"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[Militant Costco]

This is what feminists never mention. Also the fact that men usually will lose custody of their kids over the women and that paternity pay is taken more lightly than maternity pay.

It has been something repeatedly commented on this thread, and something many of the feminists in this thread say they support men being able to "financially abort."

Well, if women want to bankrupt themselves to prove they're independent and don't need a man's help with the kid, fine by me.

[United Balkan Kingdom]

I really am mixed on this issue, while I believe a woman has the right to do what she wishes with her body, I am the same way against abortion quietly because every abortion is a person who may or may not make an impact on history, and now we will never know. Though I don't agree with calling a woman a host I do understand the idea behind at least letting the father know, because some men actually want to raise a child, and would be very heartbroken if all of a sudden their spouse or significant other came up to them and said they aborted their child. We've got to remember this can have just as serious an emotional effect on the father as it can the mother,they should have the right to at least know it's happening rather than having an emotional burden given to them by surprise

[Chestaan]

haha, half the cell? actually, it's just half the nuclear code: the rest of the cell, plus the babe's nine-month housing, is the woman's. and with advances in cloning and such, at some point men aren't even gonna be necessary anymore, though that's another issue.

jesus christ, women are "hosts"? what is this, the middle ages? so the man contributes the homunculus and the woman's just fertile ground? besides, if the woman is just the "host", won't that mean that she has every right to kick the baby out, since the term is used either for house guests or for parasites?

this is disgusting. i personally think abortion is a sort of murder, but i also understand that it's the sketchy sort that can't be given a blanket good or bad, at least according to the limited eyes of human law -- like, say, self-defense, or war -- and especially because of my penis. like i said, biologically men contribute less than half of the actual cell (even less than half of the entire genome -- the mitochondrial genome is all the mother's), and sociologically i'm guessing a good number of the men involved in these sorts of tragedies lost their rights long ago (actually, that is a question: what about rape victims?).

its just a fact

in the creation of a baby the father contributes half a cell. that cell goes on to become a full baby if the pregnancy is successful

that's not nothing but it surely doesn't give him the right to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want.

By that logic, does it not also mean that because the man doesn't really have a role in the creation of the fetus/baby that he should be allowed to have a paper abortion?

[Venerable Bede]

I have to agree with the senator. Both parties should consent.

This makes zero sense to me. If the fetus is subject to human rights, then it doesn't matter if a thousand people consent, and if not, then it's purely maternal tissue with no legal "parents" anymore than mucus does...it would be like demanding parental rights to your snot after sneezing on someone.

[Minoa]

So if you were looking for something to make your vision turn red this morning look no further than Rep. Justin Humphrey (R).

More like, if I was looking for something to keep myself more depressed than what I am already, and at the same time show how some politicians don't understand the extent to which how we perceive a woman has changed dramatically.

[Chestaan]

I have to agree with the senator. Both parties should consent.

This makes zero sense to me. If the fetus is subject to human rights, then it doesn't matter if a thousand people consent, and if not, then it's purely maternal tissue with no legal "parents" anymore than mucus does...it would be like demanding parental rights to your snot after sneezing on someone.

It makes more sense if you think of it as a reproductive rights issue, but even then its a bit silly.

[The V O I D]

I have to agree with the senator. Both parties should consent.

This makes zero sense to me. If the fetus is subject to human rights, then it doesn't matter if a thousand people consent, and if not, then it's purely maternal tissue with no legal "parents" anymore than mucus does...it would be like demanding parental rights to your snot after sneezing on someone.

Actually, you are only partially correct: even if a fetus has human rights, its rights do not supersede those of the woman it resides in. Claiming such inherently enslaves women to fetuses.

[New Larthinia]

Yes it does as she is the only one physically effected by the fetus. His having contributed his genetic information does not mean he has the right to dictate what a woman does to her own body or to that which is directly reliant on her own body through physical connection.

Physical consequences are not the only relevant factor when it comes to pregnancy, that's just dumb to say.

Huh? Whether general or specific the man has no right to dictate what happens to a woman's body or within a woman's body. Bodily sovereignty is a broad right that means men cannot make a slave out of women, even in this specific scenario. So yes, that is exactly how it works.

Men making slaves out of women? Just because the father gets a say when it comes to his own child doesn't mean that men are making slaves out of women. That's silly wording!

[New Larthinia]

Ok, now that I did actually read the law the entire debate is centered around, I don't really see anything wrong with it. That's some weird wording, but that doesn't change the intent of the law.

[Dylar]

Welp, I have some catching up to do from page 15 all the way to 42. Unless someone wants to fill me in on the important stuff that's happened thus far. Though, I'm gonna guess that it was exactly the same arguement that's been happening since page 1 with the pro-life nations v the pro-choice nations.

[Dylar]

This makes zero sense to me. If the fetus is subject to human rights, then it doesn't matter if a thousand people consent, and if not, then it's purely maternal tissue with no legal "parents" anymore than mucus does...it would be like demanding parental rights to your snot after sneezing on someone.

Actually, you are only partially correct: even if a fetus has human rights, its rights do not supersede those of the woman it resides in. Claiming such inherently enslaves women to fetuses.

But their rights are not below the women's rights either. If we are to live in an equal society then everyone should get the same basic human rights.

[Alvecia]

Ok, now that I did actually read the law the entire debate is centered around, I don't really see anything wrong with it. That's some weird wording, but that doesn't change the intent of the law.

In law, wording is key.

[The Mandate Of Israel]

Pretty bad wording, but if the killing of children is going to be legal, at least get both parents' permission first, eh?

I don't mean to be 'that guy' but what if like the father violated the mother?

[Sotral]

Actually, you are only partially correct: even if a fetus has human rights, its rights do not supersede those of the woman it resides in. Claiming such inherently enslaves women to fetuses.

But their rights are not below the women's rights either. If we are to live in an equal society then everyone should get the same basic human rights.

Fortunately, there's no such thing as a human right to using someone else's body against their will. I am not obligated to donate my organs even if it would save lives; women aren't obligated to host fetuses within their body.

The fact that there is currently no way to remove fetuses without killing them before they're viable (which I believe is when most abortions happen) is irrelevant.

[Dylar]

But their rights are not below the women's rights either. If we are to live in an equal society then everyone should get the same basic human rights.

Fortunately, there's no such thing as a human right to using someone else's body against their will. I am not obligated to donate my organs even if it would save lives; women aren't obligated to host fetuses within their body.

The fact that there is currently no way to remove fetuses without killing them before they're viable (which I believe is when most abortions happen) is irrelevant.

Why do I have the feeling that you support human cloning? Other than that, women kinda are obligated to host the fetuses within their bodies. They chose to have sex, they pay the consequences. Now before you jump on me about rape or incest, tell me, why should the unborn child have to pay for the father's crimes? If anything, the rapist would want the woman to get an abortion so that he wouldn't have to be forced to pay child support. Just food for thought, so don't act like you're gonna kill me or anything...

[Gravlen]

Fortunately, there's no such thing as a human right to using someone else's body against their will. I am not obligated to donate my organs even if it would save lives; women aren't obligated to host fetuses within their body.

The fact that there is currently no way to remove fetuses without killing them before they're viable (which I believe is when most abortions happen) is irrelevant.

Why do I have the feeling that you support human cloning? Other than that, women kinda are obligated to host the fetuses within their bodies.

Oh? What obligates them?

They chose to have sex, they pay the consequences.

Sex isn't only for procreation, and pregnancy isn't a necessary consequence of having sex.

[Dylar]

Why do I have the feeling that you support human cloning? Other than that, women kinda are obligated to host the fetuses within their bodies.

Oh? What obligates them?

They chose to have sex, they pay the consequences.

Sex isn't only for procreation, and pregnancy isn't a necessary consequence of having sex.

Uh, sex is for procreation its because of the damned pornography that altered your understanding of sex. Porn dictates that sex is used for pleasure, nothing more. What it really is for is the procreation of human life. Anything other than that is perverse, and an abomination. Also the definition of consequence is the direct effect of a choice. It can be good, it can be bad. Pregnancy is a good consequence.

[Philjia]

Oh? What obligates them?


Sex isn't only for procreation, and pregnancy isn't a necessary consequence of having sex.

Uh, sex is for procreation its because of the damned pornography that altered your understanding of sex. Porn dictates that sex is used for pleasure, nothing more. What it really is for is the procreation of human life. Anything other than that is perverse, and an abomination. Also the definition of consequence is the direct effect of a choice. It can be good, it can be bad. Pregnancy is a good consequence.

Many higher mammals enjoy sexual behaviour enjoyable without procreation. We evolved to find sex pleasurable, and it's our prerogative as humans to choose to exploit it.

[Sotral]

Fortunately, there's no such thing as a human right to using someone else's body against their will. I am not obligated to donate my organs even if it would save lives; women aren't obligated to host fetuses within their body.

The fact that there is currently no way to remove fetuses without killing them before they're viable (which I believe is when most abortions happen) is irrelevant.

Why do I have the feeling that you support human cloning?

Beats me. Why do you have that feeling?

Other than that, women kinda are obligated to host the fetuses within their bodies. They chose to have sex, they pay the consequences.

Consent to sex isn't and shouldn't be consent to pregnancy. It's consent to sex, in that particular time and place, and nothing more.

Now before you jump on me about rape or incest, tell me, why should the unborn child have to pay for the father's crimes? If anything, the rapist would want the woman to get an abortion so that he wouldn't have to be forced to pay child support. Just food for thought, so don't act like you're gonna kill me or anything...

You sure are jumpy.

Aborting fetuses isn't punishment, nor do they pay for the father's sins. It's merely a process enacted to counteract a violation of someone's bodily sovereignty. If the fact that the fetus happens to die in the process bothers you, the logical stance isn't to rail against abortion but to invest in the development of alternatives.

[Dylar]

Uh, sex is for procreation its because of the damned pornography that altered your understanding of sex. Porn dictates that sex is used for pleasure, nothing more. What it really is for is the procreation of human life. Anything other than that is perverse, and an abomination. Also the definition of consequence is the direct effect of a choice. It can be good, it can be bad. Pregnancy is a good consequence.

Many higher mammals enjoy sexual behaviour enjoyable without procreation. We evolved to find sex pleasurable, and it's our prerogative as humans to choose to exploit it.

However, we're not animals. Sure, we're part of the animal kingdom and all, but we're much more civilised, and I'm not making this any better am I?

[Alvecia]

Many higher mammals enjoy sexual behaviour enjoyable without procreation. We evolved to find sex pleasurable, and it's our prerogative as humans to choose to exploit it.

However, we're not animals. Sure, we're part of the animal kingdom and all, but we're much more civilised, and I'm not making this any better am I?

You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals.

[Community Values]

Many higher mammals enjoy sexual behaviour enjoyable without procreation. We evolved to find sex pleasurable, and it's our prerogative as humans to choose to exploit it.

However, we're not animals. Sure, we're part of the animal kingdom and all, but we're much more civilised, and I'm not making this any better am I?

No. Humans have dopamine flood their brains during sex. This is what's known as "pleasure". Therefore, sex is a pleasurable act.

God, I thought I'd never see the day when I would prove sex is pleasurable.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Many higher mammals enjoy sexual behaviour enjoyable without procreation. We evolved to find sex pleasurable, and it's our prerogative as humans to choose to exploit it.

However, we're not animals. Sure, we're part of the animal kingdom and all, but we're much more civilised, and I'm not making this any better am I?

No, it's clearly natural for animals to have sex for pleasure, so it's not our society causing us to have sex for fun. Our soceity is just evolving to allow us to enjoy ourselves more

[Internationalist Bastard]

However, we're not animals. Sure, we're part of the animal kingdom and all, but we're much more civilised, and I'm not making this any better am I?

You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals.

So let's do it like they do on the discovery channel.
I've honestly used that song to pick up guys

[Alvecia]

You and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals.

So let's do it like they do on the discovery channel.
I've honestly used that song to pick up guys

To be fair if an attractive lady went up to most men and used any variation of "Let's sex", it'd probably be pretty successful.