Do you need an abortion? Did you bring a note?

[Derec]

"Past the end of pregnancy" means that there is a third person involved, a child with no ability to take care of itself. A child that is the product of that man's actions, as much as the woman's. No one, woman or man, gets to walk away from that responsibility after the fact.

But a woman can make choices much later than a man can and when the pregnancy is a fact, not mere possibility. That is the fundamental injustice here.

 

[RavenSky]

Please provide a link to a list of the physical complications, from mildly uncomfortable to life-threatening, that a man suffers during a pregnancy.

Does wrath of a hormonal wife count?
How about risk of getting in a car accident while buying pickles and ice cream at 2 AM. *putting of flame-retardant suit*

I am familiar with risks and issues associated with pregnancy. In fact, I am listening to the Caustic Soda podcast on this topic. Count your blessings you live in the 21st century or weren't born a hyena is all I have to say.

that you continue to spout the following means that you really do NOT understand the risks and issues associated with pregnancy. You continue to disregard the risks and issues completely.

That doesn't change the fact that there is a huge imbalance between reproductive choices men and women have and the responsibilities they are hobbled with. If no woman should be a parent against her wishes same should go for men. We can't change biology (on a fundamental level) but we can change laws to be more just.

Yes, there is indeed a huge imbalance - one imposed by biology against the woman.

I fully agree that no man should be a parent against his wishes. That is why I fully support allowing a man to opt out of any potential parental responsibility by providing the woman with a signed, notarized document stating that prior to his having sex with her. Then she can make an informed choice as to whether to risk a pregnancy (& all that entails to her body whether she gets an abortion or not) without any support (emotional and/or financial) BEFORE conception.

 

[Derec]

"Past the end of pregnancy" means that there is a third person involved, a child with no ability to take care of itself. A child that is the product of that man's actions, as much as the woman's. No one, woman or man, gets to walk away from that responsibility after the fact.

But a woman can make choices much later than a man can and when the pregnancy is a fact, not mere possibility. That is the fundamental injustice here.

- - - Updated - - -

FIFY

Nope.

Now that the tit-for-tat is out of the way, did you bother to read what DX wrote?

The problem is feminists think it's a problem they have to prove rape in all cases.

Which would be a great way to deny all abortion, as by the time a judgement is issued, given justice's pace, the window for abortion will be far gone (if not the child already born).

I am sure these hearings can be expedited, otherwise the law would be unconstitutional for sure, if it isn't already.

THAT is the problem with any requirement to "prove" the rape before being allowed to have an abortion.

Not a fan of the proposed law, but if you have any exceptions for "in the cases of rape" there has to be somebody who decides if the claim is legitimate. Otherwise any woman can say she was raped just to get around the law.

 

[RavenSky]

"Past the end of pregnancy" means that there is a third person involved, a child with no ability to take care of itself. A child that is the product of that man's actions, as much as the woman's. No one, woman or man, gets to walk away from that responsibility after the fact.

But a woman can make choices much later than a man can and when the pregnancy is a fact, not mere possibility. That is the fundamental injustice here.

And it is also a "fundamental injustice" that once conception takes place, a woman also endures all of the physical consequences of the pregnancy. The man faces none.

 

[ksen]

smash patriarchy

The problem is that modern US society is more matriarchy than patriarchy.

obviously

 

[Derec]

that you continue to spout the following means that you really do NOT understand the risks and issues associated with pregnancy. You continue to disregard the risks and issues completely.

I do not continue to disregard them. But they have nothing to do with imbalance between choice and responsibility which is currently the law.

Yes, there is indeed a huge imbalance - one imposed by biology against the woman.

Which the child support laws addressed but too much and now the imbalance is in favor of women. And you want the status quo to continue.

I fully agree that no man should be a parent against his wishes. That is why I fully support allowing a man to opt out of any potential parental responsibility by providing the woman with a signed, notarized document stating that prior to his having sex with her. Then she can make an informed choice as to whether to risk a pregnancy (& all that entails to her body whether she gets an abortion or not) without any support (emotional and/or financial) BEFORE conception.

Why prior to conception? Again, you are putting all the responsibility on the man, none on the woman.

 

[RavenSky]

Now that the tit-for-tat is out of the way, did you bother to read what DX wrote?

The problem is feminists think it's a problem they have to prove rape in all cases.

No. The problem is that people like you deny that rape ever exists.

Which would be a great way to deny all abortion, as by the time a judgement is issued, given justice's pace, the window for abortion will be far gone (if not the child already born).

I am sure these hearings can be expedited, otherwise the law would be unconstitutional for sure, if it isn't already.

THAT is the problem with any requirement to "prove" the rape before being allowed to have an abortion.

Not a fan of the proposed law, but if you have any exceptions for "in the cases of rape" there has to be somebody who decides if the claim is legitimate. Otherwise any woman can say she was raped just to get around the law.

because all women are just lying liars who always lie about rape, right?

But at least you acknowledge that the entire law is problematic.

 

[Derec]

there is nothing "inherently unjust" about expecting every parent to support their own children.

When those children came about due to a choice by the mother and the father was given no say in it then it is indeed inherently unjust.

If you don't want children, take precautions. That goes for men and women.

But women have options even if they don't take precautions or these precautions fail. Men don't. And that is the very same argument pro-lifers make about women. If a woman didn't want to be a mother she should have taken precautions before pregnancy. Why is that argument invalid for women but valid for men?

It seems your big complaint is that women - due to the immutable facts of biology - get an extra few months to make their decision.

Not only a few months but also they get to make a choice in light of the fact of pregnancy rather than the mere possibility thereof.

And you've completely ignored that I fully support the idea that men should be allowed to "opt out" of parenthood prior to conception. But they simply don't get to change their minds about it after conception. They need to take responsibility for their actions before they take those actions.

So men should be required to show a piece of paper before every sexual encounter. That idea is almost as ridiculous as "consent contracts". What's wrong with being able to opt out when informed of the pregnancy?

You really are arguing from a place of utter ignorance in these matters, aren't you? That certainly explains quite a bit about why your stance is so absurd.

I was joking. But you'll have to explain to me how hemorrhoids are a consequence of pregnancy.

"obvious" only to a guy who clearly doesn't understand anything whatsoever about pregnancy and delivery Derec, given the totality of your positions on any topic involving women, it is absolutely clear that a desire for equality has nothing to do with your opinions.

BS. Unlike you I want equality under the law. You want to maintain the status quo which gives special rights and benefits to women.

 

[Rhea]

The involvement of the father is not always necessary and if the father wants to give up any paternal rights, he can petition for that through the courts. Should he choose not to financially support a child, then he shouldn't have put himself in the position of creating one in the first place. There are such things has condoms you know.

I disagree with "he shouldn't have put himself in the position." Just as I disagree with it when it comes off the lips of anti-choicers regarding women's bodies.

The basis of my belief in choice comes from the point that an early pregnancy is not a baby. Because it is not a baby, a person yet. And terminating that pregnancy is not murder. It is a procedure done prior to the development of a baby.

And I believe it follows that this is also true for the man. A discussion that happens when a woman is pregnant but prior to there being a baby ("person") should allow the man to say, before the creation a baby, I am saying "no." I strongly believe this statement should be available to both men and women prior to viability. That is, Pre-Baby.

If a man doesn't want to be financially tied down - then he needs to step up to the plate and do something proactive. It shouldn't always be up to the woman to look after birth control.

And I believe that if a man does not want to be tied down, he biologically has that choice for as long as the woman has that choice.

That **IF** she wants to have an abortion and avoid parenthood because she doesn't feel like creating a baby, she has every right to.

And likewise, if the man wants to avoid parenthood because he doesn't feel like creating a baby he has that right also. The biological difference being that he cannot force her to have an abortion (as it should be!), but I strongly believe he should be able to sign away all rights as if he did have an abortion and this leaves her with the choice to continue the pregnancy and create a baby knowing she's the only one accepting that decision OR decide on an abortion after all because the decision to be a single parent makes her not want it so much after all.


I strongly believe that arguments forcing men to be fathers at a time prior to the existence of a fetal person is the same argument as those forcing women to be mothers prior to the existence of a fetal person. And that those arguments are unjustified.


If that woman is deciding between continuing a pregnancy as a single mother or terminating that pregnancy because of single-motherhood, that is her right. I do not believe it is her right to recruit an unwilling father before the baby exists.

I strongly believe that anyone who argues that there is no personhood prior to a certain point MUST accept the man's rights to reject parenthood at that point just as much as a woman's.

The woman still has an extra choice given by biology that the man does not have; continuing as a single parent. But I do not believe there is an argument that she can force a man to continue a pregnancy with her, when he has made his choice prior to the existence of a "baby".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Legitimate rape"???

What behavior is supposed to justify rape to make it legitimate? And wouldn't it make more sense to permit abortion when there wasn't a legitimate reason for the rape in the first place??

"Legitimate rape" is code for "women lie about rape all the time". That was the biggest problem with the Akins quote.

 

[Derec]

No. The problem is that people like you deny that rape ever exists.

You construct straw men so huge you should be the contractor for Burning Man.

because all women are just lying liars who always lie about rape, right?

No. But not all women tell the truth all the time either, especially when they have a vested interest to lie.

 

[laughing dog]

"Past the end of pregnancy" means that there is a third person involved, a child with no ability to take care of itself. A child that is the product of that man's actions, as much as the woman's. No one, woman or man, gets to walk away from that responsibility after the fact.

But a woman can make choices much later than a man can and when the pregnancy is a fact, not mere possibility. That is the fundamental injustice here.

You're right, there is a fundamental biological injustice here. Until that changes, so what?

 

[RavenSky]

I do not continue to disregard them. But they have nothing to do with imbalance between choice and responsibility which is currently the law.

They have everything to do with it.

Yes, there is indeed a huge imbalance - one imposed by biology against the woman.

Which the child support laws addressed but too much and now the imbalance is in favor of women. And you want the status quo to continue.

(1) Your opinion only, and not one I share. I know from very personal experience that child support laws are still very much in the favor of the man. (2) If I wanted the status quo to continue, I would not advocate for an "opt-out" provision for men prior to conception, nor would I have agreed with you that no man should have to pay child-support if he is the victim of a rape or fraud. That you completely disregard my previous comments on this tells me that you don't wish to discussion/debate in an honest manner.

BTW, I'm assuming that if the law were changed to allow a man to avoid child-support payments by claiming rape, you would insist that he, too, must obtain a successful conviction against the woman in order to claim the exemption, right?

I fully agree that no man should be a parent against his wishes. That is why I fully support allowing a man to opt out of any potential parental responsibility by providing the woman with a signed, notarized document stating that prior to his having sex with her. Then she can make an informed choice as to whether to risk a pregnancy (& all that entails to her body whether she gets an abortion or not) without any support (emotional and/or financial) BEFORE conception.

Why prior to conception? Again, you are putting all the responsibility on the man, none on the woman.

ALL of the responsibility, complications, risks and physical damages are to the woman after conception. That is a fact of biology, and why - as a fact of biology - she gets a couple of extra months to decide if she wants to be a parent. At this point, no matter what she decides, she will incur responsibilities, complications, risks and physical damages that the man doesn't have.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You construct straw men so huge you should be the contractor for Burning Man.

because all women are just lying liars who always lie about rape, right?

No. But not all women tell the truth all the time either, especially when they have a vested interest to lie.

What does this have to do with access to abortion and a woman's right to chose to carry her unborn spawn or not?

 

[Derec]

As I said, we as a society draw a line in the sand which means we have to draw it somewhere. In some states it is 18. In some it is 16.

Drawing a line doesn't necessitate calling it rape. It also doesn't mean that the line is arbitrary. Otherwise it would not matter if the line was placed at 12 or 21. I think 18 is clearly too high.

In the eyes of the "statutory rape" law, there is no difference whatsoever between 5 years old and 17 years old.

Actually there is. If the law didn't make a distinction it would be even crazier than it already is.

Likewise, we as a society have drawn the line in the sand for all types of contracts, for drinking, smoking, enlisting, etc.

Yes, there are other age restrictions but there is a big difference. If you give a cigarette to a 17 year old you may be breaking the law. But the law doesn't say that that's the same as if you forced a 17 year old to smoke against their will. We do not pretend that 17 year olds are incapable of consenting to smoking. And if a 17 year old showed you a fake ID saying he was older you are not held liable for accepting it. With "statutory rape laws" a man is prosecuted even when he had no way of knowing the girl was underage.

That's the way it is and everyone knows it, so complaining that a 17-year old girl "consented" is nothing but a continuation of your general theme that no female really gets raped.

Insisting that a 17 year old can't consent even though the sex is clearly consensual is insanity, as is calling her a "rape victim".
Admittedly not as big insanity as the straw men you keep erecting. Saying that rape has to be proven and that there are many false reports is quite different from "no female really gets raped".

 

[Derec]

(1) Your opinion only, and not one I share. I know from very personal experience that child support laws are still very much in the favor of the man.

BS. A man is on the hook for child support even when
- he didn't want a child in the first place
- the child is not even his in many cases
- when he is a sperm donor in some cases
- when he is a rape victim
- when he had his sperm stolen
In addition to that, it is difficult for child support orders to get changed even if man's income goes down or when the child primarily starts living with him because of overwhelming and inherent bias of divorce courts and judges against the fathers.

(2) If I wanted the status quo to continue, I would not advocate for an "opt-out" provision for men prior to conception, nor would I have agreed with you that no man should have to pay child-support if he is the victim of a rape or fraud. That you completely disregard my previous comments on this tells me that you don't wish to discussion/debate in an honest manner.

Fair enough, but even your fixed do not go far enough, especially the piece of paper you want every man to have to wave in front of every potential sex partner.

BTW, I'm assuming that if the law were changed to allow a man to avoid child-support payments by claiming rape, you would insist that he, too, must obtain a successful conviction against the woman in order to claim the exemption, right?

Same rules should apply to men and women.

ALL of the responsibility, complications, risks and physical damages are to the woman after conception. That is a fact of biology, and why - as a fact of biology - she gets a couple of extra months to decide if she wants to be a parent. At this point, no matter what she decides, she will incur responsibilities, complications, risks and physical damages that the man doesn't have.

Nothing a man decides after he ejaculates can affect the woman. But a woman's choice can have huge effects on the man. I have no problem with a woman deciding for herself. I have a problem with a man being saddled with the consequences of her choice against his will.

 

[RavenSky]

BS. A man is on the hook for child support even when
- he didn't want a child in the first place
- the child is not even his in many cases
- when he is a sperm donor in some cases
- when he is a rape victim
- when he had his sperm stolen
In addition to that, it is difficult for child support orders to get changed even if man's income goes down or when the child primarily starts living with him.

- he didn't want a child in the first place: and I've already stated my solution to that
- the child is not even his in many cases: and I've already stated my position against that
- when he is a sperm donor in some cases: and I've already stated my position against that
- when he is a rape victim: and I've already stated my position against that
- when he had his sperm stolen: and I've already stated my position against that

In addition to that, it is difficult for child support orders to get changed even if man's income goes down or when the child primarily starts living with him.

it is equally difficult to get child support orders changed even if the man's income goes up or when he fails to share any of the child rearing responsibilities initially agreed on. It is also notoriously difficult to collect child support when the man stops paying.

(2) If I wanted the status quo to continue, I would not advocate for an "opt-out" provision for men prior to conception, nor would I have agreed with you that no man should have to pay child-support if he is the victim of a rape or fraud. That you completely disregard my previous comments on this tells me that you don't wish to discussion/debate in an honest manner.

Fair enough, but even your fixed do not go far enough, especially the piece of paper you want every man to have to wave in front of every potential sex partner.

The ideal would be for potential sex partners to simply have the conversation, and for both to abide by it later. The "piece of paper" is to protect the man from all the lying liar women you are so sure exist.

BTW, I'm assuming that if the law were changed to allow a man to avoid child-support payments by claiming rape, you would insist that he, too, must obtain a successful conviction against the woman in order to claim the exemption, right?

Same rules should apply to men and women.

ALL of the responsibility, complications, risks and physical damages are to the woman after conception. That is a fact of biology, and why - as a fact of biology - she gets a couple of extra months to decide if she wants to be a parent. At this point, no matter what she decides, she will incur responsibilities, complications, risks and physical damages that the man doesn't have.

Nothing a man decides after he ejaculates can affect the woman. But a woman's choice can have huge effects on the man. I have no problem with a woman deciding for herself. I have a problem with a man being saddled with the consequences of her choice against his will.

His choices post-conception absolutely do have HUGE affects on the woman (& a child if she goes through with the pregnancy). That is why he needs to make clear in advance what his position is - so she can make an informed choice before she (& she alone) has to face the consequences.

 

[Derec]

- he didn't want a child in the first place: and I've already stated my solution to that
- the child is not even his in many cases: and I've already stated my position against that
- when he is a sperm donor in some cases: and I've already stated my position against that
- when he is a rape victim: and I've already stated my position against that
- when he had his sperm stolen: and I've already stated my position against that

Yes you have, but you also said that the law as it is now is biased in favor of men and I listed some ways in which it is definitely not.

it is equally difficult to get child support orders changed even if the man's income goes up or when he fails to share any of the child rearing responsibilities initially agreed on.

It is not "equally difficult" as the courts are biased against the fathers.

It is also notoriously difficult to collect child support when the man stops paying.

Child support is the only kind of debt for which there are still debtor's prisons. And if a woman doesn't inform a man of her pregnancy until years later he is on the hook for all back child support as well, through no fault of his.

The ideal would be for potential sex partners to simply have the conversation, and for both to abide by it later. The "piece of paper" is to protect the man from all the lying liar women you are so sure exist.

The problem is that many instances of sex do not involve any in-depth conversations. Which is why opt-out after conceptions is the much fairer option.

His choices post-conception absolutely do have HUGE affects on the woman (& a child if she goes through with the pregnancy). That is why he needs to make clear in advance what his position is - so she can make an informed choice before she (& she alone) has to face the consequences.

How do his choices have "huge" affects(sic) on the woman? She has him on the hook for the next 18 years no matter what he wants or decides.

 

[Emily Lake]

A Missouri Republican has introduced a bill that would require women seeking abortion care to first get written, notarized permission from the father before they are legally allowed to have the procedure. Exceptions, according to the bill’s sponsor, will only be made for life endangerment and victims who become pregnant from “legitimate rape.”

As Molly Redden at Mother Jones reported Wednesday, the bill was actually filed earlier this month and is slated for next year’s legislative session. The measure, introduced by state Rep. Rick Brattin reads, “No abortion shall be performed or induced unless and until the father of the unborn child provides written, notarized consent to the abortion.”

Of the exception for “legitimate rape,” Brattin explained to Redden that he apparently doesn’t mean it the way that his fellow Missourian Todd Akin meant it when the words effectively ended his political career. In what seems to be an attempt to preempt and criticism and, you know, let the public know that he means legitimate legitimate rape, Brattin told Redden, “Just like any rape, you have to report it, and you have to prove it,” he said. “So you couldn’t just go and say, ‘Oh yeah, I was raped,’ and get an abortion. It has to be a legitimate rape.

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/you...on/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

And just when my migraine was letting up.

Darn it Athena! I didn't have a migraine today... until I read that! It's you. It's all your fault. That's what I'm going with for the moment anyway. When the ice-pick-through-the-side-of-the-skull lets up, hten I'll blame it on the stupid republicans. But until then, you're the proximal cause

There is no hug smiley, so this will have to do to express my sympathy for your migraine. As a fellow sufferer, I know how you feel

 

[Jarhyn]

I see a lot of claims to the effect of 'but who will look out for the child if no one man is forced to pay child support?'

An easy and ethical answer is that IF the society wants to allow incapable mothers to carry to term and retain custody, then the society as a whole is responsible for footing that bill. Every child, regardless of whether the father is known, or unknown, whether the MOTHER is known or unknown, deserves to be taken care of. That isn't strictly the responsibility of the parents. That's for the good of all of is, and so all of us are responsible to chip in to that outcome.

So I support a strong stipend for all children, irrespective of parental situation. I support professional daycare services for every child, and want them to be easily accessible to everyone and paid for by the government. This is one of the reasons I pay taxes! I want to see my government pass laws mandating PTO for parents regardless of gender.

The idea that people should have to suffer and be poor for having kids is foolishness. I've already stated how women should not have to suffer to have kids or to not have kids, that the deciding factor should be what risks the mother wishes to take. That neither men nor women have an inherent right to have a child, and that there should be no expectation that a person be 'punished' with being a parent, man or woman. The fact that nature makes it worse for women doesn't justify depriving men.