate body is thus entirely irrelevant since I am able to remove the connection to the fetus without touching the fetus.

If I lock you in a flooded room you die.

bad analogy since my being locked inside that room does not in anyway effect your rights unlike a fetus inside a woman's body.

24 weeks thing accepted, however very few abortions do happen then and during those few cases that argument stands.

Since in the US abortions after 24 weeks are always due to life of the mother (I believe there is a legal requirement for this) no it really doesn't.

Your parents don't have the right to take a pint of blood from you after you are 18, but before 18 they have custody over you and I'm pretty sure they can if they don't break any laws.

I am pretty sure this is one of the few times where parent's cannot dictate what a child does.

However this argument would still be against abortion even if I wasn't refuting it, as it defends the rights of the offspring rather than the will of the parent(s).

No rather it supports the right of bodily sovereignty regardless of if they are the parent or not.

However what I am arguing is that the father should have partial say over his offspring.

Once again why should he have a say since his is not the body effected by the pregnancy, nor is his the body going through the medical procedure. Why should a third party get to tell a woman that they can or cannot have a medical procedure?

My analogy for this would be cattle breeders can have partial ownership, or stock, over a bull. The bull resides on one persons property. Unless something is signed the person whose property the bull is on does not have the right to put down the bull without consulting the other owner(s).

If the bull ends up on my property and I do not want it there I can remove it. Since normally a contract is signed that allows the bull on that property clearly I cannot do anything to the bull. However outside of that contract, if that bull is on my property I can do any damned thing I want to it.

The same thing should go for a father and mother, with both having laid down capital (or in this case genes and emotional investment) but mother being the one providing sustenance and carrying the baby.However, the father should not be cut out as he laid down his "capital." At the very least he should legally have a chance to talk to the woman. Same goes for guys trying to force the girl they knocked up to abort. I would think both should have to consent, but maybe this should be applied case by case, as there are always different circumstances.

A man already has ability talk to the girl, he has no ability to prevent her from getting the abortion should she want one. Once again a man does not get to dictate to a woman what happens within her own body nor what medical decisions she can and cannot make.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm not suggesting that this law means this.

What I am saying is that Gallo's complaint is not about the existence of the law as you suggest, but rather, its application and the fact that while the laws are written to be gender neutral, its application is not gender neutral.

application is always a problem. sometimes it leans towards mothers sometimes toward fathers. its a problem of humanity.

That doesn't mean its unequal application should be ignored by saying that, under the law, people have equal rights.

The enforcement of a law is as important, if not more important than the legislation of such, because its application actually affects people's lives.

[Galloism]

it really doesn't change the fact that mothers and father ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW in all ways that are important.

It's weird how you think it's not important that only one gender has unalienable responsibilities to their children under law, while the other doesn't. And the latter can surrender the former's rights under law without their knowledge or consent.

I mean, to me, that's kind of a big deal.

However, I'll just keep in mind that you think the rights and responsibilities towards children are unimportant. I think that says a lot.

[Katganistan]

Well, as far as the "host" analogy goes, you can toss your guests' asses out of your party when you don't want them in your house anymore.

And since pregnancy includes many health risks, such as:

https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/ ... plications

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/ ... ations.htm

Not to mention that YES, in the 21st Century, women STILL die in childbirth.


So, no. If she doesn't want it, she shouldn't have it. When men implant fetuses in their own bodies and carry it to term, then they can decide to have the baby.

[Costa Fierro]

It seems that you missed the part where I said "I never said dictate, I said have a say". As in contribute to a woman's medical decisions much in the same way women should contribute to a man's medical decisions. And I then asked "why shouldn't he", meaning why shouldn't a man have a say in women's medical decisions. After all, if I was going to have a significant medical procedure, I would want to have some discussion about it with my partner.

Ah, I see. In that case, I agree with you completely. How about reflecting that opinion of yours by opposing this legislative measure instead of supporting it?

I oppose this measure because it removes the agency that women have in determining what they do with their bodies and could lead to abuses by men and be very problematic for rape victims. However, I do support further measures to get men involved with the discussion on abortion and to further encourage participation of men in the decision making process to help their partners make the decision that is best for them.

[Galloism]

Well, as far as the "host" analogy goes, you can toss your guests' asses out of your party when you don't want them in your house anymore.

And since pregnancy includes many health risks, such as:

https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/ ... plications

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/ ... ations.htm

Not to mention that YES, in the 21st Century, women STILL die in childbirth.


So, no. If she doesn't want it, she shouldn't have it. When men implant fetuses in their own bodies and carry it to term, then they can decide to have the baby.

A good friend of mine his wife died in childbirth. There was no hint of anything wrong until about 2 mins after birth, whereupon she started bleeding profusely from everywhere and died in less than a minute.

[Neutraligon]

Ah, I see. In that case, I agree with you completely. How about reflecting that opinion of yours by opposing this legislative measure instead of supporting it?

I oppose this measure because it removes the agency that women have in determining what they do with their bodies and could lead to abuses by men and be very problematic for rape victims. However, I do support further measures to get men involved with the discussion on abortion and to further encourage participation of men in the decision making process to help their partners make the decision that is best for them.

Seems to me there are other ways to achieve both those things without removing a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

[Rusozak]

From a bible belt state of course. Didn't even have to guess, I just knew.

[Ifreann]

Don't believe I said anything about women being more important than men.

It was implied.

You inferred it. I didn't imply it.

[Ashmoria]

good lord. a minor law that makes a minor distinction between a father and a mother isn't really enough to say that they aren't equal under the law. I'm sure there are other remnants out there that need tweaking. it really doesn't change the fact that mothers and father ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW in all ways that are important. its quite different from a few decades ago when men were considered inferior parents or 100 years ago when women were.

in fact if you can find me a case where a MAN left a baby at a fire station and then was prosecuted for it i will consider it a bigger deal.

https://www.google.com/search?q=safe+ha ... e&ie=UTF-8

Inform thyself. Neither man nor woman can be prosecuted for this in any of the 50 US states. First proposed by one of those dastardly, sexist republicans. But you are right both man and women are equal under the law, despite divorce proceedings and this topic heavily leaning towards women. Each sex can cite both positive and negative taboos in our society.

thank you.

[Ashmoria]

application is always a problem. sometimes it leans towards mothers sometimes toward fathers. its a problem of humanity.

That doesn't mean its unequal application should be ignored by saying that, under the law, people have equal rights.

The enforcement of a law is as important, if not more important than the legislation of such, because its application actually affects people's lives.

who said it should be ignored?

its really hard to discipline a judge who is biased toward one gender or the other.

[Costa Fierro]

Seems to me there are other ways to achieve both those things without removing a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Such as?

[New Cashistan]

So lesbians can't get abortions? /s

^{someone's already made this joke I'm sure of it}

[Luminesa]

Well, as far as the "host" analogy goes, you can toss your guests' asses out of your party when you don't want them in your house anymore.

And since pregnancy includes many health risks, such as:

https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/ ... plications

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/ ... ations.htm

Not to mention that YES, in the 21st Century, women STILL die in childbirth.


So, no. If she doesn't want it, she shouldn't have it. When men implant fetuses in their own bodies and carry it to term, then they can decide to have the baby.

A good friend of mine his wife died in childbirth. There was no hint of anything wrong until about 2 mins after birth, whereupon she started bleeding profusely from everywhere and died in less than a minute.

That's...terrifying.

[Luminesa]

From a bible belt state of course. Didn't even have to guess, I just knew.

A person who apparently knows nothing about how a Christian is supposed to treat a woman. She's not just a "host", gracious...

[Galloism]

good lord. a minor law that makes a minor distinction between a father and a mother isn't really enough to say that they aren't equal under the law. I'm sure there are other remnants out there that need tweaking. it really doesn't change the fact that mothers and father ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW in all ways that are important. its quite different from a few decades ago when men were considered inferior parents or 100 years ago when women were.

in fact if you can find me a case where a MAN left a baby at a fire station and then was prosecuted for it i will consider it a bigger deal.

https://www.google.com/search?q=safe+ha ... e&ie=UTF-8

Inform thyself. Neither man nor woman can be prosecuted for this in any of the 50 US states. First proposed by one of those dastardly, sexist republicans. But you are right both man and women are equal under the law, despite divorce proceedings and this topic heavily leaning towards women. Each sex can cite both positive and negative taboos in our society.

Really?

A random google search doesn't seem to indicate such. It's definitely not true anyway.

In Georgia for instance, only the mother is protected from prosecution.

http://safehaven.tv/states/georgia/Geor ... en_Law.pdf

Last I checked, there were about a dozen states like that.


In any case, is largely matters not. Because of custody defaults, fathers can't use them in practice anyway.

[Galloism]

That doesn't mean its unequal application should be ignored by saying that, under the law, people have equal rights.

The enforcement of a law is as important, if not more important than the legislation of such, because its application actually affects people's lives.

who said it should be ignored?

its really hard to discipline a judge who is biased toward one gender or the other.

It's not about a judge's bias. It's about the bias inherent in the legal structure itself.

[Ashmoria]

https://www.google.com/search?q=safe+ha ... e&ie=UTF-8

Inform thyself. Neither man nor woman can be prosecuted for this in any of the 50 US states. First proposed by one of those dastardly, sexist republicans. But you are right both man and women are equal under the law, despite divorce proceedings and this topic heavily leaning towards women. Each sex can cite both positive and negative taboos in our society.

Really?

A random google search doesn't seem to indicate such. It's definitely not true anyway.

In Georgia for instance, only the mother is protected from prosecution.

http://safehaven.tv/states/georgia/Geor ... en_Law.pdf

Last I checked, there were about a dozen states like that.


In any case, is largely matters not. Because of custody defaults, fathers can't use them in practice anyway.

how many men have been prosecuted for child abandonment because they left their baby at a "safe haven" facility?

do you live in a world where women never sleep, never go out of the house and leave the baby with its father?

[Galloism]

Really?

A random google search doesn't seem to indicate such. It's definitely not true anyway.

In Georgia for instance, only the mother is protected from prosecution.

http://safehaven.tv/states/georgia/Geor ... en_Law.pdf

Last I checked, there were about a dozen states like that.


In any case, is largely matters not. Because of custody defaults, fathers can't use them in practice anyway.

how many men have been prosecuted for child abandonment because they left their baby at a "safe haven" facility?

Dunno. Most men in practice have no legal capability to use them anyway on account of the law being engineered against them for being the wrong gender.

do you live in a world where women never sleep, never go out of the house and leave the baby with its father?

I'm living in a world with a lot of young unwed parents who do not live together.

[Neutraligon]

Seems to me there are other ways to achieve both those things without removing a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

Such as?

Such as trying to allow men the rights discussed in this thread. Such as reducing the payments from child support. Such as doing a propaganda campaign to try and get people to discuss it (kinda like the yes means yes campaign).

[Ashmoria]

how many men have been prosecuted for child abandonment because they left their baby at a "safe haven" facility?

Dunno. Most men in practice have no legal capability to use them anyway on account of the law being engineered against them for being the wrong gender.

do you live in a world where women never sleep, never go out of the house and leave the baby with its father?

I'm living in a world with a lot of young unwed parents who do not live together.

yeah and lots of them still let the father spend time with his baby.

[Kollin]

While the actual article looks intersting it does not support the claim the poster made, all it says is that the mother's psychological state during pregnancy may have an actual physical effect of the development of the fetus and baby (due to chemicals from stress). It says nothing about them actually feeling anything.

Well...depression and happiness...but I suppose I can find better articles later, when I'm not so tired.

If that article is true, it might explain part of what's up with me. Huh. The things yah learn from NSG arguing about abortion.

[Galloism]

Dunno. Most men in practice have no legal capability to use them anyway on account of the law being engineered against them for being the wrong gender.


I'm living in a world with a lot of young unwed parents who do not live together.

yeah and lots of them still let the father spend time with his baby.

Which, in practice, means men only have the right to surrender if the woman allows him to have it, while women in practice have the unrestricted right to surrender for both her and him at the same time no matter how much he might object.

This is sexist.

Edit: Tying this back to the thread, imagine a woman could only get an abortion if the man consented. Would she have a right to abortion?

Follow up: In addition, let's suppose a woman could be forced to undergo an abortion at the man's behest. Does she have the right to an abortion, or is she under threat of it?

The latter is the situation men are in now with children already born.

[NERVUN]

Yer a troll

And you are troll naming. Knock it off, now.

Hush, the adults are talking.

And this is flamebaiting. Cease.

Address the argument folks, not the poster.