Is my view on abortion really misogynist?

[SayWhatYo]

I personally don't think so, but a friend of mine seems to think so. Anyways, I 100% think that whatever decision is made is up to the woman. However, I said that I thought that it's best if a woman at least discusses it with her husband/boyfriend/whatever. Why is that so wrong to think that should be encouraged? Like I said, it's obviously 100% the woman choice since it's her body, but in the end it does ultimately affect both parties, so isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

I mean, let's say a man decided to get a penis enlargement. heh, obviously it's his choice, but if he's married or in a serious relationship, isn't it a good idea for him to talk partner before changing from a blind snake into a python?

Am I being unreasonable? I like to think of myself as a reasonable guy, maybe I'm wrong?

[valerief]

1. You're unreasonable. It's not your body. Accept nature. nt

[SayWhatYo]

2. So you don't think that women should even see how their significant others feel?

even with it obviously being 100% her choice?

[fishwax]

10. seems to me that's pretty much up to the woman as well

I'd conjecture that most women in ideal relationships would want to discuss it with their partner, but that doesn't strike me as relevant to whether or not women generally should or should have to.

[valerief]

31. No. Not even if America started to take care of its single mothers. nt

[uppityperson]

35. If she wants to. Pro-choice

[Wiregrass Willie]

84. Why does the pendulum always swing to extremes

Up until recent years under the judeo-muslim-christian belief system, all babies were considered to be 100% the property of the father. Now some Christian countries think they are 100% the property of the mother. Why can't we compromise and let both of the babies creators have a say in deciding whether it lives ?

[valerief]

95. Because in nature the baby belongs to the mother. More men abandon

the family unit than do women. More men abuse the family unit than do women. It's the woman's body, the woman's choice. If she chooses to make her birth decisions with the consent of her partner, it's still her choice to do so.

[Madspirit]

102. When the man can carry it in his body...okey dokey...until then...

How can you even possibly suggest that what is in MY body belongs to someone else? ...and I don't give a flying fuck what religionists say.

MY BODY. MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE...and that includes anything that is residing inside of it.

Lee

[Blashyrkh]

141. Considering that someone else (ie not you) made a pretty significant contribution...

Are you saying that you would not consult your partner re your decision to carry the baby or not? Ever notice how some people say "*we* got pregnant" as opposed to "*I* got pregnant"? A baby is the result of a partnership and not sole property of either parent.

I would be fucking pissed off if my girlfriend made a decision regarding her pregnancy without considering my feelings, regardless of the decision in the end. It's part of being in a relationship.

[zanne]

150. You'd be "fucking pissed off"?

BINGO! There's one good reason not to consult you.

[Blashyrkh]

203. See post 159 below.

Yes, it's the woman's decision and no man has any right to make that decision for her, or unfairly influence that decision. Any woman should be able to make that decision in comfort, with a completely clear conscience.

My point is that if you fall pregnant in a relationship, you are *both* pregnant. I feel that's just wrong to make a decision regarding a baby's future without consulting the father. Father's are parents too.

It sounds like people are claiming ownership of a new car, rather than talking about living thing created by two other livings things.

[Scout]

210. bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! wrong

no, we are not both pregnant.

it's not a baby, it's a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus.

he's not a father, she's not a mother unless she already has a child.

no one is saying a woman CAN'T discuss a pregnancy with whomever she damn well pleases.

if the many has no right to make the decision for her nor unfairly influence the decision, then what would be the point in discussing it?

[Blashyrkh]

218. The point? Don't you respect your significant other enough to discuss it with them?

[Scout]

232. don't you beat your wife?

i respected my "boyfriend" now husband enough to bother to get to know him and how he felt, and let him know how i felt, before we had sex.

stop making up shit that i "think" and "feel" ... or are you one of those men who doesn't bother to actually READ what a woman posts, but just keeps on posting your own made up bullshit to get attention, cuz it's all about the SPERM?

here are some selections from my posts in this thread (fixed a couple typos), if you really give a shit what i'm saying. you don't even need a gold star search thingy.

no one is saying a woman CAN'T discuss a pregnancy with whomever she damn well pleases
====
men have CHOICE of what to do with their bodies. if he can't trust the woman, he shouldn't FUCK her in the first place
===
If the woman wants to discuss it with the "sperm donor" she will.
===
if a woman feels comfortable discussing pregnancy with the sperm donor, she WILL. she does NOT NEED some outsider whether friend, priest, or government to tell her "why don't you talk it over with him honey, see how he feels." SHE ALREADY KNOWS THAT IS AN OPTION.

fucking duh.
===

let's say some pregnant woman DOES discuss the pregnancy and whether or not to terminate it with her "sperm donor" and they disagree.

it's ultimately her choice, so she decides to terminate and now he's all pissed off and wants to try to stop her ... what was the point of discussing it with him in the first place? why not just terminate the pregnancy and go on with their lives?

or

it's ultimately her choice, so she decides to continue the pregnancy and keep the child and he's all pissed off and wants to try to make her abort
====

i think ALL pregnant women are smart enough and know that they have an option to discuss the pregnancy with the sperm donor ... it is INSULTING to suggest that someone else needs to suggest this to her.

====

get it now?

i'm going to go have the dinner i made for my husband, with my husband now that he just got home.

[Blashyrkh]

251. That's lovely. Just fantastic.

I like the bold as a subtle alternative to caps. Really adds to the condescension and sheer contempt your post radiates.

I'm getting a distinct feeling that women do not want men involved in the decision making process in regards to abortion/carrying full term. How is that fair when men are directly impacted by that decision?

I mean, theoretically speaking, if we were in a relationship and "we" fell pregnant, you'd clarify that its YOU who are pregnant, not me. That's its YOUR body and YOUR decision to make. Would you consider it rude if I said that it was YOUR baby and if YOU decide to keep it YOU can raise it? I think you would and you'd howl with indignation that I'm not doing my part.

But whatever I hate kids. Just looking for true equality.

"i think ALL pregnant women are smart enough and know that they have an option to discuss the pregnancy with the sperm donor ... it is INSULTING to suggest that someone else needs to suggest this to her."

Only as insulting as referring to a loving father as a "sperm donor"? I think I get it now.

[iverglas]

253. You asked a rude and unwarranted question:

Don't you respect your significant other enough to discuss it with them?

(By the way, the bold in Scout's post was not an "alternative to caps", it is a convention used to distinguish quoted material in the body of a post, as she made it quite clear that material was. So your comment on the use of that format was based on an assumption that was false, and thus just more unwarranted nastiness.)

Your question was without what we call, in a courtroom, "evidentiary basis". This made it exactly the same, in form and motive, as the question "don't you beat your wife?" Well, actually, "don't you respect your wife enough to stop beating her?" might have made the point more clearly ... The point being that you had no cause to ask that question; it was impertinent and designed to arouse prejudice, apart from being compound and improper.


theoretically speaking, if we were in a relationship and "we" fell pregnant, you'd clarify that its YOU who are pregnant, not me. That's its YOUR body and YOUR decision to make. Would you consider it rude if I said that it was YOUR baby and if YOU decide to keep it YOU can raise it?

I won't presume to speak for Scout, but I'd wonder: are you able to distinguish between the two things you typed there -- YOUR body and YOUR baby? Notice the difference at all? Think it might be of any significance, when it comes to discussion of one or the other? Could I maybe say both I think I'll throw my body off this bridge and I think I'll throw my baby off this bridge without fear of anyone objecting to the latter proposal on really very different grounds from why s/he might object to the former?


Just looking for true equality.

Oh, indeed. That would be why, I am sure, you are deeply committed, financially in particular, to furthering research that will enable men to assume all the risks and bear all the costs and suffer all the adverse effects of pregnancy and child-bearing ...


Only as insulting as referring to a loving father as a "sperm donor"? I think I get it now.

Well, there's always as insulting as referring to the sexual partner of a woman as a father when it isn't the case and it's said only in order to gain dominion over the woman's body and life ...

[Blashyrkh]

255. You know

I was prepared to leave this. Clearly people have put far more thought into this than I have, who simply responded to an inane post I read.

But when you end with:

"Well, there's always as insulting as referring to the sexual partner of a woman as a father when it isn't the case and it's said only in order to gain dominion over the woman's body and life ..."

I can't help but think back to earlier in your post where you wrote:

"So your comment on the use of that format was based on an assumption that was false, and thus just more unwarranted nastiness"

And can't help but notice the similarities.

[zanne]

285. The woman is ultimately responsible for the child.

Even if a woman consults with her partner/date/one night stand, she is the one who will have the responsibility of "bringing up baby". That's 18 years (at least) of putting herself second. Many times, it's 18 years of putting herself second all by herself, because the divorce rate is 50%, so even if there is a loving relationship, that doesn't guarantee that two people will be doing the work. Just picture yourself pregnant, then picture yourself alone with a child to raise (and no girlfriend to clean your house and help with the child). There are some very good reasons not to consult the father.

[Left Is Write]

228. No, you are not "both" pregnant. What a ridiculous thing to say.

[Karenina]

233. "Fall pregnant" BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I love that expression! Are you a Brit, Aussie or South African? BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :rofl:

[iverglas]

242. Australian, according to the profile

It really is an expression used throughout the English-speaking world outside North America, and while it might sound odd to us, I don't think it has any problematic implications, really, y'know.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fall
15. To pass into a particular state, condition, or situation: fell silent; fall in love.

It's archaic in most constructions in which it's used, to one degree or another; this one is just particularly archaic in North America.

Just wanted to point this out for the benefit of anyone likely to be less amused than you; those who use it have been subjected to all kinds of snide comment here in the past ...

[Colorado Progressive]

270. men are never pregnant. I hate that "we're pregnant" shit. Its like....

women havent been oppressed enough throughout history. We will now take this miraculous thing they can do and say WE are doing it. Just one more way for men to try to feel less afraid of the sex that truly does create life.

[fishwax]

280. it's rather silly to say that man and woman are *both* pregnant,

:shrug:

[Scout]

151. "pretty significant contribution"

one sperm?

[Blashyrkh]

195. Can you have a baby with zero sperm?

One egg + one sperm = one baby. Two people need to make a contribution, both are pretty fucking significant.

Show me someone who doesn't consider sperm a significant contribution to a pregnancy and I'll show you someone with no kids.

[Scout]

199. one little sperm, after one squirt from him, woohooo!

guess what, i don't have any kids, i don't want any, i've never wanted any.

a sperm is simply not all that much to get excited about. show me someone who DOES and i'll show you someone with testicles.

:eyes:




edit: typos

[iverglas]

202. "both are pretty fucking significant"

Well, you might say that both are significant to the fucking. To the making of the baby? You do know how and where babies are actually made, right? Like, in a woman's body, using the resources and effort of her body? For nine months or so? With both transitory and permanent adverse effects, and sometimes at the cost of serious illness or disability, or death?

Such delusions of grandeur as some sperm emitters do have.

They should be involved in someone's decision as to whether to experience those effects and bear those costs and assume those risks ... because they were in the room before it all started.

[Blashyrkh]

213. I think this point is being missed.

Quote:
They should be involved in someone's decision as to whether to experience those effects and bear those costs and assume those risks ... because they were in the room before it all started.

If "they" is the significant other in the relationship, then yes. If the man is supportive then then I can't see the problem.

Me personally, I don't want kids so I'm more than happy to be treated as a vending machine. I'd just like to know how close I was to being a daddy is all. Is that wrong?

[iverglas]

216. and now ... drum roll ...

The question on the floor (put there in the opening post) is:

isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

Your answer?

Is it a good idea for you to do that?

Is it a good idea for me to do it?

Is it a good idea for someone neither you nor I have ever heard of to do it to a woman neither you nor I have ever heard of?

Is it a good idea for someone not yet born to do it to a woman not yet born?

IS IT A GOOD IDEA for someone outside the pregnancy/relationship to suggest to someone else, who has not asked his/her opinion, what she should do in this regard?

If so, why's that?

Do feel free to address the multiple reasons why it is NOT a good idea that have been advanced in this thread, in your reply.

[Clark2008]

152. Oh - no they don't. Not in my household.

Hubby would say that - the "we" are pregnant part - and I said, "Uh. No. *I* am pregnant. You're not. *We* are NOT pregnant, because if *we* are, then you need to make a ton of money donating your time to a medical science study."

I'm sure you'd be pissed off, but, so what? You'd get over it. She would not.

[Left Is Write]

227. A baby may not be my property, but my uterus damned sure is.

[Hoof Hearted]

267. Well thats pretty easy to solve pop-tart. Do ALL of the following: get yourself a vasectomy,

make sure she is using birth control, make sure YOU are wearing a properly cared for condom (that dusty gas-station number that's been riding around in your wallet for 4.7 months is no good anymore), OR quit having sex with fertile women. It's part of being responsible: for your gametes.

Oh, alternatively - figure out how to carry it yourself. Think of the money you'll make. You could even afford new condoms.

[Left Is Write]

226. The both of the baby's "creators" have to provide incubation for the baby....

then they can both have a say.

[Exiled in America]

159. Bull fucking shit.

He is not unreasonable at all.

He said:

1) I accept ultimately it is her choice.
2) All things being equal, it would usually be the best idea to talk about such a relationship impacting decision with a partner.

Certainly that is subject to context, and if a woman chooses not to talk about the decision with anyone that is her right. But as a general principle, simply what we know about happy, healthy relationships between people teaches us that open communication about major decisions that impact the relationship is important.

It's a simple as that.

[iverglas]

165. AND HE SAID:

You say:

He is not unreasonable at all.
He said:
1) I accept ultimately it is her choice.
2) All things being equal, it would usually be the best idea to talk about such a relationship impacting decision with a partner.

And you, like just about everybody else here, have chosen to ignore the ACTUAL QUESTION ASKED in the post:

so isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

Why does no one want to answer that question??

THAT is the misogynistic "view on abortion" in issue here: the clearly implied assertion that IT IS A GOOD IDEA for some third party to "suggest" that a pregnant woman discuss her decision with her male partner.

And that view IS misogynistic, clearly and blatantly and for the love of all the dogs and cats.

Someone who believes that it is a good idea to "suggest" that a pregnant woman do anything, unless she has asked for his/her suggestions, which plainly is not the case in the scenario posited, plainly believes:

- at least some pregnant women are too stupid to figure out for themselves what course of action is best;

- s/he knows better than at least some pregnant woman what course of action is best for them, even though he has at best incomplete information, and at worse no information or incorrect information, about any given pregnant woman's situation; and/or

- s/he has no concern whatsoever for the well-being of the pregnant woman in question, since s/he has no way of knowing what might happen if the woman acted on his "suggestion" -- which could include physical harm to her at the partner's hands, or simply a life of unfulfilled aspirations if she is persuaded or coerced by the partner into changing her mind -- and yet proposes to offer that "suggestion" anyway.

No one would propose that s/he or anyone else make such an unsolicited "suggestion" to any pregnant woman -- and in this case, it is suggested that this is a good idea as a universal guideline, to be followed by anyone at all in dealing with any old pregnant woman at all -- if s/he did not believe that at least some pregnant women are stupid and/or that s/he knows better than at least some pregnant women what is best for them, or if s/he did not have the most supreme lack of regard for the well-being of whatever pregnant woman falls victim to his/her attentions.

And if any one of those characteristics are not indicative of misogyny, I don't really know what is.


So now why don't YOU answer the question:

so isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

It's really as simple as that.

[Toasterlad]

168. I'll Answer the Question.

YES, it is a GREAT idea that someone suggest a pregnant woman share her intentions about what to do with her fetus with the man who helped create it.

Now, please explain to me how your objection to this entirely GOOD idea is anything but misandrist? Your only argument so far is that such a suggestion is insulting to a woman. You have failed to cede any consideration to the man involved.

[iverglas]

172. If you're worried about "the man involved", pal

Your only argument so far is that such a suggestion is insulting to a woman. You have failed to cede any consideration to the man involved.

Then you feel free to go start a thread about him. Or make sure you advise all the men in your life, often and sincerely, that maybe they should ask their female partners once a week whether they're pregnant, and every day whether they're using contraception. Or hey, use some contraception themselves.

But cereally, what is the basis for your statement that I have failed to "cede any consideration", whatever that means, to the man involved?

What goes on in his relationship is NOT MY BUSINESS any more than what his partner may decide to do about her pregnancy is my business.

I'll bet you could have guessed that, if you'd spent a minute thinking about it.

It is NOT MY BUSINESS to attempt to interfere in his relationship with his partner, whether by suggesting that she do something or that he do something or by suggesting that she not do something or that he not do something.

(I mean, you didn't think I was proposing that anyone suggest that a pregnant woman NOT discuss her decision with her partner, did you? I really really hope not, 'cause that would just be sad.)

If he is partnered with a woman who chooses not to tell him that she is going to have an abortion, that is NOT MY BUSINESS. Nor, as far as I can see, is it yours.


So ...

Now, please explain to me how your objection to this entirely GOOD idea is anything but misandrist?

... no. YOU explain to me what earthly justification you have for putting this demand to me. Since you have no basis for characterizing my objection as "misandrist" (ah, by their hokey vocabulary you shall know them), I have no need to consider your silly demand.


You, on the other hand ...

YES, it is a GREAT idea that someone suggest a pregnant woman share her intentions about what to do with her fetus with the man who helped create it.

... have expressed loud and firm approval of an idea that is misogynist to its very boots.

I do note that you apparently consider it unwise to attempt to refute the assertion that the suggestion is insulting to a woman. Since you didn't do so. Wise decision, I'd say.


And you really do need to recognize that only the gods create fetuses. Men and women produce spermatazoa and ova, and when one of them meets the other, a fetus sometimes occurs, a few weeks later. Nobody "creates" it.

[Toasterlad]

175. Your Story Has Become Tiresome.

You can throw around your accusations of misogyny all you want, but it won't make you any less loony. I do admire your ability to split hairs and leap to conclusions, though. You're quite an athelete.

P.S. For the record, I didn't say your only argument was a GOOD one. I DO dispute that it's insulting to women to suggest they discuss their pregnancy with the man who got them pregnant. I suspect most women have a thicker skin than you do, and aren't as easily offended.

P.P.S. Stop hating men.

[Scout]

176. short attention span much? no reasonable, logical reply? n/t

[Toasterlad]

178. Just Seemed Like a Lost Cause.

What's YOUR beef, Chumley?

[iverglas]

183. indeed you are

Anyone who spews crap like:

You can throw around your accusations of misogyny all you want, but it won't make you any less loony. I do admire your ability to split hairs and leap to conclusions, though. You're quite an athelete.

P.S. For the record, I didn't say your only argument was a GOOD one. I DO dispute that it's insulting to women to suggest they discuss their pregnancy with the man who got them pregnant. I suspect most women have a thicker skin than you do, and aren't as easily offended.

P.P.S. Stop hating men.

in purported reply to what I said, obviously is.

That doesn't mean that anyone who spews crap like that in public gets a pass.


For the record, I didn't say your only argument was a GOOD one.

From the actual record, I didn't say or suggest or imply or insinuate or even think you did.

So what are you talking about, and to whom?

What I actually SAID was:

I do note that you apparently consider it unwise to attempt to refute the assertion that the suggestion is insulting to a woman. Since you didn't do so. Wise decision, I'd say.

And I'll say it again.


I DO dispute that it's insulting to women to suggest they discuss their pregnancy with the man who got them pregnant.

Bully for you. Now, if you have anything to offer by way of a reason why it is not insulting to a woman to butt yourself into her private life and suggest that she do something, as if she were too stupid to think of it herself or too downright bad to do it when she has no good reason not to, and as if you knew all about her situation and were entitled to sit in judgment of her actions in it ... well, I'll still be waiting.


I suspect most women have a thicker skin than you do, and aren't as easily offended.

And I care what you suspect, or even what most women might possibly have, because ...?

There is an objective content to the proposal made in the opening post tht can be evaluated without considering the reaction of any individual to it. And it has nothing to do with whether anyone who gets to be the butt of it is offended or not.

Just as there is to anything that treats anyone like a stereotype and a lesser human being, whether the person who is the butt of that is offended or not.


Stop hating men.

Aww. Just fresh out of cute ways of framing your bullshit, are you?

Stop beating your dog.

[Toasterlad]

185. You Took My Subject Line and Turned it Around to Insult ME!

Aren't you clever!

Actually, I do that all the time, so I shouldn't be snide. Hmm.

Meanwhile, it's pretty clear to me that you only hear what you want to hear, so good luck with that. I've pretty much said everything I wanted to say, but let me sum up:

OP - Good.

Your opinion - Loony.

Enjoy the last word.

[Scout]

191. my post was pretty easy to decipher ... just curious. am i not allowed to post? n/t

[Exiled in America]

214. Uh, I already did answer that question.

All things being equal, yes, its a great idea essential to healthy relationships to discuss and have open communication about major life decisions that impact more than one person.

Talk to any therapist, sociologist, social worker, LCSW or read any journal on mental health and wellness - hell, just be a basic human being, and you discover that this fact is not in any serious dispute anywhere. You're being up in arms about it is your problem - a silly attempt to make an issue where there is no issue. And there is just a mountain lode of statistical research to support this very basic claim. It isn't any more controversial than saying the sky is blue.

Context matters, and there are certainly times where that kind of open communication isn't desireable or healthy, and no one is questioning that ultimately the choice rests with the woman.

It's just basic fucking social work to realize that when possible, open communication between partners about major life decisions is important.

Yes, there are people who have inappropriate views about it. There are people who think the father is "entitled" to some kind of a "say" in the decision, and that's false. They're are people who act like the woman can't be responsible to make a decision for herself and that's false. But that's not the issue here. The issue here, is you trying to make a "thing" where there is no thing, and you need to get off it.

[Scout]

215. hey, you forgot to pat her on the head and say "calm down honey" n/t

[iverglas]

217. sorry, size doesn't count

You can dress the crap up in any font you like. It still isn't an answer to the question.

And the question remains the same no matter what font it's in, and no matter how you ignore it and evade it and dance around it and misrepresent it.

isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?


Required reading for anybody yammering about this, I'd say:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1664471&mesg_id=1674417

It only takes one exception to shoot down the proposed rule.

I thought it was basic fucking social work that people not trained and skilled in the practice refrain from engaging in it, by the way.

And I'll bet that if a social worker were asked to respond to the statement:

it is a good idea for a social worker to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

s/he would vehemently disagree with such an unqualified claim. And s/he would certainly disagree with the notion that ignorant and unqualified and obviously heedless and disrespectful people should go butting into other people's affairs in such a way, I think.


There are people who think the father is "entitled" to some kind of a "say" in the decision, and that's false. They're are people who act like the woman can't be responsible to make a decision for herself and that's false. But that's not the issue here.

You're very correct. It is not the issue here. That would be why I have not had one word to say about it, myself. So why would you be saying this to me?


The issue here, is you trying to make a "thing" where there is no thing, and you need to get off it.

Nah. The issue here is that an awful lot of people very obviously think that they know better what is "best" for pregnant women than pregnant women know, and feel entitled to tell pregnant women what is "best" for them, and don't respect or give a shit about pregnant women. If they did, they would neither feel that way nor do what it was proposed in the opening post that anybody and its dog who happens to feel like doing it do.

[Exiled in America]

234. How many times do I have to answer yes? And I *AM* a social worker.

It is a good idea, all things being equal, especially (as "other half" implies) if your talking about a partner in a shared relationship, to suggest she find out how her partner feels.

Duh.

It only takes one exception to shoot down the proposed rule.

Um, no. It doesn't take one exception to shoot down a proposed rule, when the definition of that rule already includes exemptions. The OP didn't say "all woman are obligated to talk to their partners." In most cases however, its a good idea to have healthy communication between partners about decisions that most certainly do impact the lives of both partners. We're talking about a princple - a heuristic. By heuristic I mean a statement that - all things being equal - is a good rule of thumb that is usually, but not always true.

It's that simple.

I'm not talking about getting permission. I'm talking about open communication between people who are committed (at least at present) to living their lives together. That's how healthy relationships work. It's not complicated.

I thought it was basic fucking social work that people not trained and skilled in the practice refrain from engaging in it, by the way.

Then maybe you should stop doing it? I know I am in fact trained and skilled in the practice. Are you?

And I'll bet that if a social worker were asked to respond to the statement:

it is a good idea for a social worker to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

s/he would vehemently disagree with such an unqualified claim. And s/he would certainly disagree with the notion that ignorant and unqualified and obviously heedless and disrespectful people should go butting into other people's affairs in such a way, I think.

Well, I would say that your answer itself bespeaks how much of your own bias you read in to the entire discussion. And as a social worker, I would say that you are conflating two separate issues.

Is it appropriate for an outside party to tell a woman who or how she should communicate or how she should make decisions or when she should make them? Maybe. Maybe not. That depends on whether or not the woman in question has established a relationship with another person where that kind of opinion-giving is authorized by the woman. So, Friend A may not have the right to butt in like that. Friend B may be expected to - it depends on what kind of relationship the woman has. A therapeutic counselor may make the suggestion, and it may be appropriate. It could also be inappropriate depending on the nature of the clinical relationship, the expectations of the woman, the biases and attitudes of the counselor, etc.

WHO has the right to suggest certain things to a person is a totally separate (and relative) issue from the question of whether or not the general principle itself is usually - though not always - true. AND IT IS. Arguing that the principle itself is untrue is about as intelligent as arguing that the world is flat. In general, when you are in a relationship with a committed partner, it is usually best to have open, honest communication about choices or decisions that will impact the lives of both partners. That's the general principle, and its totally accurate and obvious. Whether or not Joe Friend has a right to butt in and tell the woman that she has a duty to talk to her partner before having an abortion is a totally different issue.

The issue here is that an awful lot of people very obviously think that they know better what is "best" for pregnant women than pregnant women know, and feel entitled to tell pregnant women what is "best" for them, and don't respect or give a shit about pregnant women. If they did, they would neither feel that way nor do what it was proposed in the opening post that anybody and its dog who happens to feel like doing it do.

No. 1) The issue here is that all things being equal, it is usually a good idea for a woman to have open, healthy communication with her partner about choices and decisions that will impact both of their lives together. 2) And if asked for advice, it would be totally understandable and not woman-hating to say that.

Now, someone forcing their unrequested, unwelcome opinion on the woman? That's wrong no matter what the question is. But that's not what ANYONE on this thread has been talking about except YOU.

I'd suggest you go start your own thread to rant about your issues, rather than creating the straw men you have on this thread.

[iverglas]

241. oh look! you rewrote the question AGAIN!

I'd suggest you go start your own thread to rant about your issues, rather than creating the straw men you have on this thread.

Tried a mirror?


WHO has the right to suggest certain things to a person is a totally separate (and relative) issue from the question of whether or not the general principle itself is usually - though not always - true. AND IT IS. ... In general, when you are in a relationship with a committed partner, it is usually best to have open, honest communication about choices or decisions that will impact the lives of both partners. That's the general principle, and its totally accurate and obvious.

And if you had been asked whether that or any other general principle were "true" or anything else, well, you'd be addressing the question that was asked.

Bzzt.


Arguing that the principle itself is untrue is about as intelligent as arguing that the world is flat.

And if you are insinuating that I have argued that the principle itself is untrue (really, principles are neither true nor false ...) -- and I can think of absolutely no other reason in the world why you would have made that statement in a post addressed to me -- then you are quite simply making a false claim.

You can feel free to retract it any time you like. I'll be around.


Now, someone forcing their unrequested, unwelcome opinion on the woman? That's wrong no matter what the question is. But that's not what ANYONE on this thread has been talking about except YOU.

Too bad the actual subject of the thread is the question as it was composed by its author --

isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

-- and not what you keep pretending it was.

And I wouldn't dignify what you're up to by calling it "conflating", believe me.

[Exiled in America]

281. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

Oh my god... how many times do I have to answer this question.

"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.

See? An answer, and contrary to your stubborn purposeful denial, I've given that same answer over and over again now. What you don't like, is that after I give that answer, I go on to explain WHY I give that answer. And the REASON why I give this answer is:

"All things being equal," means there is no absolute yes OR absolute no to this question. In most cases, yes. But it depends on the context. Like I said before:

Is it appropriate for an outside party to tell a woman who or how she should communicate or how she should make decisions or when she should make them? Maybe. Maybe not. That depends on whether or not the woman in question has established a relationship with another person where that kind of opinion-giving is authorized by the woman.

So, Friend A may not have the right to butt in like that. Friend B may be expected to - it depends on what kind of relationship the woman has. A therapeutic counselor may make the suggestion, and it may be appropriate. It could also be inappropriate depending on the nature of the clinical relationship, the expectations of the woman, the biases and attitudes of the counselor, etc.

The issue here is that all things being equal, it is usually a good idea for a woman to have open, healthy communication with her partner about choices and decisions that will impact both of their lives together. And if (there worded even more precisely for your benefit,) it would be totally understandable and not woman-hating to say that.

And if in a position where it is appropriate to offer unsolicited advice (such as if you have a relationship in which that has been established as acceptable or appropriate, or in a therapeutic relationship where unsolicited opinion is invited,) given the unsolicited opinion to a woman that she talk to her partner is completely appropriate.

Just because I explain WHY I answer your question the way I answer it doesn't mean I haven't answered it. It just means you don't like the answer. So I'll say the same thing I've been saying all day now a few more times just so it sinks in:

"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.
"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

YES. Of course it is, all things being equal.

[iverglas]

282. oh look, you rewrote the question again!

"isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels, all things being equal?"

wasn't the question.

No matter. Your answers, all two dozen or whatever of 'em, are still misogynist shit.

[Exiled in America]

290. I didn't re-write the question, I cut and pasted your question.

MY ANSWER says if all things are equal then, yes. That's not "re-writing" your question. That is answering your question.

And the problem here isn't misogyny. The problem here is you. And that's pretty plainly obvious to anyone who reads this thread.

Goodbye.

[Exiled in America]

235. PS - LeftyMom's post #3 says exactly what I am saying.

Do you have a problem with that?

If not, then many you just have a problem with the way I word things.

It's simply stunning how counter-intuitive your objection to this simple, basic truth happens to be.

[iverglas]

245. yerp, problem

"In a healthy relationship it would generally be best to discuss the matter"

It's still an opinion about something that no one needs to have an opinion on, and that is meaningless unless all sorts of qualifiers are added and it is applied to a particular scenario -- in which case it might be quite wrong. As it stands, it's really just meaningless.


It's simply stunning how counter-intuitive your objection to this simple, basic truth happens to be.

Oh yeah, that's me. I object to simple, basic truth -- certainly that's what I do when I'm looking at gratuitous opinion about other people's lives ... 'cause obviously, gratuitous opinion about other people's lives is no more nor less than simple, basic truth.


If not, then many you just have a problem with the way I word things.

It seems I do that, anyhow.

[CreekDog]

347. If the rightness or wrongness of others wasn't a valid topic

DU wouldn't exist.

Talking about what's right and wrong, not just for oneself, but for others is intrinsic to human experience, it's been done as long as recorded time and continues today.

Sorry, well not sorry, it bothers you but that's the way it is. The good news is that you too can judge the behavior of others too, as you are doing right here in this thread! Woohoo!

[iverglas]

352. and now the bad news

The good news is that you too can judge the behavior of others too, as you are doing right here in this thread! Woohoo!

Well, it isn't really "news". It's just you misrepresenting reality again.

Yes, my objecting to people engaging in, or approving, behaviour that insults and potentially harms someone else is JUST LIKE those people engaging in, or approving, behaviour that insults and potentially harms someone else.

Yes indeedy. No difference there at all. If I ever doubt that to be the case, I know whom to ask.


I'll have to get my head around that notion of "right" and "wrong" somehow including stuff that is nobody's business at all, and certainly not mine. That might be hard. But I can practise.

It is wrong for you to eat pizza. It is right for you to wear blue socks. It is wrong for you to hum a tune. It is right for you to get a haircut.

How'm I doing?

[CreekDog]

360. The great moralists of our time didn't just seek the answers in themselves

The great moralists would probably not have an opinion regarding consumption of pizza as long as it did not harm oneself or others.

The great moralists probably would have an opinion regarding the bearing of a child and how you should raise it.

Don't decide in a vacuum. Get help. All the big decisions get to be made by you, but to make them right, we all need help.

That's my point.

[Scout]

367. "but to make them right, we all need help"

no, we all don't.

[CreekDog]

370. Says you alone

You know, the world existed before you and will continue after you are gone.

The concept of right and wrong doesn't belong to you though you are accountable for it.

Thus it is not your decision alone to decide what's right. It's your decision alone to do what's right.

[Scout]

371. Says you.

If it concerns my body, it is my decision alone to decide and do what is right for me.

It really is that simple.

[iverglas]

376. I think we can finish this here

Don't decide in a vacuum. Get help. All the big decisions get to be made by you, but to make them right, we all need help.

The old "flip side" being: if someone wants your "help", she will ask for it.

If she doesn't, keep your nose in its proper place, unless you genuinely believe that she is about to do something that will cause her or someone else real and significant harm.

Unfortunately, your belief that not knowing that his partner has terminated a pregnancy is going to cause a man real and significant harm, if you happen to believe that, is a belief in something that is not real; it is certainly not sufficient grounds for interfering in someone else's life, in any event.

And your belief that a woman's relationship will suffer if she doesn't discuss something with her partner, if that is your belief, is not a genuine belief that she is about to do something that will cause her or someone else real and significant harm; it is certainly not sufficient grounds for interfering in someone else's life, in any event.

So then we're agreed. When it comes to a woman's pregnancy, it is no third party's business whom she discusses it with or what she does about it.

Kewl, eh?


By the way, if *I* perceive that a pregnant woman is having any difficulty deciding what to do in respect of any aspect of her pregnancy, which would generally be because she has said so and thus implicitly invited suggestions, *I* do make a suggestion: that she get REAL help, from someone who is qualified to provide it. If THAT person thinks, based on his/her professional assessment of the situation and professional commitment to the woman's best interests, that it is wise that she discuss the situation with her partner (if she hasn't already), then s/he will say so, or perhaps better ask the woman if she wants to explore that possibility.

I will never be so arrogant as to think that I am qualified or entitled to stick my own nose in where it is not invited, or even to stick it much farther than that if I am invited.

[LeftyMom]

3. In a healthy relationship it would generally be best to discuss the matter

OTOH, it's her body and her choice, and if he can't deal it may be best to circumvent that whole issue.

Legally, assuming she's an adult, she doesn't have to discuss the matter with anybody but her doctor.

edit: and unhealthy matches are a whole 'nother can'o'worms...

[Exiled in America]

206. Thank you. Jesus, why is this so hard for people to get?

[Beerboy]

4. If everyone looked at pr0n, there wouldn't be these problems...

:hide: :rofl: :beer:

[SayWhatYo]

but if you look at teh pr0n then you'd get the pregnant

man or woman.

[Beerboy]

23. How, oh how, to abort teh pr0n-spawn?

ROFLMAO!:beer:

[Book Lover]

5. I'd say that's a little broad-brush

It's not always best in every circumstance for a woman to discuss her being pregnant with the father. Not every relationship is healthy. But on the face of it I wouldn't say your position is wholly anti-woman.

[Extend a Hand]

6. I think a woman has to decide if a discussion is the best course of action

in her particular situation. A discussion with a significant other can cause plenty of problems if the couple doesn't agree on the best course of action.

[MichiganVote]

7. Well it may be "best" for the relationship to discuss the issue of an abortion

but plenty of women have had the shit knocked out of them too at either the announcement of a pregnancy or of the desire for an abortion. Haven't you heard? Women get killed by men for having children or being pregnant.

Why oh why is it just too much to ask for people to just let go. Each female will determine her fate regardless of what anyone says. No politician yet has been able to end the need for females to decide this issue for themselves.

Comparing a woman contemplating an abortion to penis enlargement is positively nauseating. But I'll tell you what, the next time someone talks penis enlargement how 'bout you hand them a busted hanger, maybe that will help out.

[SayWhatYo]

13. heh, sorry about the penis enlargement thing...

I agree that it's ultimately up to the woman to decide if she has an abortion or if she discusses it. I just didn't fully understand why it was seen as so bad to even suggest the possibility, particularly if the relationship is solid(which was actually the case)

[MichiganVote]

17. Abortion is primarily about economics my friend, not relationships, not religion,

not parents or society. For most females, if the money, health and the security are there, they are going to carry a pregnancy to term.

[defendandprotect]

59. Abortion, I think, is sometimes about other things . . . like . . .

not wanting to have another child because you're not sure that physically you can handle all you have to do with other children --

like . . . fearing that a new pregnancy could result in a loss of your own health -- mental or physical -- and/or a birth which could leave you with a child which requires a great deal of care because of health issues --

sometimes . . . the female doesn't feel that she wants to have a child by this partner --

sometimes -- the female wants to have a child within a marriage and doesn't want to be further involved or marry this particular sexual partner???

sometimes the female doesn't want to have another child with this particular partner????

Sometimes, the female is married to someone else and doesn't want the child with this sexual partner????

And, yes, very often there are economic issues -- and sometimes the male partner doesn't want to have the child and/or doesn't want to support another child.

Sometimes the male is very clearly telling the female to have an abortion -- ???

Am I wrong here -- ????

[moez]

74. Don't forget

Post-coital birth control.

[defendandprotect]

104. Plan B is now hugely popular -- and, fortunately, effective --

[MichiganVote]

76. No, not wrong. All of those things can be true. But taken individually, each has an econ. aspect

[Scout]

78. for me, the decision would NOT be about economics....

I can't think of ANY circumstances under which I would want to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth.

[defendandprotect]

105. Many of the reasons I gave do not have an economic underpinning ---

[uppityperson]

60. Not necessarily. Lots of reasons for an abortion.

Economics is one, so is health, so is desire to not have a child regardless of health or economics. There are many many many reasons. To not bring more people into the world. Not feeling capable of becoming a parent. Not wishing to become a parent. Lots of reasons.

[MichiganVote]

77. Yet each one of those items requires an economic support..if its offered, or even wanted

Many people don't "want" or haven't wanted to become parents. That's not what abortion is about. Abortion is a medical procedure that results in the termination of a pregnancy. Its a choice whether the government permits it or not, whether it is safe or not and whether there is an economic need or not. But if you suppose that most females want to progress with a pregnancy when they have few or no economic resources, you're mistaken.

[uppityperson]

101. I don't suppose anything about other women.

Some women want to have a baby, regardless of economics. Some women do not want to have a baby, ever. Abortion is about giving each woman the choice to end her pregnancy, regardless of reason. I understand what you mean by economics, and I am adding in that I know women who have had an abortion EVEN THOUGH their economics and support system were great because they did not want to have a baby. Some women don't want a baby, perhaps not just then, perhaps never. And no, I don't suppose anything about "most females want to progress with a pregnancy when they have few or no economic resources", since it is all individual. I've seen women go both ways.

[defendandprotect]

106. Oddly enough, it is almost harder not to get married than to get married ---

and almost equally difficult to NOT have children than to have children.

Historically, patriarchy has manipulated populations to mandate marriage for everyone and children for everyone -- until our overpopulation is a threat to ourselves and our planet.

I would suggest that this isn't what nature intended -- and that nature had supplied many, many ways for females to control fertility -- permanently and temporarily -- and to terminate conception.
Those natural plants/drugs were well known in many cultures and the knowledge and the plants destroyed.

[Madspirit]

103. Actually

The woman I know who has had the most abortions is quite wealthy. That's why she can afford it. She has one child and that is all she wants.
What a woman wants is THE most important thing.

Lee

[CreekDog]

276. How about what is right being the most important thing

Because I doubt if she is a good mother that she is teaching her kids that what THEY WANT is the most important thing.

If she wants to have 3 abortions, that she wants them doesn't make it right, though they be legal.

[uppityperson]

39. Who says it is bad to suggest the possibility? It is a choice. Keep it a choice.

Not mandatory, but a choice. 1 person can choose to talk with another, or choose not to. Who is saying this is wrong?

[SayWhatYo]

42. A friend of mine.

She likes to tease me, so maybe she was being unreasonable on purpose. Or maybe I wasn't clear in what I meant, I dunno.

[uppityperson]

54. Sounds like unclear communication. Sort of funny, considering the subject of this

communication. Perhaps it would be good to talk with said friend and figure out what was meant.

[izzie]

8. As a women I think it is up to the women but men have had the say

just about as long as I can recall. Even now they control

[rwheeler31]

9. yes

[Lucinda]

11. I think it should be discussed

[Hobarticus]

12. Well, that's easy...

Are you content with this being an expectation for your personal relationship, and for no one else?

Or do you want your personal expectations to be the law of the land? In other words, do you endorse parental/spousal/significant other notification laws?

[SayWhatYo]

21. Easy Answer.

Personal relationships are just that... personal. Laws shouldn't be made to dictate what two consenting adults do in that regards. In other words, no I do not think there should be any laws saying that a woman should have to discuss it with anyone but her doctor. I just think that in some cases it isn't wrong for a woman to do it, and I don't think suggesting it is wrong either. Of course if the father is an asshole or abusive or whatever else, then that a different story.

[uppityperson]

30. I don't think anyone is saying there is anything wrong with discussing things

Just that it isn't mandatory. It would be nice if everyone could communicate openly with others. However, it is not legally mandatory and of course it is a choice.

[yewberry]

14. I don't think it's necessarily a misogynist position to take.

Maybe a little naive, though.

I think that (if you have a relationship with a woman) you should absolutely strive to build the kind of relationship where real communication and support would lead organically to that kind of openness.

However, to build any kind of stipulation into policy and enact legislation would be disastrous and (yep) misogynistic.

[Bluebear]

15. Comparing abortion to a penis enlargement isn't a good start.

In a healthy relationship of course it would be nice to discuss it, but that decision can never approach it being a LAW to discuss it.

[stillcool]

16. In the end it does not affect...

both parties. Perhaps that's the problem with the limited male perception.

[sampsonblk]

124. Having a baby doesn't affect both parties???

[stillcool]

136. it is guaranteed to affect one party...

the other is negotiable.

[sampsonblk]

137. That sounds pretty hateful to me

[stillcool]

138. hateful?

If you disagree with my opinion, perhaps it would be more constructive for you to express why...rather than ascribe illogical hyperbole to my personal belief.

[sampsonblk]

146. Fair enough

Upon further review, I think I might have misunderstood your post.

Did you mean to say that the father is negotiable, or that whether or not there is an effect on the father is debatable?

[stillcool]

149. I was commenting on the effects...

..we all have our own personal perception on choices and mine is based on a mother that died when I was a year old. The cancer that consumed her was found when she still had the option of terminating her pregnancy. I think that the choice to abort, cloaked in emotionalism saturated with guilt and shame, made the choice non-existent. The reality..as I heard it..is that my birth accelerated her death. My father's participation in WWII had it's own effects. The effect my birth, and her death.. may have had on him...is negotiable, debatable,..unknowable. I don't think there is a one size fits all answer to the question of how decisions regarding abortion are made...but..the right to life should mean more than existing for the pleasure, or placated senses of others. The fact that the decision process could be compared to that of an enlarged penis speaks volumes.

[sampsonblk]

156. I understand your point

It sounds as if you have had things to deal with that most of us have not. That's pretty heavy stuff to even have to consider.

I definitely agree with you on the penis comparison thing.

[supernova]

18. It's mysoginistic in the sense that it's condescending

The women who are on good terms with their spouses/boyfriends/lover will most likely discuss it with them. That's already a given. Your statment seems to imply that reasonable women in normal circumstances won't be good stewards of their situations, regardless of the outcome.

What you are left with in the public policy arena are women who have valid reasons of their own *not* to discuss it with the father. He's left; not around. He's abusive. In these circumstances, it is wise for a woman to keep her own counsel.

[Az]

92. How does it presume that?

I don't see him claiming that women need to be instructed or forced to talk to their partners. I see him stating what he sees as the ideal situation which is that partners communicate and make decisions together.

[supernova]

125. Hmmm. In some ways

the original question is kind of a gotcha from his female friend. There really is no way for him to say "what's best" for 1/2 of the population and have it sound well-intentioned to those of us to whom it applies. That's just how charged the debate atmosphere is on this topic and this answer sounds accordingly preachy, regardless of how mild the intent. And looking around this thread, I'm not the only female who gets that impression. Regardless if you think that reaction is appropriate, it is a need that must be met.

For me, the credible and supportive answer would have been along the lines of "I really can't say what's best for all women, but I do know that if I found myself in that situation, I'd want to discuss it with my partner." Or alternatively, "I'd want my partner to know that she is free and safe to talk to me. "

[NashVegas]

209. Best Post On the Thread

:)

[supernova]

231. Thank you, Crisco.

:-)

[DemGa]

19. I think that's something most women would do anyway

So they don't need to be encouraged to talk about it.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Regardless of whether or not it IS misogynistic, you'll definitely be CALLED that.

[Colorado Progressive]

22. Why would you risk impregnating a woman if you dont know what she would do beforehand?

I can see why you are distressed, but a man's choice comes when the option of a rubber comes up, or the option of having sex comes up. Dont ever believe the "Ï'm on birth control" bullshit (I know plenty of guys who believed it and it was a lie to trap them) and dont ever fuck a woman if you dont agree with what she would do if she did become pregnant.

I dont think men will ever understand the damage and change that happens to a woman's body through pregnancy and childbirth. Before modern medicine 25% of pregnancies ended up in a dead mother.

Repeat: the man's choice is BEFORE the woman is pregnant, before sex occurs.

[SayWhatYo]

36. Who knows how anyone will react when that happens? I doubt most people even know how they'll react

I'm not saying the choice should be the mans. Let's say woman says she wants the abortion because she doesn't think they could handle the finical aspects of raising it. I mean, she would love to have a child but doesn't think they could handle it. But maybe the father is lazy(like me) and knows he could actually do very well financially if he just put an effort in not being a loser. So he's like hey, we can do this by blah blah. Or a far more likely situation, they discuss it and come to the conclusion that they could afford a child if they really tried, and budgeted their money for responsibly.

That's more along the lines of what I was thinking of. I just didn't see how thinking that is a good route to try is bad(of course the situation of the relationship matters)

[Colorado Progressive]

41. My point is just that your choice is before it happens. Once a woman is pregnant its her choice...

If you are having sex in a situation where you think a woman might not necessarily want to keep the baby then you very well might be sorry in the end. I think the years of going home from bars and free-fucking need to be seriously thought out, and I think the American psyche about it is changing. Unintended pregnancies and STDs are not good for anyone.

If I were male and a woman aborted my child I would be devastated. As a woman who would not have survived either of my childrens births without modern medicine and surgery, I have a serious issue with anyone telling me what to do. My babies would not have survived either, so thats not even an issue.

If you love a woman you are with you should discuss the possibilty way before it happens. People need to be responsible, and there is little excuse not to have responsible sex in this country.

[SayWhatYo]

43. I don't think I disagree with anything you said. :D

[Colorado Progressive]

47. Yay! :-) Use your sperm wisely!!!!

[Colorado Progressive]

48. By the way, I do know that men care too, its not always misogyny

which means hatred towards women. What you are talking about is love for a potential offspring.

[uppityperson]

45. You don't discuss pregnancy before having sex? How about STDs?

Seems that discussing these things before having sex with someone might be a good idea also. Aiming towards good communication between a couple is a positive thing. Legislating mandatory communication is not.

[Katherine Brengle]

87. I agree with this, in principle.

I think people need to take sex seriously, and talk about this stuff before they do it. It's not sexy, but it's necessary.

[HughMoran]

24. Of course it's not misogynistic to think like that

I can't imagine folks not discussing such a personal choice - it's just the right thing to do.

The resistance you are seeing is that folks have seen the Republicans pass laws FORCING people to consult the other person. There are so many reasons why this is wrong. I can see how those who object are protecting their freedom from the slippery slope of manditory notification.

[madeline_con]

25. Can he opt out of child support if he said she should abort?

This opens up some legit questions.... :popcorn:

[TahitiNut]

33. Here we go ... annnnd they're OFF!

:popcorn:

[Bluebear]

44. I was waiting!

[madeline_con]

55. LOL!

:rofl:

[SayWhatYo]

37. I wouldn't support such a thing...

[madeline_con]

58. I'd get some people upset if I said....

there should be laws to protect men from manipulative females.

[Scout]

81. what are you, some kind of nanny-stater? men have CHOICE of

what to do with their bodies. if he can't trust the woman, he shouldn't FUCK her in the first place.

If you're going to worry about your sperm, you should be more careful where you leave it.

[Pithlet]

98. Exactly. I wonder why so many think it's the feminists who are anti-male.

I think statements like men need to be protected don't say much for the males. As if they were somehow mentally and emotionally inferior to women. This feminist certainly doesn't think so.

[Quantess]

62. So, are we talking about a hypothetical case specific to just you?

If so, the bumper sticker "JUST SAY NO TO SEX WITH PRO-LIFERS" flashes in my brain.

For you, it would be, "JUST SAY NO TO SEX WITH PRO-CHOICE WOMEN".

You could make it clear to your intimate female partners that you are opposed to abortion, before any "accidents".

.......is there something else? If this answer does not satisfy you, then.....what?

[Scout]

80. Nope. n/t

[Katherine Brengle]

88. Use a condom.

Seriously. That's a man's insurance policy right there.

After that, sorry but it's out of his hands.

And a lot of men "opt out" of paying child support, regardless of the circumstances.

[Az]

93. The OP stated it is entirely the woman's decision

So all he is saying is that in an ideal situation a woman would discuss such matters with her partner. The decision is entirely hers to make. He has no control over her body. If she decides to abort the fetus she has the right to do that. He has the right to express his opinion. And the nature of how such a conversation would go may determine the nature of the relationship but it has no impact on the legality of the woman controlling her own body.

[iverglas]

110. you really need to do some sorting out

Here's part of what he actually did say:

isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

So no ...

So all he is saying is that in an ideal situation a woman would discuss such matters with her partner.

... that was definitely not all he was saying.

He was intimating that he thinks it's a good idea for some third party to suggest something to a woman, who apparently hasn't asked for advice.


He has the right to express his opinion.

Certainly he (assuming "he" is the source of the other party to the fertilization) has the right to say pretty much anything he wants.

Does freedom of speech include the right to be informed? In some situations, it surely does. When what someone wants to be informed about is the status of someone else's body and her plans for that body, it surely doesn't.

So what he doesn't have is the right to be informed of the pregnancy.

Of course, anybody who feels the urge to stick his/her nose into someone's intimate affairs, about which s/he knows nothing and in which s/he has no legitimate interest, has the right to suggest that a pregnant woman do thus-and-so. It's just one of those things that a lot of people regard as an icky thing to do, despite the fact that they have a right to do it.


You know what a person who genuinely cared about the individuals involved would maybe do? Such a person might help a pregnant women reach a decision about what to do, herself, by helping her to explore her feelings about the situation and its various aspects. This could include a question like "how do you feel about talking to your partner about it?" Depending on the response, various paths could be explored. If the response was "I'm not sure ...", questions to help her explore and weigh the options could be asked; if the response was "I'm pretty sure he'd beat me up if I say I'm pregnant", or "he'd tell his mother and she'd disown us if I had an abortion", then a real friend (or a professional, which is what's probably needed), could help her identify and explore her options there too.

But there's the thing: this is what a real friend would do, and would do only if asked for help, or if an offer of help were accepted. Such an offer might sound like "would you like to talk about it?" It would not sound like "I think you should talk to your partner about it".

Anyone who would start out by telling a pregnant woman what it would be a good thing for her to is not a real friend, but an officious intermeddler, a self-serving busybody only pretending to have someone else's interests at heart, or at the very least having the interests of someone other than the pregnant woman at heart.

[ComerPerro]

116. If its 100% up to the woman, doesn't that imply that the man has no part in conception

and therefore no ownership of the life they have created?

[Clark2008]

153. I'm a woman and I don't "own" my children.

I guide them, love them, protect them, comfort them... but I don't own them.

They have their own bodies, their own souls (if you believe in that, and I do) and their own minds. For example, I will not get my newborn daughter's ears pierced. When hubby asked why, I told him that I would be making a non-life-threatening decision about HER body before she's old enough to offer a choice. She can make decisions about her own body on that scale when she's older.

[ComerPerro]

164. funny how you can never have a frank and open discussion about this topic

without people going way over the top with their talking points.

I don't "own" my children", they have their own bodies, their own souls

LMFAO.

Are you fucking serious?

That's a huge leap, to try to suggest that I said children are property to be owned and that they can't and shouldn't be allowed to think for themselves.

I imagine you replied to my post just so you could smirk with self satisfaction at your own words.

[Karenina]

184. Are you then implying that a man

has some "ownership" of the content of a woman's uterus?

[ComerPerro]

279. once again, I never said anything remotely like that

[scarletwoman]

26. It's not up to anyone but the woman to decide what's "best". You may not be a misogynist, but

your argument is paternalistic. Either you recognize women's autonomy or you don't.

[TahitiNut]

32. Yup. Any decent turkey baster knows that.

:silly:

[scarletwoman]

49. Pshaw! A couple that has a good relationship WOULD no doubt discuss her decision to get an abortion

A couple with a bad relationship -- maybe not so much.

I just don't think it's useful to talk about it being "best" for a woman to talk with her partner about deciding to get an abortion. She'll deal with the situation in whatever way seems "best" for her. Why shouldn't that be enough?

sw

[Tansy_Gold]

130. "If my mother hadn't had an abortion, I wouldn't have been born."

Of course, this is only an anecdote, so take it for what it's worth:


A friend of mine who is in his mid-40s, born before Roe v Wade legalized abortion, recently lost his father and went back to the midwest for the funeral. He is the youngest of four children, his siblings being respectively 4, 6, and 7 years older. Though raised strictly Catholic, with Catholic school educations through high school, all became more free-thinking as they left home and went to college. None are still practicing Catholics, but they all respected their parents' faith.

After the funeral, at which the father was praised for his devotion to the Church even in the face of "modern changes" and for raising four wonderful children in a traditional Catholic home, the mother suddenly broke down, weeping inconsolably. Everyone thought it was just grief at the loss of her partner of almost 60 years. The other mourners left the cemetery, and the mother even dismissed the hovering priests, said she wanted to be alone with her children.

And when everyone else was gone, she told them the secret she had kept from them all.

Her third child was less than three months old when she began experiencing the horrible morning sickness that signaled another pregnancy. Disconsolate over the prospect of two to three months of this while having to take care of three children under the age of three and then have four under the age of four, she went to her doctor and, after confirming the pregnancy, got a prescription for a newly marketed drug that would alleviate the morning sickness. Her husband, who wanted a very large Catholic family, was delighted that she was pregnant again and glad that the new medication was so effective. Feeling guilty that she had for a while not wanted this baby, my friend's mother accepted the pregnancy and awaited the birth.

Only a few weeks later, her doctor called and told her to stop taking the morning sickness medication immediately. The drug, which was soon to become infamous as Thalidomide, had been shown to cause horrendous deformities in unborn babies whose mothers had taken it during pregnancy. The doctor suggested a therapeutic abortion, but she refused even to consider it. Everyone knew abortion was a mortal sin. But as news reports began telling of the plight of the children born as "Thalidomide babies," my friend's mother began to rethink her decision. She already knew her husband would never consent, and she knew she could not face the trauma of giving birth to a child with severe deformities. More important, there was the doctor's observation: She already had three healthy and beautiful children who would need their mother's love and attention, which she might not be able to give them if this new baby required even more.

Knowing that there was no way to determine whether or not the unborn child had suffered any effects of the Thalidomide, and knowing that she could not even discuss such a matter with her husband, my friend's mother contacted her doctor again, and he arranged for a private, semi-legal but medically safe termination. She never asked if, at that early stage, there were any signs of Thalidomide deformities. She was able to persuade her husband to believe she had a miscarriage, which he blamed on the morning sickness drug.

A couple years later, she conceived again and had a fine, healthy boy.

"She told me, there at my father's grave, that if she hadn't had the abortion, she would never have had another child," my friend said a couple of weeks ago after he got back from the funeral. "So while we all know people who say 'If my mother had had an abortion, I wouldn't have been born,' my situation is just the opposite. She said she felt as though my birth was a sign that God had forgiven her."

I asked him what happened that made him the last child, and he laughed.

"My father had got used to the idea that the other kids were getting older and didn't need diapers and bottles and midnight feedings and so on. He told my mother after I was born that maybe they didn't need any more. She had her tubes tied, even though it was major surgery compared to a vasectomy. She knew he'd never agree to THAT!"



Tansy Gold

[scarletwoman]

139. It's a wonderful anecdote & quite believable. Thank you for posting it. I remember the time of the

Thalidomide revelations quite vividly. I was also raised Catholic (escaped many decades ago), so I know all about that aspect of the story as well.

Bravo to your friend's mother for having the courage to take control of her fate for the sake of her already born children.

Thanks again,
sw

[SayWhatYo]

38. of course I recoginize it... I have a poster I study...

that was a joke btw.... Of course it's her choice either way...

[mondo joe]

27. I think in a marriage (legal or otherwise), ideally any significant issue would be

shared, at least as information.

In non-ideal situations, that doesn't hold.

[Xithras]

127. In a marriage it should be a non-issue. Of course it should be discussed.

Any woman who gets an abortion in a marriage without telling her husband should also get a divorce at the same time. I have no problem with the abortion, but if a relationship is doing so poorly that potential parenthood can't even be discussed, that relationship should be terminated.

My wife and I discussed MOLE removal thoroughly before she had a couple removed from her back. If I found out she had an abortion, I wouldn't know what to think, but I know I'd never view her honesty the same way again. Close partners in a healthy relationship should be able to discuss anything.

[iverglas]

189. Did you read this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1664471&mesg_id=1674417

Any woman who gets an abortion in a marriage without telling her husband should also get a divorce at the same time.

Still want to spout opinions about other people's private lives?

Yeesh. So many know-it-alls around here.

[uppityperson]

28. Sounds like you would like decent, open communication between partners

That is a good thing to aim for. Also open communication between most everyone. However, I don't think it should be legislated to be mandatory.

[FooFootheSnoo]

29. I don't think your view is mysogynistic

I don't think you've taken into account all the situations where it would NOT be in the woman's best interest for her partner to know. In a healthy relationship between adults, I think it's unethical for the woman not to tell her partner, but I don't think it should be illegal.

[SayWhatYo]

40. oh no, I do. In fact when we were dicussing it we were speaking about a healthy relationship...

I should have made that more clear. I mean, I understand that there are cases in which it's not a good idea...

[scarletwoman]

52. Well, if you're talking about a "healthy" relationship, then why be concerned at all?

It takes both partners to make a relationship healthy. If the woman is capable of having a healthy relationship, then she's capable of making her own decisions about how best to keep it healthy.

[Beerboy]

34. I don't think your view is misogynist,

but then again maybe I'm lucky. All of the women I've ever been with have always spoken openly of any and all of their concerns. It's not something you or the Government can "make them do", they just have to trust you and if they do, they'll tell you what's up.

[Hosnon]

46. I think your view is quite reasonable. Openness is relationships is something that should be

encouraged. But encouragement does not create an obligation.

[rucky]

50. If you're going to have sex with him, at least pay him that courtesy. n/t

[Colorado Progressive]

51. If you're going to fuck her, at least give her the option nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. Self Delete. Would Rather Not Get Into It.

[defendandprotect]

56. To what degree are you trying to "encourage" this discussion--??????

Obviously, it will occur to women just who and who not they may wish to discuss the issue with.
They are able participants in deciding their futures, you understand?

I think abortion, childbirth, or penis enlargement . . . . all of them may CHANGE a relationship whether pre-discussed or not. It's life happening and it changes things.

You have an open mind so I don't think you're a misogynist nor that you will have problems in understand what needs to be understand about these issues.

[melody]

57. You mean as general wisdom or hard-and-fast law?

Where law is concerned, the child directly impacts the woman's health. She should and must have final say about its termination. In general, though, I think it's thoroughly reasonable for a man to ask to be consulted, if you're in a relationship. That's stuff you should probably set-up beforehand, but it's the man's child, too. He should certainly have a say in things.

[snot]

61. Not necessarily misogynist, but

I believe a woman's body belongs to her, and that forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term is involuntary servitude.

Now, if the father or society could offer her an alternative to childbirth that was safer and/or more convenient than abortion, then fine, I'd say the balance of rights would weigh in favor of requiring her to cooperate with that alternative.

But for now, we're not even close to that.

So while I think it would be a good idea for her to let other interested parties such as the father know what's happening, until they can offer her an actual alternative, I absolutely believe she has a perfect right to inform them yet ignore whatever others think of her decision.

[smokey nj]

63. Does the penis enlargement need to eat, have health care, wake up screaming in the middle

of the night, or want to go to college? Do I have to worry about the penis enlargement getting involved with the wrong crowd? Will the penis enlargement give me hemorrhoids, stretch marks, or make me incontinent?

[uppityperson]

65. Probably not college, but perhaps the rest.

Probably won't support you in your old age, but then again, you just never know. :rofl:

[smokey nj]

66. Damned ungrateful penis enlargements, you sacrifice you whole life and for what I ask you

:rofl:

[Beerboy]

73. I don't care who you are, that's some funny shit.

At the moment I happen to be thirsty, and a certain someone is getting us drinks!:beer: :rofl:

[valerief]

97. Well, when the man walks out on the family, at least he takes the penis

enlargement with him and will pay any price for its health and welfare.

[RB TexLa]

64. Man gets a vasectomy he never has to tell his wife he got one, same with her

Neither has to get any permission, or have any discussion with the other before choosing or after choosing what to do within their own bodies.

[Katherine Brengle]

89. Indeed. Of course, not exactly the groundwork for a healthy marriage lol, but

it's still the only way to keep everyone's rights intact.

[Quantess]

67. Now that I've thoroughly read your OP,

I see what your original question was. I would say that telling your boyfriend/husband/sex partner that you are pregnant is a reasonable thing to do, in most cases. I definitely would! Some women can't, because of bad situations.

Let's get back to penis enlargement. Now, if a man wanted penis enlargement (is there any successful surgery for this?), I should think he would at least warn his girlfriend/wife/sex partner!

Please don't be offended, but I'm guessing that you are really young and inexperienced in relationships.

[Flabbergasted]

68. Part of the debate has been oversimplified into the idea that it is solely a woman's rights issue..

Its not. It is an issue about peoples rights in general (men, woman, children, fetuses, etc) and the access to medical care for the procedure. Its also about societal morality decisions and personal morality decisions. I am not here making judgements about any of these issues but they are still part of the debate like it or not.

Frankly to think of it as solely a woman's rights issue is egotistical.

[Quantess]

69. You are correct.

The most rabid, virulent, anti-choicers are of the male gender.

Perhaps you have some insight as to why probably 100% of women's clinic bombings are committed by males. Why do you think, as a man, that fellow males get so enraged over womens' choice?

I'm asking you nicely.:)

[HardRocker05]

70. i don't think it's misogynist, just based on what you said, and i'm a woman. nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

71. It's not possible to make the judgment - it's a case by case basis

If a woman and her partner are in a loving, nurturing relationship and an "accident" happens and they're not sure they want to have the child, is it a good idea to talk it through? Probably.

If a woman is in an abusive relationship with a man who beats her and threatens to kill her, and she finds out she's pregnant, should she discuss her options with him? Why WOULD she?

[SoCalDem]

72. .02 here

In a loving relationship..an equal relationship, most women WOULD tell the man first..

It's still her choice, BUT..if she has doubts about his commitment or if she fears his response, I can understand why she may not tell him..

Until a woman starts to show, there is no real reason why she HAS to tell ANYONE..especially now , with the tests available at every store in the country (almost)..

It really all boils down to:

does the woman want to be pregnant and to deliver a child, for whom she will be responsible her entire life, or give it up for adoption, and wonder about for her entire life?

In a casual relationship, the would-be father would probably play little or no part in the child's life anyway..

In a committed relationship, he probably WOULD be part of any decision..

The MORE people who "know" about the pregnancy, the more complicated the whole process becomes.

If a woman does not want to be pregnant, and she finds herself pregnant, she should decide early on and just do it. There is no reason to tell anyone, if she thinks they may not be supportive of her decision.

If men fear having their progeny aborted without their knowledge, they should practice meticulous birth control until the are in a commited, loving relationship, where they WOULD be part of any decision such as this.

One night stands and casual sex, may not guarantee that he's kept apprised of every detail...or that he might even want to be..

[raccoon]

319. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.

"If men fear having their progeny aborted without their knowledge, they should practice meticulous birth control until the are in a commited, loving relationship, where they WOULD be part of any decision such as this.

One night stands and casual sex, may not guarantee that he's kept apprised of every detail...or that he might even want to be.."

[Warren DeMontague]

75. "why is that so wrong to think that should be encouraged"- encouraged by who, and how?

I think it's a little presumptuous to imagine that you know better than a woman you've never met how to handle the news with the man involved. Do you think that other people don't or can't work this stuff out themselves? Do you think that there are women running around that get pregnant and it just never occurs to them that (assuming he's not 1)a total shitheel, 2)a rapist, 3)her stepdad, etc. etc.) they might maybe want to discuss it with the man who got them that way?

I mean, the premise here is a little silly, and I can see why it might rub some folks as anti-choice- because you're assuming you know better than someone else what's going on with their life. And you seem to be assuming that the way things are is somehow defective in some regard, or that women are doing a poor job of handing this choice. I can see how it would come off as a little patronizing, frankly.

Personally? Yes, I would hope that any relationship I was in had good enough communication that I would be made aware of what was going on. But that's MY life. I don't tell other people how to live THEIR lives. We've got all kinds of folks, of all ideological stripes, running around this planet willy-nilly, all convinced that they're perfectly well equipped to run their own lives and everyone else's, too, because, you know, obviously those ******* don't know what they're doing, however deceptively it may appear that they're consenting adults making up their own damn minds.

I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that any relationship where YOU are intimate enough to be having sex, you have good enough communication that of course your partner would tell you if she got pregnant. I DO, however, think it's a tad pretentious to imagine that you're situated up on top of the grand mountain of vision where you can make these sweeping pronouncements about how everyone else ought to be doing things. Just MY 2 cents.

[porphyrian]

79. Man, good luck with that...

...I suggested as much a while back and got my ass handed to me.

[Scout]

82. If the woman wants to discuss it with the "sperm donor" she will. n/t

[treestar]

83. I don't think it is

I have some sympathy for men here; they can't have children themselves; they have no control over whether or not their children are born - the safest course is of course to use birth control - but the child is the man's as well as the woman's, and it's not his fault she has to be the one to carry it - just nature's.

I don't think there should be laws on the subject. Too unenforceable.

In any decent relationship, it would naturally be discussed.

Problem is, ultimately the decision is the woman's, so the man not knowing may well be better.

Often the woman makes the decision to have the child, and now the man has that lifetime obligation. Child support and everything, and the man cannot opt out of that.

It's one of the few things that works to the man's disadvantage. I don't feel too sorry for men here, because they have the upper hand in most male-female relationships, economically, psychologically, emotionally. But here's one place where you don't - make sure of birth control and take the risk - every time you get laid you risk becoming a father (presuming that usually, men don't want that. Where they do, they have the choice of getting married - I would say a man who wants children has no problem getting a woman to have his children.)

[Katherine Brengle]

85. I think, if the relationship is healthy, then talking about it is good. BUT --

that doesn't mean asking permission. It must be difficult, in a strong relationship, if the two are in disagreement - but I am also of the opinion that that's something people in a relationship should discuss way before it ever becomes an issue.

So, in the best of relationships, it seems the man has a right to know, but it's also a slipper slope into requiring permission, and that's a slipper slope into requiring ALL sperm donors (snark intended) to give permission (as we've seen in, Ohio is it?) etc etc.

I'm conflicted. I err on the side of saying this is a personal matter and if people want to discuss it, then by all means, but there should be no legal requirement to do so.

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. Agreed. n/t

[retread]

86. Comparing penis enlargement to abortion exposes the misogyny. n/t

[blondeatlast]

91. That conversation should have occurred before they had sex.

Birth control failure is still quite rare, especially when both partners are responsible.

Now that the deed's done, she's in charge. In a strong relationship, it can be discussed; in a weak one--the kind where it wasn't discussed before the deed--tough on daddy.

Harsh, but oh, well...

[Az]

94. You are not misogynistic

The problem is there are some people that posit the argument that due to the man having an investment in the fetus they have a right to deny the woman getting an abortion. Thus what they are reacting to is a slippery slope argument that suggesting that a woman should talk to the man is just the first step in denying them control of their body. They are of course over reacting.

[Flabbergasted]

96. Exactly nt

[cgrindley]

99. But abortion has never been 100% up to the woman...

at least not under any current laws, at least not under Roe v. Wade. A woman's access to abortion depends on the viability of the fetus. Although getting a first trimester abortion is a relatively simple process, the law has a lot to say about third trimester abortions. This myth that the legal system somehow has enshrined some sort of absolute choice is just that, a myth.

[LWolf]

100. I don't think you are unreasonable.

Disclaimer: I haven't read down the thread to see all the people passionately disagreeing with you.

Sex happens between people. It doesn't happen between bodies absent of the human that lives in that body. Humans are thinking creatures that make choices. When a pregnancy occurs, both of the participants ought to be at least talking about the choices.

If it is just a matter of bodies, then I would suggest that all boys, when they reach puberty, have a vasectomy that can be reversed later in life should they choose to become a parent. Enough of those reversals would work to keep the species viable. This way, there is never a chance of an accidental pregnancy that the male has no "choice" about.

Once the pregnancy happens, if it is just about bodies, the woman is the only one with a choice, yet her choice affects the life of the man, as well.

The only ways to guarantee that some female body won't be making choices that affect your life are to practice abstinence or fail-safe birth control. The only fail-safe birth control available to males that I know of is vasectomy.

In reality, a pregnancy affects both the egg and sperm contributor. Since the fetus resides in the woman's body, whether or not to terminate the pregnancy is her choice. There is no getting around that. I don't think that the woman has any obligation to discuss the pregnancy with the male involved if she chooses to end it. If she has a relationship with him, she ought to, of course, as part of the relationship.

Should she choose to bear the child, the man should have equal rights in deciding what happens to the child after birth. That's currently not the case. The woman decides what happens to the child after it is born.

[JerseygirlCT]

107. If the relationship is strong, she's almost certainly going to

involve the man in her life with the decision.

But as you also say - it's 100% her decision, as it's her body involved. I wouldn't want to start setting any arbitrary and outside standards -- legal or just social -- about what she's supposed to do.

I don't think you're so much being unresonable, as your position is sort of well, beside the point.

[NMMNG]

108. This pretty much sums it up

[Katherine Brengle]

113. Nice. I like that. nt

[NMMNG]

114. Me too

I found it at an avatar site and just had to have it. I figured it would come in handy some day.

[CreekDog]

369. me, me, me, me, me

That's the most important thing. me.

Can't help but think that this type of thinking has some bad and unintended consequences (the whole putting me before anything else).

Doesn't comport with the Golden Rule.

[iverglas]

109. yup

I said that I thought that it's best if a woman at least discusses it with her husband/boyfriend/whatever.

For so many reasons.

The first being that you apparently think that women need you to tell them what's "best".

Do you think that if in fact it is "best" to do this, the woman can't figure it out without your help?

Or do you maybe think that women just tend to do what's "worst", given the option?

Or maybe you think it's "best" in all cases, none of which you happen to know Thing One about, for women to do this -- even if the woman in question knows that it would in fact be worst, for her, to do it.


Why is that so wrong to think that should be encouraged?

What's wrong is for you to think it's your business. Period.


isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

Do you actually know some women?

Do you know women who are too stupid to figure out that it would be in their own interests to consult their partner about what to do about a pregnancy, if that's the case?

Do you know women who are so evil that they might just run off and terminate a pregnancy to spite the partner they refused to talk to about it?

Are the lives of all the women you know an open book to you, such that you can be confident that you know what will happen if they follow your advice in matters like this and you are certain that there is no danger that, if you shame or confuse them into doing as you say, they will end up being pressured or coerced into doing something that is not in their interests, or perhaps even putting themselves at risk?

Are other people's relationships something you're an expert in, and do you have expertise in advising people about their relationships?

Do you actually know women who for any reason at all appear to need your suggestions in this matter?

If not, why would you even be thinking about any of this? Let the hell alone proposing to open your mouth about it.

[Jed Dilligan]

111. Are you talking about legislation or just

guidelines to good behavior?

On the one hand, I'm totally against any matter this private being the subject of legislation. Imagine being sent by a court order to "talk" to your least-favorite ex-girlfriend and find out her "feelings" about something. It's the worst kind of nightmare, having the state that far up in people's family lives.

I will grant you this, if I found out my girlfriend got an abortion without telling me I would probably dump her. I don't have any rights over her body or her decisions but I do have the right not to have someone in my life who sneaks around and does shit behind my back.

If a woman doesn't feel comfortable discussing this issue with her mate, I would likewise suggest that they run like hell from that relationship and never look back.

[whoneedstickets]

112. I support abortion rights for men too!!!

Yes!

A man should be allowed to disavow all responsibility for a fetus, once legally presented with the information that a woman with whom he has been intimate claims to be bearing his child. A 'male abortion'.

I have heard the argument that 'he made his choice' when he slept with her, however ACCIDENTS DO HAPPEN. Why should only women have options in the face of accidents? Contraception can fail.

Men should have the SAME rights as women to 'terminate' pregnacy.

[Az]

117. And here is the argument that causes tempers to flare

The right to terminate a pregnancy is not based on whether the person wants to keep the baby or not. It is based on the fact that it is her body and her body alone. No one has the right to claim ownership of it over her.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

119. So you're saying you support deadbeat dads?

That's very revealing.

[Az]

121. No thats not what he is saying

He is trying to assert that because a woman still maintains a choice after being becoming pregnant that men should have a choice to opt out during that same period. The mistaken assumption here is that the choice is based on skipping out of responsibilities vs the right to choose what to do with one's own body.

If babies were popped out at the moment of conception this would be a no starter argument. But because the woman has to carry the fetus for 9 months there is an extra burden put upon her which because it is her body she has the right to choose whether to take that burden on. The man carries no such burden thus has no right to force an abortion or the woman to carry it to term.

[whoneedstickets]

132. I didn't say he could force an abortion or force her to carry it...

..neither of those things logically follow from my position. The woman still retains EVERY right to do what she chooses with her body. I'm simply saying just as she should not be forced to become a parent against her will, neither should he.

[Madspirit]

120. In Which Case He Should NEVER Have Any Access to the Child...NONE..

I'm one of the rare feminists who agrees with this position. If a woman can terminate a pregnancy and it should be 100% her choice and ON DEMAND, so should a man be able to terminate any responsibility. We can't have it both ways. We can't say it's none of his business even if it's his child, if we choose an abortion but then decide it IS his business if we keep the baby.

...BUT if a man totally disavows himself of any responsibility to the LIVING child then he also gets to be NOT the father...EVER.

If he decides to MAN UP he should take financial responsibility.

You're not even REALLY thinking of the child or the woman. You're just thinking of a spiteful position to take against women, not giving a shit if it hurts the child. So be it.

Lee

[whoneedstickets]

133. I agree completely.

Men who decline parenthood relinquish all rights forever. Likewise, those who accept parenthood, including financial responsibility should never have those rights abrogated (except in cases of abuse or the like) which is NOT ALWAYS the case in issue of family court. However, the unequal treatment of men in these instances is seldom discussed in feminist circles.

[Toasterlad]

167. That's Refreshing.

It's very nice to hear from a true feminist (and from reading your posts, Lee, I have NO doubt that you ARE a true feminist) that women can't have it both ways on this issue. Too many times have I heard that (often strident) cry that a woman can do whatever she wants with her own body...followed often in the same breath by the assertion that the man must take responsibility for the child, whether he wanted it or not. I applaud your rational thinking.

That being said, I don't really agree. I think that any time a man and woman have sex, unless one or the other is KNOWN to be infertile, they are gambling with the possibility of creating life. They can stack the odds however they like with all the pills, latex and gels they want, but they're still taking a chance...and they BOTH have a responsibility to the life they may create.

I would never argue that a woman should be forced to have an abortion against her will, just as I would never argue that a woman should be forced to have a baby she doesn't want. I firmly believe in the woman's right to chose. And while I believe that the woman has a moral obligation to discuss the situation with the man who knocked her up (unless she conceived immaculately, which hasn't happened for over 2,000 years, as far as I know), if she decides to have the baby, the man should still share responsibility for it, at LEAST financially. As far as I'm concerned, he gave his consent to do so the minute he stuck his dick in (yes, that's crude, sorry.).

Men AND women need to treat sex more seriously. (Of course, it's easy for me to get all preachy, since it's biologically impossible for me to get anyone I'd have sex with pregnant! :P )

[Scout]

177. "the man who knocked her up"

how charming...

:eyes:

[NeedleCast]

317. sperm doner

About as charming as your repeated use of the phrase "sperm doner."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. If you think it should be up to the woman to decide on an abortion...

then I think it should be up to the woman to decide on whether or not it's a good idea to talk with her partner.

[Skittles]

140. thank you

not so hard to understand, is it?

[bleedingheart]

118. Actually the time to talk about family planning is before you have sex

both the man and the woman should have a little talk where they say...

Do you have anything catchy? any warts, growths or oozing sores...
Do you have AIDS?

Okay...now the next set of questions

Are you using birth control?
What birth control should we use?

Next questions...

What if it fails?
What should we do if a pregnancy results...?

Now if you aren't grown up enough to talk about these topics...having sex is a bad idea. If the person you are about to sleep with has odd or even uncomfortable answers to these questions...run in the opposite direction...

I think the majority of women probably do tell their partner if they are pregnant...but some may not for very good and justifiable reasons..

[Iris]

122. Every situation is different.

Personally, I don't think it's up to me to decide what's "best" for anyone else's situation but my own.

[Madspirit]

123. What's Your Position Even Mean?

In a good relationship one would hope ALL important decisions are discussed. "Choice" means it is up to her though whether she discusses it with ANYONE.
Lee

[Az]

126. I think that is what he is saying

He repeated that it is the woman's choice 100%. He was just expressing hope that it would be a matter discussed between the partners.

[iverglas]

134. and yet that is NOT what he said

and you're not alone here in completely failing to address what he did say. You're just failing to do it repeatedly.

Expressing hope that something will happen is one thing. Advocating "suggesting" that another person do something -- which IS what the poster did -- is a completely different thing.

Q. isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?
A. NO.

It's that simple. No, it is not a good idea to suggest to anyone that she do anything, in a matter about which one is almost necessarily ignorant of important facts, and which is none of one's business, and about which one has obviously not been asked one's opinion, and in which there may be serious risks to the person at whom one wishes to foist one's opinion if she acts on it.

It really is that simple. It is NOT a good idea to butt into other people's private lives when one is not invited, when one is driven by an agenda that has nothing to do with the best interests of the person into whose private life one is butting.

And that's all there is here. An agenda, and a pregnant woman who can be used in its service. Same old same old same old.

[Az]

145. It seems to me you are looking for an argument that isn't there

Lets examine what he said.

Anyways, I 100% think that whatever decision is made is up to the woman.

Here he clearly establishes that he believed all of the choice belongs to the woman. No strings attached. No ifs, ands or buts.


However, I said that I thought that it's best if a woman at least discusses it with her husband/boyfriend/whatever.

Here seems to be the bit you are missing. He is relaying a conversation he had with someone where he is stating that he thought it was best if the woman discussed it with her partner. No decision making process is being given over to them. No one is telling her to do this. He is simply stating that in a good relationship such conversations are probably a good idea.

Why is that so wrong to think that should be encouraged?

Here he is saying that placing this idea into the public arena is probably a good idea. Making the idea of talking about such things a common thing. Communication is arguably the most important aspect of a relationship and this certainly is an issue worthy of discussion.

Like I said, it's obviously 100% the woman choice since it's her body, but in the end it does ultimately affect both parties, so isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

There is no mandate attached here. No insistence that the man be consulted to get an abortion. He ever restates that it is the woman's decision 100%. The point attached here is one of relationships and not legalities. Courtesy. Communication. If these do not exist in a relationship already then its doomed anyways.

You are trying to conflate advice concerning relationships with mandating that women be made to talk to their partners before getting an abortion. It certainly is her right to get an abortion without consulting anyone. But it is probably a good idea if she values her relationship to talk to her partner. And that is good advice not a law. Big difference.

[iverglas]

160. it seems to me that there are none so blind

as those who refuse to acknowedge what the question is and write post after post pretending that it isn't what it is, and answering a bunch of different questions, and pretending that things said were not said, and things not said were said.

You are trying to conflate advice concerning relationships with mandating that women be made to talk to their partners before getting an abortion.

You are making a false statement. I neither said nor thought nor tried to do any such thing.

I told someone who thought it was his business to "suggest" something to someone that it is not his business to do any such thing, and that his notion that it is his business is misogynist. If you missed the statement of all the reasons why his notion is misogynist, you can try reading it:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1664471&mesg_id=1668904

Here. I'll simplify the process for you.

Here's what he SAID:

isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

See that? It's a question. It's the question I ANSWERED and you want to pretend doesn't exist.

And here's what I replied:

Do you actually know some women?

Do you know women who are too stupid to figure out that it would be in their own interests to consult their partner about what to do about a pregnancy, if that's the case?

Do you know women who are so evil that they might just run off and terminate a pregnancy to spite the partner they refused to talk to about it?

Are the lives of all the women you know an open book to you, such that you can be confident that you know what will happen if they follow your advice in matters like this and you are certain that there is no danger that, if you shame or confuse them into doing as you say, they will end up being pressured or coerced into doing something that is not in their interests, or perhaps even putting themselves at risk?

Are other people's relationships something you're an expert in, and do you have expertise in advising people about their relationships?

Do you actually know women who for any reason at all appear to need your suggestions in this matter?

If not, why would you even be thinking about any of this? Let the hell alone proposing to open your mouth about it.


But heck; you've answered it finally:

And that is good advice not a law.

No, it isn't. It's an unwarranted and possibly harmful intrusion into someone else's private affairs, and it is misogynist because of all the misogynist notions it is based on and the misogynist agenda it is in aid of.

Read the foregoing and repeat, and let me know if you have any questions.

[Az]

169. Answer this question

Do you think a healthy relationship would discuss the matter?

[iverglas]

173. why?

Do you think a healthy relationship would discuss the matter?

If you want to discuss that question (not that it makes much sense, but you could rephrase it), go start a thread. Don't try to hijack this one.

And don't be saying rude things like Answer this question to me in any circumstance, let alone when your demand is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from your own refusal to acknowledge the subject of the discussion.

I'm interested in the question that is the subject of this thread, not that much of anyone will acknowledge or answer it.

You ready yet?

[Az]

174. Wow

All I can say is we are reading two entirely different things. I see a clumsy attempt to convey a simple idea. You seem to see some horrible social agenda.

The reason I asked the question I did was because I was trying to see if we were anywhere close to being on the same page. I find that most disagreements are typically the result of semantic differences and if you can sort out what you agree on then you can figure out what you are really disagreeing about.

I will try it again.

Do you believe that it is a good thing for a couple to discuss together whether the woman is getting an abortion? Keeping in mind that it is entirely the woman's decision in the end.

I am asking this question to determine if you disagree with this aspect of the issue or whether the issue is that you think that the OP was insisting that people be told to talk to one another.

[iverglas]

186. let's see how simple I can make it

Do you believe that it is a good thing for a couple to discuss together whether the woman is getting an abortion?

I believe
you with me?
that
it is none of my fucking business
how we doing?
what any couple does in such matters.


Howzat? Can I make it clearer, somehow?

Moving along:


I believe
that
I do not have the knowledge
about the personal affairs of other people
that I would require
in order to form an opinion
about what other people should do
in a matter that is very personal to themselves
such as a pregnancy.


Keeping up?


I do not express opinions
about things
about which I do not know enough
to have an opinion worth expressing.


With me still?


I believe
that
it would be rude
for me to express an opinion
either to or about another person
that relates to what that other person does or does not do
in relation to a matter that is so personal to him or her
when
(a) I am necessarily too ignorant to have a worthwhile opinion
(b) I have not been asked for my opinion
(c) my opinion, if it influenced someone's actions, could lead to harm.



So, to sum up, when you say:

Do you believe that it is a good thing for a couple to discuss together whether the woman is getting an abortion?

-- you are asking me what I "believe" when I HAVE NO BELIEF in the matter at all.

Your question is like asking me whether I "believe" that it would be a good thing for you to lose some weight.

I DON'T KNOW.

And even if it were apparent to me that it WOULD be a good thing for you to lose some weight, I WOULD KEEP MY FUCKING MOUTH SHUT unless you asked my opinion or advice. And even if you did, I would likely suggest that you consult someone with the knowledge and expertise you need. Because I wouldn't want to have been a factor in you dying of lung cancer or a heart attack, if you took up smoking or started popping diet pills in order to lose weight.


I don't have opinions about what people should do in matters that are very personal to them, about which I am ignorant, and when my expressing an opinion could lead to harm.

Can I really make this any clearer?


This position is not "result of semantic differences" with something you have said.

It is the result of a deeply held, fundamental conviction that it is wrong to butt one's face into the private affairs of other people when one is ignorant and uninvited and could cause harm.

And THAT is what the opening post called "a good idea". Nothing to do with what you keep banging on about.

And I do NOT think THAT is a good idea.

[Az]

193. It is clear you are not interested in civil discussion

I have no need of this discussion any further.

[iverglas]

196. "I have no need of this discussion any further."

There hasn't been a discussion, so how could this discussion go any further?

A question was asked in the opening post, I have repeatedly requested that you address it, you have repeatedly evaded it ... nope, no discussion there.

You might want to look up the concept of "civil discourse". It has to do with honesty, with sincerity, with acknowledging what one's interlocutors say and giving an indication that one has considered it, with not representing one's own position or anyone else's as things they are not ...

[Exiled in America]

237. Az, if there's one thing I've learned on DU, its to take my discussion queues from you.

If you've reached a point where you - one of the most reasonable posters I've ever read - can't talk to this person anymore, that's my queue to stop trying in the sub-thread up top.

So, you know.... thanks for the unintentional heads up. :hi:

[iverglas]

246. and if there's one thing I've learned

Az, if there's one thing I've learned on DU, its to take my discussion queues from you.

It's that people will do just about anything to avoid addressing an issue, this generally involving some variation on the ad locutorem "argument", often in the form of conspiratorially chummy indirect commentary, and use the most appalling spelling while they're at it.

I've seen people try to tow lines and do other nonsense things, but I've never seen someone try to take a queue before ...

[jpgray]

296. That's "toe" lines. Maybe he could just accuse you of being part of his "fan club"

That seems to be your debate shut-off switch.

[iverglas]

300. oh, that's just sad

Yes, it's "toe the line".

So, is it "take queues"?

If you truly think it is, then no wonder the point of the lines being towed in my post went right over your little head.

The two are the same. They're called "eggcorns". Google. They're meaningless word things concocted by people who hear an expression but fail to understand it, and invent something of their own that sounds like it.

You might want to look up "cues", if you're really not getting it.


http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/

If you are not convinced, browse our “nearly mainstream” section. Are you sure you've never honed in on an important point or goal? Given free reign to your creativity, or, on the contrary, towed the line? Check out what the man has to say whose refrigerator has given up the goat, so brilliantly retold by Jeanette Winterson in the (London) Times.

I'd thought this one might be original and considered submitting it, but no such luck:

http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/44/queue/

cue » queue

Classification: English

Spotted in the wild:

* Scott sat quietly on stage waiting for his queue, remembering at the last moment to take off his badge so that it wouldn’t reflect in the light. (link)
* You could tell the lions were getting anxious to have a go at the zebras, so they began their hunt. <…> The last lioness just stayed where she was, waiting for her queue from the other two. (link)
* After 5 days of intensive care in Selenge, Batsaihan and her mother went to Ulan-Bator according to doctors’ direction. While they were waiting for their queue to visit a doctor for the first time at the 3rd Hospital of UB, Batsaihan was called namely, and was asked to visit doctor Enkhbayar without any queue. (libertycenter.org.mn)
* You can then use the latest software to easily synchronize the video and the slides, so that the slides advance on queue with the video. (link)
* Right on queue, the very next day, the Family Research Council sent out this email: (Jim Gilliam, 2005/07/07)

[jpgray]

301. I believe you've just been shown what cribbing a post to one quote can do

:D

In context, the question you keep repeating in bold from the OP isn't as damning as you pretend it is.

[iverglas]

303. actually, the post you "cribbed" that from was very short

You just failed to get it.

I, on the other hand, have no problem whatever getting the meaning of the opening post.

[jpgray]

304. More silliness. Your posts throughout are an indication you -don't- understand the post

Dogged, longwinded mendacity is absolutely ridiculous when it's based on an absolutist interpretation of a single quote. I could say "tow the lines" tells me that you are ignorant of the phrase, and argue nothing you say can prove otherwise, but thankfully I have the capacity to read and understand without throwing my own biases all over everything and stereotyping the author to the point that reasonable discussion is no longer possible. Since when is an informal discussion board held to such a high standard that out of context quotes are subject to ferocious unrelenting attack unless wholly consistent with the rest of the post?

[Karenina]

170. isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

Everything you need to know it in the construction of the question.

I've been working with my ESL students that they understand the subtleties of native speakers asking questions. The construction tells more about the viewpoint of the questioner than the question itself. It's a very difficult concept to grasp but for some of my students involved in negotiations it is CRUCIAL that they get it.

Maybe I'll come back later to deconstruct the question itself. Gotta scoot across the street to hear some jazz. Da Boyz be playin' and they are all that and a bag o' chips!

[NashVegas]

188. I Think You Are Making Assumptions

What I did not get from the OP - and you seem to read into it - is the idea that the woman in question has already made up her mind to get an abortion.

[iverglas]

194. I have no idea what you're talking about, or why you're saying it to me

What I did not get from the OP - and you seem to read into it - is the idea that the woman in question has already made up her mind to get an abortion.

Here ... once again ... is the question asked in the opening post:

isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

It does not appear to imply that the woman in question has already made up her mind to get an abortion, I did not infer that to be the situation, and I certainly didn't assume it to be the situation.

Whether it is the situation or not is entirely irrelevant to anything I have said.

It's really so simple.

It is none of anyone else's business whether a woman chooses to discuss her pregnancy with her partner.

It is none of anyone else's business, because no one else has any legitimate interest in her decision as to whether to do that or not, no one else has perfect information about the situation she is in, and anyone in that position who offered an uninvited suggestion is running the risk of persuading the woman to do something that could lead to harm to her own interests.

In short, no one knows better than the woman what it is "best" for her to do, and so there is no reason for anyone to insert him/herself into the situation, and everyone should just shut up.

And anyone who thinks that a woman needs his/her suggestion when she hasn't asked for it, or deserves to receive his/her suggestion whether s/he wants it or not, let alone should act as s/he suggests whether she thinks it advisable or not, is a misogynist.

It's really so simple.

Why do so many people want to have opinions about other people's choices in such private matters?

[jpgray]

297. You expect everyone to wade through your semantic fog of pedantry

Yet refuse to follow very simple arguments that dwarf yours in length? Reducing a long post to a single question in a professed attempt to understand it is absolutely ludicrous.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

128. No, not really

Abortion politics today are way too polarized. Those who support abortion rights think the issue is 100% about the woman and her body. Those who oppose abortion think the issue is 100% about the fetus and its life.

The fact of the matter is the situation is highly complicated and both the woman and the fetus have competing interests which need to be weighed and balanced, as opposed to thrown away to cheap bumper sticker slogans (as we currently are now.) Note, I'm not saying that abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances, nor am I saying that it should be considered a legal right in all circumstances. Rather, it is a issue which deserves serious contemplation on a deep basis.

Now, I would also say that the interests of both the woman and the unborn fetus are more important and deserve more weight than that of the father. But I wouldn't totally discount the father's interest, even if it does take a back seat to those of the woman and the fetus.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

163. My only point of disagreement with the OP

I guess my only major point of disagreement with the original poster is his analogy to male organ enhancement.

Abortion should never, ever be compared to simple plastic or cosmetic surgery. It is way too ethically complex for such an analogy.

Cosmetic surgery is a situation where the decision truly concerns one's own body and one's own body alone. While abortion does deal with one's own body to a very significant extent, the matter also does encompass factors beyond one's own body. And the fetus, while remaining dependant on the mother, does have a seperate DNA and a seperate organ system and therefore cannot be considered part and parcel with the woman's body. I know amongst very vocal abortion rights supporters that's not an extremely popular thing to say, but simple biology states otherwise.

[iverglas]

166. "simple biology"

Indeed.

7.
a. Having or manifesting little sense or intelligence.
b. Uneducated; ignorant.
c. Unworldly or unsophisticated.

but maybe not

8. Not guileful or deceitful; sincere.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/simple

[Scout]

179. linked to me by an umbilical cord and inside my uterus it

certainly IS a part of MY BODY.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

182. The key word there is "linked"

The fetus is "linked" to the woman's body, and dependant on the woman's body, and therefore the pregnancy is intimately associated with the woman's body. But to say it is actually the woman's body itself contradicts basic biology.

I think if both abortion opponents and abortion rights advocates realized this entirely unique situation and its complex ethical implications instead of thinking up the next bumper sticker slogan or calling their opponents "anti-life" or "anti-choice" (as if that will actually accomplish anything), there'd be a much more rational and reasoned conversation on this difficult subject.

[Scout]

198. how condescending of you...

"realized this entirely unique situation and its complex ethical implications"

of for fuck's sake ... like no one has ever thought of this but you.

if this is really an entirely unique situation with complex ethical implications how can it be "simple" biology? the fetus is not simply linked to the woman, it is embedded into the side of her uterus, growing and feeding off of her. it is INSIDE her body.

i've had all the "rational and reasoned" discussion i can STAND about what i can/can't and should/shouldn't do with my body.

if a woman feels comfortable discussing pregnancy with the sperm donor, she WILL. she does NOT NEED some outsider whether friend, priest, or government to tell her "why don't you talk it over with him honey, see how he feels." SHE ALREADY KNOWS THAT IS AN OPTION.

fucking duh. now come on and call me irrational and emotional, and throw in unreasonable while you are at it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

287. It's not about being irrational or unreasonable

It's that each respective side of the abortion debate gets so caught up in the passion of their own argument, they develop "tunnel" vision where the issue is--depending on where you stand--100% about the woman, or 100% about the fetus. The fact of this matter is that the issue involves the interests of both, and one should take into mind all aspects of the equation, and not just the one part they have been so concerned with.

It would be scare to find any American who would oppose a woman (or man) from getting a tattoo or having plastic surgery or getting a mole removed. These are all issues dealing with one's own body that nearly all people believe in virtually unlimited freedom. And amongst virtually all progressives and liberals, and even most moderates, people are not going to object to a person taking or utilizing birth control, or choosing which romantic partner he or she wishes to enter into a consensual relationship with. These are issues dealing with one's own body which can and should be defended at all costs.

But the "it's my body" argument suffers a fatal flaw when you consider the abortion issue. You simply cannot deny the fetus has a seperate DNA than the mother. You simply cannot deny that. Nor can you deny the fact that the fetus has a developing system of organs seperate from the mother. To say otherwise would force one to agree with the ludicrious proposition that a pregnant woman has two hearts or two brains during the course of pregnancy. While I understand the extremely sensitive nature of the process (which is exactly what makes it such a complex and difficult issue), the biology itself is elementary. The fetus simply is not the woman's own body, no matter the fact that it is inside the woman and dependant on the woman for sustiance. And simply making impassioned arguments claiming otherwise is not going to change that fact.

Note, I am not saying this requires abortions to be prohibited at all costs. Quite the contrary, it simply means people are going to have to look at the issue in a much different way, one where it is not 100% about the woman or 100% about the fetus, but rather a reasoned, balanced look as to the interests of both, coupled with the different types of situations. Only then can the best course be laid in terms of medical ethics.

[iverglas]

298. so let's have a straight answer

Note, I am not saying this requires abortions to be prohibited at all costs.

What exactly are you saying?


Quite the contrary, it simply means people are going to have to look at the issue in a much different way, one where it is not 100% about the woman or 100% about the fetus, but rather a reasoned, balanced look as to the interests of both, coupled with the different types of situations. Only then can the best course be laid in terms of medical ethics.

No, never mind the bullshit. If you want a debate, then presumably you have a side in the debate, even though you obviously don't have any horse in the race.

What is it? What outcome of this "debate" do you want to see?

Exactly what limits on the exercise of women's rights and freedoms are you wanting to be imposed?

We can leave the justification you are obligated to provide for a later date. Why not just take a jaunt over to the Choice forum and start your own thread, with any other burble you want to toss in, but being sure to answer the question I'm asking in this post?


I ask, you see, 'cause all I'm seeing so far is some really standard-issue right-wing anti-choice talking points, like:

To say otherwise would force one to agree with the ludicrious proposition that a pregnant woman has two hearts or two brains during the course of pregnancy.

(And your problem here is? By the way, are identical twins the same person? Same DNA, y'know.)

And I'm just getting mighty curious why somebody's spouting 'em and then just dancing around the actual issue.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

338. Dancing around the issue would be relegating it to flowerly words like "life" or "choice"

And of course, you know I am certainly not advocating that.

Personally, I am like the majority of most Americans. I believe abortion should remain a legal right in certain circumstances in the interests of the woman, but believe it can be restricted in other circumstances in the interest of the developing fetus.

The only outcome I really want to see is a more civilized debate removed from the blinding passion that drives the extremes of both sides. In the end, we as a civilized society must draw the line as to things it believes are in the best interests of the whole, and the things it is believes are not in the best interests. And I can tell you right now, that line is not going to be drawn at the extreme, but somewhere in between. If you are looking for an all-or-nothing solution, look elsewhere.

Am I assumming right that you honestly believe a pregnant woman does have two hearts and two brains during the course of pregnancy? Should I also suppose you believe the earth is flat, too?

(And even identical twins are not truly identical. Their hearts do not always beat at the same beat, they do not talk in unison, they do not move in unision, and scientific studies even show their DNA will diverge on certain things as life proceeds. So no, they are not the same person.)

[iverglas]

356. "I believe, for every drop of rain that falls, A flower grows"

And yet ... it doesn't. Oh dear. My saying it didn't make it so.

I believe abortion should remain a legal right in certain circumstances in the interests of the woman, but believe it can be restricted in other circumstances in the interest of the developing fetus.

And you saying "the interest of the developing fetus" doesn't actually mean that a fetus has interests. Are you surprised?? Only if you think you're omnipotent, I guess.


Am I assumming right that you honestly believe a pregnant woman does have two hearts and two brains during the course of pregnancy?

What a woman has during the course of a pregnancy is A FETUS. I can never figure out why this obvious fact seems to be so hidden from so many people.


And I can tell you right now, that line is not going to be drawn at the extreme, but somewhere in between.

You can tell me all you want, but right now you are the one saying is "the earth is flat". Because, you see, I live in Canada. And in Canada, THERE ARE NO LEGAL RESTRICTIONS on women's access to abortion. None. And it's free, too. So how do you like them apples? I like 'em just fine, myself. So I don't have to look "elsewhere". I just have to look out my window. And I luv the view.


In the end, we as a civilized society must draw the line as to things it believes are in the best interests of the whole, and the things it is believes are not in the best interests.

Well, that's not quite it. What you mean is: the things it believes are not in its best interests, and can justify prohibiting.


The only outcome I really want to see is a more civilized debate removed from the blinding passion that drives the extremes of both sides.

Yeah. Right. Then we can just engage in this civilized debate for the next millennium.

That's fine with me. As long as, in the interim, no woman's rights are being violated.


Now I guess you can just go back to the sidelines and observe the debate, having apparently nothing to contribute to it yourself.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

364. Correct me if I'm wrong....

But aren't you the one who just said that a fetus is in no way and no means a seperate human life, and none of that fancy "science talk" of seperate DNA or seperate organ systems will make it otherwise? Pardon
me, but who exactly is being foolish and presumptious here?

Should I assume by your logic a mentally disabled individual who is not cognizant of his or her own
condition does not have any interests either? Because that's basically what you are saying here.

What a woman has during the course of a pregnancy is A FETUS, which is a developing human life seperate from that of the mother. Doc doesn't slap you on the ass and then and only then everything that is uniquely distinguishing you from your mother come into pass.From day one, you are looking at something--call it what you will, zygote, embryo, fetus, unborn child, baby, etc.--that is unique and different from the body of the mother.

So you are from Canada--good for you. Great country, beautiful scenery, polite people, excellent beer,
fantastic hockey. But as nice as it is, Canadians are not the great purveyors of utopian society. Canadians' crap smells just like everybody else. Not everything said or believed by a Canadian or Canadian government is the essence of pure truth and knowledge. Lord knows, we Americans have our problems, plenty of them, right up to the idiot currently in charge. But simply being Canadian isn't equivilant with everything and anything that is right and good with the world. So pardon me if I take your national status with a grain of salt when it comes to what you are saying.

Well I'm glad so you've determined for me I have absolutely nothing of substance to contribute to the
conversation. Looks to be perfectly consistent with a person who oh so values the individuality and autonomy of others.

[iverglas]

384. gladly!

But aren't you the one who just said that a fetus is in no way and no means a seperate human life

Ooooh, you're a tricky one, Mr. Peter!

What I said, as you know, is that a fetus is not "life". I imagine I have also said that a fetus is not a human being.

And of course I said that *I* am not "life", and that I HAVE a life, which I would hope clearly implied that I am not "a life" either.

So I guess, yes, you could put it all together and say that a fetus is not "a separate human life", for the simple reason that it is no life at all. So it isn't a separate human life, or a well-decorated Mediterranean life, or a purple polka-dotted life, or any of the infinite possible kinds of "a life" we could dream up, every single one of which would be a figment of our imagination, if it was purporting to describe a thing as "a life".

The only thing that can be described as "a life" is a life: that which I have, you have, he has, she has, etc.

and none of that fancy "science talk" of seperate DNA or seperate organ systems will make it otherwise?

No, that wasn't fancy science talk, remember? It was simple science talk. Fancy science talk would have included things like how something is an organism only if it meets the conditions for being an organism, which a fetus doesn't. For starters.

Pardon me, but who exactly is being foolish and presumptious here?

Well, I'd like to help you out, but I genuinely don't have a clue what you're talking about. I just can't seem to relate it to anything I said.

Should I assume by your logic a mentally disabled individual who is not cognizant of his or her own condition does not have any interests either?

Well, I'd really hope that you had the good sense and goodwill not to "assume" something that you have no basis for assuming, and that is in fact contrary to the truth. Why would you do that? Let's just hope you haven't, eh?!

You seem to be the one saying that the individual in question doesn't have interests. I didn't say it, I am not saying it, and I won't be saying it. Maybe you need to clarify the meaning of some terms for yourself, before embarking on a discussion in which they are used.

What a woman has during the course of a pregnancy is A FETUS, which is a developing human life seperate from that of the mother.

No, you see, there you go again. This "is a life" crap. That's the thing people like you say when they can't say something that has an actual genuine true meaning, because if they used real words to mean what they really mean, they couldn't say what they're saying.

Spit it out. Do you want to say "a fetus is a human being"? If so, just say it, and we can move on.

"A human life", developing or purple polka-dotted, is not a human being. So why are we talking about it?

A fetus WILL BECOME a human being separate from the woman in whose body it is gestated. Just like I WILL BECOME a corpse. I like to think I'm not a corpse at present, and that nobody is going to treat me like one.

Isn't, er, human life just the damnedest thing? One minute I'm a human being, next minute I'm a corpse. Except, well, I'm not. Because I'm not. Here. A human being. A corpse. Anything. I'm just not.

A fetus is, but it isn't a human being. Or a corpse. Or a parasite, or an acorn. It's a fetus.

Not everything said or believed by a Canadian or Canadian government is the essence of pure truth and knowledge.

It is not summer in Australia! My office is not painted green! I am not hungry!

So, enough twaddle in aid of nothing for this conversation?

Perhaps you really, really think that someone, maybe me, said that everything said or believed by a Canadian or Canadian government is the essence of pure truth and knowledge. I don't know why you would or how you could, but I don't have perfect knowledge.

What I actually said:

in Canada, THERE ARE NO LEGAL RESTRICTIONS on women's access to abortion.

was in reply to what you said:

And I can tell you right now, that line is not going to be drawn at the extreme, but somewhere in between.

How could you possibly have thought I meant something other than what I said? You made a statement that I knew to be false: that this line you had in mind was not going to be drawn at the "extreme" of there being no legal limitations on access to abortion. I told you that you were wrong. Because you were. It's really very simple.

I also told you that *I* like the way things are here. In case you're confused on the meaning of the statement, it really doesn't mean "everything said or believed by a Canadian or Canadian government is the essence of pure truth and knowledge". What it means, you see, is *I* like the way things are done here. Not relevant to how they're done, just a gratuitous statement of opinion.

But simply being Canadian isn't equivilant with everything and anything that is right and good with the world. So pardon me if I take your national status with a grain of salt when it comes to what you are saying.

Yeah. Pardon me if I take that as some kind of gratuitous insult, even though I can't quite figure out what I'm supposed to be insulted about. Somehow, it seems that my being Canadian makes what I saw unworthy of full consideration by someone in the US ... I dunno. Maybe you have to be there.

Well I'm glad so you've determined for me I have absolutely nothing of substance to contribute to the conversation.

Nah, it looks like you misrepresenting something I said again. What I said was:

Now I guess you can just go back to the sidelines and observe the debate, having apparently nothing to contribute to it yourself.

that being a conclusion based on the evidence: that you have been asked several times to say something other than how offended you are by the allegedly low quality of other people's discourse, and contribute to the discourse yourself by saying something a little more substantive. You still seem unwilling, or unable, to do that. But hey, feel free to fling a little more mud and misrepresentation around.

Should you genuinely wish to engage in discussion of something, you can always indicate it by issuing an invitation in the Choice forum, or joining a discussion there.

[Scout]

299. "You simply cannot deny the fetus has a seperate DNA than the mother."

So fucking what? It's still attached to ME, inside of MY uterus which is inside of ME.

No i don't have to look at it another way, you can say it as many times as you want. There is no way to grant a fetus the rights of human being without infringing on the rights of the pregnant woman.

Biology is not destiny.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

341. I'm not saying the fetus need be granted the same rights as a wholly born human being

I'm merely saying that even within the womb it is a unique and seperate being, and therefore its status is higher than that of a piece of one's own skin tissue. Surely you would agree with this assessment, correct?

Full rights need not be granted, but it is a situation that is far more ethically complex than that of plastic surgery or getting a tattoo, and it demands much greater scrutiny in society.

I'll say the same thing to you as I'll say to any libertarian minded Republican--a society built on "me" and "me" alone is not a functioning society at all.

[Scout]

373. see now you're just being silly.

No, I do no agree with your assessment.

Neither a fetus nor my big toe have any "status."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

377. So what exactly does have status then?

Or is a fetus or your big toe simply non-existant figments of our imagination, like Santa Claus?

Everything that exists has a certain status.

[Scout]

393. see post 318 by iverglas....

here are the most important parts, in my opinion:

I am a human being, I have a human life, I have human rights, and I have interests that are protected by those rights.

A fetus is not a human being. It does not have a human life. It does not have human rights. It does not have interests.

A fetus is a fetus. It isn't a human being, it isn't a body part, it isn't a parasite, it isn't an acorn, it isn't a sperm or an ovum.

A fetus shares some characteristics with all those things, just as I share some characteristics with them. But just as I am not a parasite, even though both I and a parasite have unique DNA, a fetus is not a human being, even though it has a beating heart ... just like a parasite has.

I am a human being, a fetus is a fetus, and a big toe is a big toe.

A fetus isn't "life" because it isn't life, and to assert that it is, is to speak utter nonsense.

[iverglas]

211. nah

The key word there is "linked"

The key word there is "woman". I think you'll find it's a subset of "human being". Just ain't much more "key" than that.


I think if both abortion opponents and abortion rights advocates realized this entirely unique situation and its complex ethical implications ... there'd be a much more rational and reasoned conversation on this difficult subject.

Back at ya, eh?

If buttinskis acknowledged that they know precisely bugger all about the entirely unique situation of every pregnant woman and and the complex emotional, economic, social, physical, etc. etc., implications of the pregnancy for her, and the fact that SHE IS A HUMAN BEING, well, they'd shut the fuck up.

That being the only rational and reasoned kind of conversation that should ever by had by any uninvited third party about any woman's pregnancy. None.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

289. But that argument runs both ways

But the "human being" argument runs both ways. Any abortion opponent will make the exact same statement, except they will state the issue is undisputed because the fetus is a "human being." So essentially, you've got two sides saying the exact same thing, except about the different side of the coin. And that's why we have this ridiculous stalemate that has created two ridiculous labels ("pro-life" and "pro-choice")and creating ridiculous meaningless bumper sticker slogans ("Abortion is murder" and "Keep your laws off my body," for example).

And I don't know, maybe you like the status quo, but I really don't care for a world where people are demonized as being "anti-life" or "anti-choice" due to their position on a single issue. I'd much rather this complex issue get the sensible, rationale and reasonable debate it deserves.

[iverglas]

292. nah

But the "human being" argument runs both ways. Any abortion opponent will make the exact same statement, except they will state the issue is undisputed because the fetus is a "human being."

S/he can also say that the sky is orange. If I disagree, all s/he has to do is say that his/her definition of "orange" is different from mine.

Just as s/he is using a definition of "human being" of his/her own invention when saying "the fetus is a human being".

The sky is orange, a fetus is a human being ... both nonsense.

The mere fact that someone is physically capable of spouting nonsense, and intellectually incapable of realizing that it is nonsense, or morally capable of asserting that nonsense is truth, doesn't change the fact that it is nonsense.

Nor does any of those facts have the slightest effect on anything I, together with and as part of the human group / culture of which I am a member, say is the meaning of words.


So essentially, you've got two sides saying the exact same thing, except about the different side of the coin.

Nah. You've got one side making a statement that is meaningful and, by human consensus on that meaning, correct, and one side spouting nonsense, for whatever reason.


I really don't care for a world where people are demonized as being "anti-life" or "anti-choice" due to their position on a single issue.

Well, I don't know anyone who applies the term "pro-choice" to him/herself or "anti-choice" to someone else who means, by that, that anyone supports or opposes freedom of choice in respect of anything other than pregnancy and reproduction. And my observation has been that anyone pretending to think either term means anything else is just obfuscating. And it isn't people who apply the term "pro-choice" to themselves who do it.

Applying the term "anti-choice" to someone's position in respect of pregnancy and reproduction is not demonization. It is accurate characterization. And that is because the issue is NOT whether abortion is good, or contraception is good, or pregnancy is good, or child-bearing is good, or motherhood is good, it is whether women should be prohibited, by the criminal law, from acting on their own choices, or their ability to act on their choices should be interfered with in any other way by the application of public policy.

One could say "pro-criminalization of abortion". Would the anti-choice prefer that? One might have to extend it; "pro-criminalization of abortion and pro-criminalization of the delivery of hormonal contraception and the implantation of IUDs", maybe. How about "pro-criminalization of exercising reproductive choice in ways we don't like"?

On the other hand, you certainly have a point when it comes to "anti-life", or, say, "pro-abortion". Those are just lies boiled down to their simplest expressions.


I'd much rather this complex issue get the sensible, rationale and reasonable debate it deserves.

Hey, I'd rather you kept your laws off women's bodies. So what's to debate?

If the purpose of this sensible, rational and reasonable debate you propose is to decide whether women should be subject to laws that interfere in their exercise of their own reproductive choices, then it is not sensible, not rational and not reasonable, and your calling it that doesn't make it so, any more than someone's calling the sky orange makes it so.

It is not sensible, rational or reasonable to "debate" whether human beings should be compelled by law to assume risks to their lives and health, and to forego their liberty, against their will, to serve the interests of someone else who has never yet offered the least justification for doing so.

If you think you can advance such justification, or if you can quote justification offered by someone else, and wish to discuss it, you could always feel free to do so, perhaps in the Choice forum. You'll find a thread there that I started, asking what the state's interest is in a woman's pregnancy, that might be of interest.

Unless and until, there's nothing to "debate". Someone who wants to interfere in the exercise of someone else's fundamental rights may propose the interference and must then offer justification for it. Without that, the proposal is just ugly noise, and not fit matter for debate at all.

And me, I just don't feel any need to make nice with people who spew such ugly noise. They want to violate someone's rights, they can do the work. Or suffer the consequences of their own actions: being vilified for advocating the egregious violation of the fundamental human rights of other people for no reason but their own nasty whim. Not my fault if it sounds ugly. It is.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

335. Not exactly sure where to start, but...

1.-2. (Being that technically the sky merely appears blue but is in reality colorless, and can also appear orange at time of sunrise and sunset, but nonetheless I get what your point is.) This is an extremely flawed and incorrect analogy which falsely and automatically assumes a superiority of one argument over the other before a word of debate is uttered. The fact is, like it or not, there is compelling evidence to show that a fetus is a life and body seperate from the mother, that it has its own unique DNA, and it has its own seperate and developing organ and body systems. This well-established fact cannot and should not be thrown into the dustbin as tomfoolery merely because it may be inconvenient towards one's own position. No offense, but when it comes down to either scientific fact versus one's arbitrary position used to fit one's personal convenience, I'm sorry but I'm going to go with the scientific proof. (It is truly--to borrow a term from the great vice president--an "inconvenient truth.") And the scientific proof clearly shows the fetus is at least a developing human life, even if not a fully formed human being living outside the womb. And that distinguishes it from--say--a piece of one's own skin tissue, and means that certain ethical considerations automatically arise where otherwise they would not.

3. I find it humorous that while you take great umbrage at my disparagement of the "choice" term, you are happy to nod in agreement with my likewise disdain of the "life" term. I can only tell you they are one in the same--both shallow, rhetorical devices invented by each side in order to gain a sense of moral superiority over the other side, but accomplishing absolutely nothing.

I can tell you now--and you must agree--there are other "lives" than the "life" of a fetus. And there are other "choices" than the "choice" to have an abortion. The issue at hand is, and will always be about one thing: abortion, and whether it should be considered a legal right or not. Smothering the issue with flowerly language will not serve to do anything but increase hatred and division.

To say that one who opposes abortion--to any varying extent--is automatically opposed to you "choosing" what you want to eat for lunch, or "choosing" what color shirt you want to wear, or "choosing" what type of car you buy, is absolutely and patently absurd. "Pro-choice" might as well be "Pro-puppy" or "Pro-sunshine." It is that intellectually vapid a term, as is "pro-life."

No, this issue is always about abortion. Those who oppose it--to any varying extent--are simply "anti-abortion" or "abortion opponents." Those who support abortion as a legal right are "pro-abortion rights." They may not personally believe that abortion is a good thing, but nonetheless they support it as a legal right. And that's that. No need to muddy up the debate with words which can only be charactarized as being highly overbroad.

4. I think the problem with the argument you make is that you mis-identify the interests at play. The interests are not that of the woman versus the interests of the state, or the interests of the faith system, or even necessarily the interests of the father to a major extent.

No, rather when it comes to the abortion, there are only two key parts of the equation. First interest is that of the woman who must carry the child during pregnancy. And the second interest is that of the developing human life inside of her. And thankfully, most of the time these interests of pregnancy are in harmony--the mother wants to and will carry the child to term, and it is viewed as a wonderful, joyous occassion. But in the unfortunate event where the interests are not in harmony, that is when civilized society (as the collective ethical standard bearer) must step in and weigh and balance the interests for the different scenarios. Certain times the balance may favor the woman; other times the balance may favor the fetus. But it is never a black/white, 100%/0% proposition favoring either woman or fetus.

[Scout]

374. you've revealed your true colors: "one's personal convenience"

you are not worth the time and bandwidth.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

378. I don't even know what you are trying to say here?

Or do you just enjoy being a contrarian, like Christopher Hitchens?

[CreekDog]

388. He/she means because you said abortions can be for personal convenience

That your opinion is not relevant --not because it's false, but because you hold that opinion.

So, my question is, if they won't listen to you because of your statement, why should you listen to them, say for example, when you are voting on abortion?

[iverglas]

387. obviously

Or maybe you just INTEND to go in circles and refuse to acknowledge anything ever said by anyone.


The fact is, like it or not, there is compelling evidence to show that a fetus is a life and body seperate from the mother, that it has its own unique DNA, and it has its own seperate and developing organ and body systems.

This will be about the 28th time you've said this. I have yet to fathom why you are saying it. Perhaps you could start there. Step outside the circle you are trying so hard to keep intact, and tell me why you are saying this.

Perhaps it will help if I respond to it with a question. Here it is: So what?

In the world we live in, human beings have rights. Lives do not have rights, bodies do not have rights, DNA does not have rights, organ systems do not have rights.

So why are you talking about them? Just start there, if you would.


(Being that technically the sky merely appears blue but is in reality colorless, and can also appear orange at time of sunrise and sunset, but nonetheless I get what your point is.) This is an extremely flawed and incorrect analogy which falsely and automatically assumes a superiority of one argument over the other before a word of debate is uttered.

Well kudos to you for not pretending not to get the point, although not resisting the urge to bring it up loses marks.

Is "the sky is blue" an argument? Is it an argument "superior" to "the sky is orange"? Do I have a clue what you are trying to say? No, mu and no. (Mu to the second because it contains the false premise that "the sky is orange" is an argument.)

"A fetus is not a human being", likewise, is not an argument. It is a statement made using words and a noun phrase that have meanings.

How about "a chair is not a human being"? Argument, or statement of fact? How do you know that a chair is not a human being, by the way? Could it be because the term "human being" has a meaning, and refers to a particular class of things, and a chair does not fall within that class?

Do you know someone who truly believes that a fetus IS a human being?? A society where there is consensus on that belief, which organizes its affairs to include it? A society where fetuses have and exercise human rights, and where the rules that apply to human beings -- in respect both of what they may do and what may be done to them -- are applied to fetuses? Have you given thought to what such a society would look like? You'll have to use your imagination; there never has been one, and there isn't one now.

So you seem (to me, and I could well be wrong) to be wanting to create a new class of things. Sorta human beings. Partial human beings. Human beings when it's convenient for someone. That reminds me of something. I do believe that in societies that have practised slavery, for instance, slaves could be punished for wrongdoing, just like human beings, and yet could not act on their own choices in certain regards, just like, oh, cows. Is a fetus more like a human being, or more like a cow?

But hey, why not just TELL US? What IS a fetus, in relation to "human being"? Per you.


I find it humorous that while you take great umbrage at my disparagement of the "choice" term, you are happy to nod in agreement with my likewise disdain of the "life" term.

I really couldn't care less what you disparage or disdain. Blind pigs, stopped clocks. My own positions exist entirely independently of whether YOU agree with them or not.


I can tell you now--and you must agree--there are other "lives" than the "life" of a fetus. And there are other "choices" than the "choice" to have an abortion.

You'd have a point on that first one, except that you know as I do that the anti-choice brigade isn't actually saying "pro-life of a fetus". They are saying "pro-life as distinct from people who are not pro-life, which means they must be pro-death, which is icky".

And hey, if you really want to keep up the charade that anyone who chooses the term "pro-choice" is attempting to imply that someone else opposes some kind of choice OTHER THAN women's choice in respect of pregnancy, well, feel free. But it's you doing it, not anybody else, so wear the disingenuous nonsense proudly, but keep it away from me.

I am NOT pro-choice when it comes to every possible one of the infinite number of choices human beings can make. I have never presented myself as being that. And I object strenuously to anyone who attempts to appropriate the term "pro-choice" and apply it to any position on any other issue, because that is mere sleight of word and a poor substitute for reason and candour in civil discourse. And I have never said or suggested or implied or insinuated that anyone who is "anti-choice" is opposed to freedom of choice on any issue other than this.


No, this issue is always about abortion. Those who oppose it--to any varying extent--are simply "anti-abortion" or "abortion opponents."

And I care no more whether someone is "anti-abortion" or an "abortion opponent" than I care what his/her position on the advisability of eating pizza for breakfast is.

This issue is NOT EVER about abortion. It is about USING THE CRIMINAL LAW AND ANY OTHER MEANS OF COERCION / DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE TO THE STATE TO DENY WOMEN ACCESS TO ABORTION.

That's what it's about. And you know it.

Those who support abortion as a legal right are "pro-abortion rights." They may not personally believe that abortion is a good thing, but nonetheless they support it as a legal right.

No, they do not. They do not "support it as a legal right". They support the legal right to abortion. Nice try.

More accurately, actually, the "pro-choice" oppose the violation of that right, or in the phrasing I prefer, oppose the unjustified interference in the exercise of that right.

Because IT IS a right. The issue is whether the exercise of the right may and will be fettered by laws imposing criminal sanctions on those who exercise it.


First interest is that of the woman who must carry the child during pregnancy. And the second interest is that of the developing human life inside of her.

Like I said, try a dictionary. A law dictionary, preferably. Asserting an interest does not create an interest.

And chanting "the developing human life" over and over doesn't actually do anything but make you look like a member of the anti-choice choir. Have you tried broadening your repertoire? Orwell has a few you might like.

[GoneOffShore]

129. Encouraged, yes. Legally mandated - NO!

[lapislzi]

131. Happened to someone I know

His wife became pregnant, didn't tell him, had an abortion. He was livid--he would have wanted her to carry the pregnancy to term. Their marriage ended soon after. He still hasn't gotten over it...we have arguments regularly because he thinks "paternal rights" should be legislated, a position with which I strongly disagree.

My comment was that there had to have been something *seriously* wrong with his marriage before the pregnancy if his wife felt she could not discuss this issue with him. Ya think?

[Colorado Progressive]

147. Yep. Thats a freaky and sad story. Something was very wrong nt

[stirlingsliver]

135. Yes

Yes, your view on abortion is really -- REALLY -- misogynist.

You say "It's best if a woman" blah blah blah.

THAT statment right there (in which you -- a MAN -- determine what "is best" for a woman) is misogynist.

Women are quite capable of deciding what "is best" on their own.

[The Straight Story]

144. Well, I think that analysis is a tad overkill

The ideal behind it is - if party X and party got involved together in something, and party X has something that occurred to X which MAY alter the course of Y's life and/or X's wife - should X discuss with Y this event, or handle said event alone and never let Y know about (at least until after the fact).

This could apply in many situations - if a man finds out he has Chlamydia while apart from his partner, and they get back together, then clears it up with antibiotics while they are still together but before they have sex would fit the scenario as well.

The scenario can be used in many places, and I think the answer depends on each individual and their dynamics.

So some may say "It is best if party X gives Y a heads up since they are collaborating, but it should not be required since Y is not the one who has to make the decision on how X is going to handle it. Working together means sharing information that can potentially affect both parties, while not required it is in good form - but since all situations are different, leave it up to X to decide"

[stirlingsliver]

157. Blah Blah Blah

Party X and Party Y. If.....some may say......blah, blah, blah.

So many words strung together.

Women decide what is best for them.

NOT men who "think" they know what is best.

Women.

PERIOD.

[iverglas]

162. now now ;)

Don't be knocking Party X and Party Y and all the words ......... unless somebody is using them to obfuscate. ;)

But yeah, it really is simple.

Women decide what is best for them.
NOT men who "think" they know what is best.

That simple. And it doesn't matter how indirect the interference is, when it involves someone thinking he knows better than the woman who is the target of his, er, concern, about something that is personal to her that he really knows nothing about and about which his comment has not been invited, he's an interfering busybody acting in his own interests, not hers.

Q.: isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?
A.: NO.

Someone who says it's best to suggest that women do, er, Thing X or Thing Y, in respect of her how to decide what to do about her own pregnancy, is just backing his paternalistic bullshit a step up the ladder of interference from telling her what she should do about the pregnancy itself.

It's still paternalistic bullshit and it's still interference, whether it's "you should not have an abortion", "you should consider not having an abortion" or "you should tell your other half you're going to have an abortion so you can see how he feels about you having an abortion".

What any woman does in this situation is still NOT ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS unless they're invited, and the fact that anyone thinks it's his business, for the obvious reason that he thinks any woman who hasn't asked for his "suggestions" in this matter needs them anyway, is misogynistic.

[CreekDog]

355. I see a pattern in your posts, a consistent pattern...

of level-headedness!

[CreekDog]

224. You're response is sexist

Because you are saying that he cannot suggest his opinion about what a "hypothetical" woman should do BECAUSE HE IS A MAN. Meaning that it would be okay for another women to offer her suggestion.

Sexist, sexist, sexist.

And people can say anything they want.

And frankly, any person, male or female, that didn't see a pregnancy as any concern of the other spouse, will probably make a crappy parent, although that would not justify an abortion either.

[iverglas]

250. hey, at least it's spelled properly

edited - in response to wrong thing

[stirlingsliver]

293. More Blah Blah Blah

Your response is just more blah blah blah........

You do say something, though that rings true:

"And people can say anything they want".

And people DO say anything they want.

In fact, some people say really silly things.

Like: "Because you are saying that he cannot suggest his opinion about what a "hypothetical" woman should do BECAUSE HE IS A MAN. Meaning that it would be okay for another women to offer her suggestion."

Silly. Silly. Silly.

A nice attempt to twist what I did, in fact, say.

But still silly.

[mikelgb]

142. it should not like be the law

but I don't think it is unreasonable to encourage women to consult with the father of the child if they feel it is safe

it is perfectly ok to feel it is "best" to be able to consult with the father on such an important decision.

[Karenina]

201. This entire discussion of what WOMEN "should" do

is paternalistic and misogynist and ignores some men's predisposition to controlling behaviours that too often put a woman and the contents of her uterus in mortal danger.

If a woman does not disclose a pregnancy to the one who impregnated her, SHE HAS A REASON FOR DOING SO whatever it might be. It's NOBODY'S BIDNESS but her own.

My ex figured out I was pregnant BEFORE I DID. Such things happen when a relationship is in its "working well" phase. We discussed EVERYTHING and I brought the pregnancy to term. The rest is history.

Would, should, could...

I would encourage any woman facing the prospect of bringing another human life into this world to THINK and FEEL carefully.

She should think of HERSELF FIRST. NO ONE ELSE WILL.

She could discuss her circumstances or not. HER CHOICE.

[CreekDog]

223. the counterpoint that men should stay out of it

is equally offensive.

[Karenina]

225. When men are being menschen

the question is moot.

[piedmont]

143. She should be able to do what she wants with her body, and...

the would-be father ought to know, at least after the fact, so he can decide whether he wants to continue the relationship, especially if they're married. All bets are off in the case of couples with a history of domestic violence, though.

[THUNDER HANDS]

148. in all honesty, you should always ask a woman her views on abortion

before you have sex with her.

[KiraBS]

154. Disscussion is fine but the decison that is made has to be

respected. I look at it from the other way around. I become pregnant and my partner was the one that wanted me to have the abortion, I would not, I would chose to have the child alone because I personally would never have an abortion. That is my view and nobody could change that.
Those that chose to have an abortion may have doubts and anxieties but they often know in their hearts that is what they have to do. If it is a steady relationship she may discuss it and if it is healthy or economic reasons maybe a partner can see the way to have the baby, if deep down that is what the woman wants. But if the decision is to have an abortion, discussion will not stop it, either support her or get out of the way, there are people that will support her.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

155. depends on the situation. what if the other half is abusive? i cant help thinking about godfather

when kate aborted michaels baby.

edited: to discuss is one thing. to legislate discussion is misogyny.

[OnionPatch]

158. As long as you're not advocating that be the law

then I basically agree with your opinion. I believe a woman in a normal, healthy relationship should talk the decision over with her husband/sig-other. But that's just a personal opinion, in line with my general opinion that couples should be forthright and truthful to each other. I can also think of many situations where it would not be desirable or in a woman's best interest for the man to know about her pregnancy. In any case, I would vehemently oppose any law that forced a woman to inform the man. It would be similar to my beliefs about a lot of moral issues, like adultery....I may believe adultery is wrong, but definitely don't want laws against it or the government legislating any of our interpersonal behavior.

[Perry Logan]

161. Surveying all these interesting posts, it looks like few at DU think your view is misogynist.

It's so nice to see people discussing abortion without going off their chumps. Good show of sanity for DU.

Just to report: as of this writing, only one or two writers have argued that the OP's viewpoint was misogynistic. So I guess he walks.

I would have expected more harsh criticisms, given how the topic inflames people so much.

[wicket]

257. But the real question is....

....is th right still on the run?

:P

[CreekDog]

354. good point, thanks for counting those up

I feel better already.

Yes, seriously.

[iverglas]

395. "only one or two writers have argued that the OP's viewpoint was misogynistic."

So I guess he walks.

Yup. And OJ didn't do it.

[yella_dawg]

171. Silly Rabbit!

The father is only important when the child support check is due.

Geeze!

[Scout]

180. just for the sake of argument....

let's say some pregnant woman DOES discuss the pregnancy and whether or not to terminate it with her "sperm donor" and they disagree.

it's ultimately her choice, so she decides to terminate and now he's all pissed off and wants to try to stop her ... what was the point of discussing it with him in the first place? why not just terminate the pregnancy and go on with their lives?

or

it's ultimately her choice, so she decides to continue the pregnancy and keep the child and he's all pissed off and wants to try to make her abort because he doesn't want to pay child support, or just doesn't want to be a father ... what was the point of discussing it with him in the first place? why not just continue the pregnancy and tell him he's going to be a father?

i think ALL pregnant women are smart enough and know that they have an option to discuss the pregnancy with the sperm donor ... it is INSULTING to suggest that someone else needs to suggest this to her.

if you "suggested" it to me, you better duck.

[Bridget Burke]

181. Most women in a good relationship will discuss things with the potential father.

Whether or not you approve. It's not your problem.

However, it might be a good idea for you to discuss these matters with your sex parters. Before you fuck them.

[stirlingsliver]

187. WTF????!!!

"Most women in a good relationship will discuss things with the potential father."

I can't believe I am seeing this on DU.

Most women in "good" relationships will discuss blah blah blah.......

So, from your lofty perch, does that mean that women who do NOT discuss "things" with the potential father are in "bad" relationships????

You make it sound like only disfunctional women in "bad" relationships are strong enough to decide things on their own -- without discussing "things" with a man.

[Toasterlad]

190. Well,

If a woman doesn't want to discuss the fact that she's pregnant with the man who made her pregnant, yes, I'd say she's in a bad relationship.

[polichick]

204. If a woman in a "good relationship" doesn't discuss it with the father...

It may be that she's not ready to settle down and is afraid he'd pressure her.

[stirlingsliver]

208. Or It Could Just Be....

Or it could just be that she is strong, sure of herself and of her ability to make her own decisions without seeing any need to "consult" with a man.

In which case, she would likely conclude that it is HER decision to make -- independently and confidently.

Edited to add: Strong, confident women capable of independent decision-making do not fear pressure. They know that they can stand up to pressure from men.

[polichick]

212. Well, it is ultimately HER decision...

Men can protect themselves by wearing condoms, choosing their partners wisely and being the kind of sweet loving creatures who will naturally be trusted to be part of such an important decision ~ but I do think MOST women choose to discuss it with the father, and rightly so. (Women who see men as the enemy shouldn't be having sex with them.)

[Toasterlad]

229. "Women who see men as the enemy shouldn't be having sex with them."

THANK you.

I can't for the life of me figure out why so many people feel the father has no right to be even NOTIFIED about the pregnancy. I guess it's cool for him to go out and sleep with someone else and not tell his girlfriend/wife; after all, he's intelligent enough that he doesn't need her input on every decision. Or say he hated his wife's mother; it would be totally cool for him to take the urn off the mantle, dump the ashes in the trash, and refill it with half a dozen or so ashtrays. After all, he's capable of making his own decisions, right? And she'd never know the difference, right?

Shit like this would make me gay, if I weren't already.

[iverglas]

249. well jeeeeeze

I can't for the life of me figure out why so many people feel the father has no right to be even NOTIFIED about the pregnancy.

Could it maybe be BECAUSE HE DOESN'T? That would be part of why no law that required a woman to inform her partner of her pregnancy would ever make it over the threshold.

If you think someone has a "right" to know something, why the hell not just TELL HIM, instead of "suggesting" that someone else do it?

That, of course, being the fine idea that is actually the subject of this thread ...


I guess it's cool for him to go out and sleep with someone else and not tell his girlfriend/wife; after all, he's intelligent enough that he doesn't need her input on every decision.

Well, I guess you must've lost yer marbles. You've certainly lost the thread of the conversation.

Are you saying that a man should discuss with his partner whether or not to commit adultery?? Or just that it would be a good idea for everyone and its dog to "suggest" that he do so???

That, of course, being the nature of the fine idea that is actually the subject of this thread ...


Or say he hated his wife's mother; it would be totally cool for him to take the urn off the mantle, dump the ashes in the trash, and refill it with half a dozen or so ashtrays.

Lordy; we're going right off the deep end here, are we?

You seem to be trying to say that a man's opinion about having his mother-in-law's ashes on the mantel is somehow analogous to a woman's opinion about whether to devote her body and life to a pregnancy she doesn't want ...

Or maybe you're saying that a pregnancy is equivalent to some ashes in an urn ...


Shit like this would make me gay, if I weren't already.

Yeah. Shit like this would make me have contempt for gay men, if I were prone to bigotry.

Lucky for the world at large, and gay men in particular, that I'm not. But that doesn't mean that I won't say that I find the notion of a gay man claiming to know better than a pregnant woman what she "should" do in respect of her own pregnancy and her own relationship to be beyond offensive in the extreme.

[Toasterlad]

291. Self Delete. I Forgot I Promised Myself Not To Respond to This Person.

[iverglas]

294. do you even notice what you type?

Your claim was that a man had a RIGHT to be informed, not that a woman had a "moral responsibility" to inform him.

Please do forgive me for addressing what you wrote, and not what you wish you had written or imagined that what you wrote meant that it didn't mean.

The fact that you can't see that a woman has a moral responsibility to tell a man she's pregnant is ...

Just another egregiously false statement for which you have no evidence and which you have no other reason to believe is true.

Now, if you want to pick out a particular woman to be this "a woman" of yours, and tell me every single fact of her life and her relationship with this "a man" of yours, maybe I could tell you whether I think she has some moral responsibility to blah blah blah.

The problem is that I still wouldn't tell you whether I thought she had some moral responsibility to blah blah blah, because IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Quite apart from the fact that there is no real breathing woman of whose life and relationship you have perfect knowledge so that we could be discussing her moral responsibilities or lack thereof in the first place.

You read that post here that I recommended yet? You or anyone else -- ever going to address it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1664471&mesg_id=1674417

There we have an apparently true case, and a fair bit of detail.

Won't you give us your righteous judgment as to what that woman's moral responsibility was?


You obviously have zero respect for men. And I have none for you.

And I give not a pinch of shit that someone with so little respect for truth and for other human beings would say this or anything at all.

[CreekDog]

221. You are missing the point about the decision

Talking to the other partner about the decision is not tantamount to admitting weakness or the lack of ability to make this decision on her own, but in fact, a recognition of the relationship the two partners have.

She absolutely can be strong, capable, mature, responsible, able to care for the child on her own and be an excellent mother on her own without the father AND at the same time, it is still appropriate and proper to discuss, decide and work together on the pregnancy and child.

You are turning this into a mutually exclusive argument, which it is not.

[stirlingsliver]

236. No, I Am Not

Thanks for your observation about me.

You know, the one where you said that I am "missing the point".

Despite your observation, I am not missing the point.

What I am objecting to is the notion, expressed by several posters here, that in order to have a "good" relationship, a woman "should" discuss whether or not to have an abortion with the person who deposited his sperm in her.

My point is that a woman can have a "good" relationship -- even a loving and natural and healthy and wholesome relationship -- and still decide not to discuss abortion with the person who deposited his sperm in her.

And my further point is that, at bottom, it is NO FUCKING BUSINESS of the person who deposited his sperm. He gets NO VOTE and NO VOICE in the decision.

And I will argue against ANY effort that suggests that women who correctly decide that their "guy" has NO BUSINESS in making the decision are somehow deficient when it comes to relationships.

[iverglas]

248. they try so very hard, don't they?

And still they are going all naked ...

Sure are a lot of people who are awfully eager to join in the parade to tell women what to do, and they do make an admirable effort to dress the ugly things they're saying up in some mighty fine shit, eh?


HE SAID THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES ON

[CreekDog]

312. I was talking about having a partner or spouse (and it would be their business)

If you are just talking about a "fling" and you have a child as a result, please tell me what you will tell your child about who their father is.

I'm all ears.

[Name removed]

326. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

336. You didn't answer the question

What will you tell the child when they ask who their father is?

And in the process of ignoring my question, you made your previously fairly ridiculous statements even more so by saying that in a partnership or marriage, that it's none of the other partners business if there is a pregnancy.

Is it none of the other partner's business if the man has had a vasectomy? If the man has a heart condition, if the man takes viagra, if the man has 3 ex wives? Is that any of her business?

The reason none of my posts are sexist is that I think that this type of information should not be kept secret by the man or woman from the other partner.

[stirlingsliver]

389. Medical Decisions Are NOT The Business of Anyone Else

Until and unless someone gives over the right to make medical decisions to someone else, a medical decision that someone makes is NO ONE else's business.

If someone has a heart condition and decides to keep that information to him/herself, then it is NO ONE else's business.

If someone decides to take viagra (or, for that matter, any other medication), it is no one else's business (besides the physician that prescribed it and the pharmacist that filled it).

Your question about ex-wives is not about anything medical. It's just silly. (Can I say something is silly without having it deleted??)

To respond to your question about children, I believe the best thing to do when responding to questions from children is to answer them directly. (I trust you understand).

I would therefore answer questions about who their father is by telling them who their father is.

I trust this post answers your questions directly.

[MissB]

247. Speaking from the point of my own marriage...

Dh and I view our marriage as a partnership. We discussed abortion and pregnancy and child rearing as two people committed to each other and in love enough to consider each others' feelings.

I would wonder about the strength of a relationship of a woman and a man - married or not - who didn't feel like abortion/pregnancy was a topic to dicuss together.

[stirlingsliver]

295. Well, Bully For You!

Well, isn't that just so very special?

The part about how Dh and you view your marriage as a partnership and how you discuss abortion and pregnancy blah blah blah di blah blah blah.

So, Bully for You and Dh.

But you sort of lost me when you said that you "would wonder about the strength of a relationship of a woman and a man - married or not - who didn't feel like abortion/pregnancy was a topic to dicuss together."

I would wonder about anyone who attempts to project her own experience onto ANYONE else.

[iverglas]

302. did you read post 49?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1664471&mesg_id=1674417

I just keep wondering why all these people who have so many opinions about everybody else's morality and intelligence just don't seem to want to address that one.

I wanna hear their judgments. But it seems I'm doomed to be unsatisfied.

[MissB]

321. Thanks!

Marriage is definitely a partnership. But then again, so is any committed relationship.

I have no idea what gender you are or whether you've ever been in a serious relationship. I have no idea if you've ever wanted to be pregnant or have been pregnant.

To a woman like me - who has been through more than 15 years with the same person - it sounds like you may have never had the experience of what a committed relationship brings to your life. Although no relationship is perfect, a decent relationship generally involves both partners communicating about important things going on in their lives. Secrecy and seclusion tend to be relationship-killers.

It doesn't matter if we're talking about money, careers or pregnancy/abortion. Talking about important events is what helps make a relationship strong.

That isn't the same as asking a man's permission on anything. You seem to not be able to grasp that concept.

Best of luck to you in whatever you go through in life with or without a partner.

[iverglas]

324. charming

it sounds like you may have never had the experience of what a committed relationship brings to your life.

... You seem to not be able to grasp that concept.

... and a few other things insinuated rather than stated ...


You really should have stopped at the "I have no idea". You're right. You have no idea.

And yet, your lack of an idea just didn't stop you from making claims about the very person about whom you have no idea. Nasty claims. Insulting claims. Very likely false claims. Certainly claims for which you have no evidence.


And there are people who really don't grasp the reason why anyone would object to the notion that it is a good idea for them to "suggest" anything at all to anyone, let alone to a pregnant woman.

Res ipsa loquitur, I say.

One of those no-comment-needed things.

[MissB]

327. Eh.

Try not commenting next time, then. :hi:

[stirlingsliver]

332. Please Don't Patronize Me

I can always tell when someone is trying to patronize me.

I can always tell when someone is saying to me "I'm Better Than You".

It usually sound somewhat like this:

"To a woman like me - who has been through more than 15 years with the same person - it sounds like you may have never had the experience of what a committed relationship brings to your life. Although no relationship is perfect, a decent relationship generally involves both partners communicating about important things going on in their lives. Secrecy and seclusion tend to be relationship-killers."

I frankly have zero interest in how long your relationships have lasted, or what any particular experience may have enhanced your life.

And I have likewise zero interest in being told by someone what a "decent" relationship does or does not consist of.

See if YOU can try to grasp THOSE concepts.

And I'll do just fine without your patronizing wishes for the "Best of Luck" in whatever I happen to go through in life.

[MissB]

334. You've missed the point so many times on this thread.

I'm not at all shocked by your reply. You can't seem to grasp that women can be in a committed relationship, happy, and share important decisions with their partners. It doesn't diminish their feminism or identity in any way. It doesn't remove the choice from their hands. It doesn't give ownership of their body to their partners.

I do wish you the best of luck. Given your viewpoint on relationships, you seem like you'll need it. :hi:

[iverglas]

385. that's a really funny one

coming from someone who refuses to acknowledge that THE ACTUAL POINT of the opening post was that pregnant women need someone to inform them that it would be "best" for them to discuss their decisions about their pregnancy with their partner (again, used loosely or tightly, meant to cover all situations).

If pregnant women didn't need someone to do that, why would someone ask:

isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

Why would that be a good idea, for a woman such as yourself in that blissful harmonious idyll of mutual respect and adoration that you live in? Why would you need someone to give you that suggestion?

Maybe because you're a half-wit? a psychopath? I have no reason to think you are -- so I would certainly never presume to "suggest" how you should organize your intimate affairs.

I would assume that if you choose not to inform your partner about your pregnancy decisions (if that is the case), you have good reason for that decision. Maybe something like what was described in post 49. Read it yet?

I certainly would not presume to think that I know better than you what you "should" do in the situation. And I'll bet you wouldn't want me to act on any such presumption, should I harbour one.


I dunno though. When you say things to a stranger that look like:

You can't seem to grasp that women can be in a committed relationship, happy, and share important decisions with their partners.

one is tempted to reconsider the assessment. It strikes me that only a half-wit would believe that, because it is false on its face, and only a psychopath would say it if s/he didn't believe it, because only psychopaths make ugly allegations they know to be false against perfect strangers. But I'm always open to other suggestions. Maybe you can explain why you'd believe it. Maybe you can explain why you'd say it if you don't believe it. Maybe something else. I wouldn't know.

Damn, though ...

Given your viewpoint on relationships, you seem like you'll need it.

... the questions just won't go away ...

[stirlingsliver]

390. I Said "Please" Earlier.

I said "Please Do Not Patronize Me" earlier.

And what do I get in return?

More patronizing!.

Let me try this:

Do Not F*****g Patronize Me.

"You can't seem to grasp that women can be in a committed relationship, happy, and share important decisions with their partners."

I do not know what I have written anywhere on this thread that would lead you to such a totally erroneous conclusion.

Because I have written no such thing.

What I have said is that women can be in committed, healthy, good, sincere, respectful relationships, and can be totally natural and complete, and make decisions for themselves without "sharing" those decisions -- or the processes leading to those decisions -- with anyone else, including their "guy", or their "partner", or their "spouse". What I have said is that women who in fact choose to make those decisions on their own can (and are) in good relationships.

I have said that in several posts to this thread.

Yet you, intent on patronizing me (and, I suspect, intent on demonstrating how wonderful you are for having such fabulous "committed, happy, sharing" relationships", berate and patronize me.

You have one paradigm for happiness -- your own.

I'm glad you have found happiness your way.

I jush that you could allow others to find happiness in their own way instead of prattling on about what "happy" and "good" women "should" do when making their decisions.

And once again, I do not need any patroninzing f*****g wishes for good luck from you.

[CreekDog]

222. It is your problem if you created a baby during the act

Unless you are God and therefore have the authority to let the man off the hook and dictate that the woman is 100% responsible.

I thought we were trying to get men TO TAKE RESONSIBILITY.

How ridiculous this thread has gotten.

[iverglas]

252. maybe you need some coffee,

maybe you need new glasses, maybe you need to exhibit some respect for the people whom you are addressing.

When the poster whom you are addressing here said "it's not your problem", SHE was addressing the author of the opening post. She was explaining to HIM, in simple terms, that whether a woman chooses to discuss her pregnancy with her partner is not a matter of concern to HIM, the author of the opening post. It's not HIS problem.

When you say "It is your problem if you created a baby during the act", well, one really just has no clue whom you imagine you are addressing, and about what, but it looks damned rude all the same.


Unless you are God and therefore have the authority to let the man off the hook and dictate that the woman is 100% responsible.

I dunno. Perhaps a little less of some beverage other than coffee is in order. Wouldn't you like to be seen at least trying to make sense?

[CreekDog]

271. I disagree with you

And I didn't misunderstand the point, I took issue with it in very strong terms.

If a woman is a worthy partner, she will discuss her pregnancy with her partner (unless there is some exceptional reason why not). A woman who thinks it may not be her partner's business that she is pregnant is not worth marrying or having as a partner. Further a man who thinks it's none of his business whether his partner is pregnant is not worth marrying either.

There. Since you don't seem to believe I can think what I think and be thinking straight, I repeated it for you.

Further, it's ironic that you said I should have some respect --you showed none mr/mrs coffee monger.

[iverglas]

274. no, you just blatted out an opinion

If a woman is a worthy partner, she will discuss her pregnancy with her partner (unless there is some exceptional reason why not).

Your opinion, about women in general and some woman you don't know in particular.

Shit. Sewage.

A woman who thinks it may not be her partner's business that she is pregnant is not worth marrying or having as a partner.

Ditto. Shit. Sewage. Vile filth. Gratuitous opinion about nothing, spewed solely for the purpose of saying rude and ugly things about women.

There. Since you don't seem to believe I can think what I think and be thinking straight, I repeated it for you.

Oh. Yeah. That. Helped.

Not you, sadly.

Further, it's ironic that you said I should have some respect --you showed none mr/mrs coffee monger.

No irony here. I don't respect anyone who speaks about women as you have been doing.

And the cherry on the icing on the cake -- why the hell, if I am a woman, would you assume I have no name of my own and have felt it necessary to acquire the name of some man to whom I have attached myself, and then address me based on that unwarranted and rude assumption?

"Mrs." Lordy, lordy.

[CreekDog]

308. Maybe you should LAY OFF THE COFFEE

And my comments don't apply to all women, they apply the limited circumstances I raised.

And ask most men or women out there if a pregnancy is the spouse's or partner's business and most of them will say yes.

[CreekDog]

311. Also, you ignored my statements about what men should do as well

And by leaving those out, you misconstrue my post to make it sound sexist.

But it's par for the course.

[iverglas]

322. that would be because

I don't give a crap what you say about what men should do. No more than I give a crap what you say about what women should do. Might that have been obvious?

The discussion here, as initiated by the opening post, happens to be about what women "should" do. You could always start your own thread if you want to discuss something else.


So, read post 49 yet? No judgment to offer? I thought this was all about judgments, and I just don't know why so many people are so reluctant to pass 'em when the opportunity arises.

[NashVegas]

192. No, But It *May* Be Naive

In cases where the woman has already made her decision to abort, it may indeed be best to not discuss it.

If he gets that penis enlargement, it IS going to affect her. If she has an abortion he doesn't know about, it's not going to affect him.

[Bjornsdotter]

197. Short answer

...hell yes.

[polichick]

200. imo the decision is ultimately up to the woman...

But most women in loving respectful relationships will naturally discuss it with their guys.

[stirlingsliver]

205. Oh, No!

"But most women in loving respectful relationships will naturally discuss it with their guys"

So I guess that strong women who are quite able to make decisions on their own -- without "discussing it with their guys" are:

1. Unloving

or

2. Disrespectful.

or

3. Freaks of Nature.

Like I said earlier, I can't believe I'm seeing this on DU!!

[polichick]

207. I gave you an example above...

Hadn't seen that exchange before I posted here.

[CreekDog]

220. Yes, something is wrong if the woman gets pregnant

And considers it none of the father's business or concern.

Just because you have a legal right to make your own decision, doesn't mean that you are morally right in doing so.

[stirlingsliver]

239. ROTFLMAO!!!

"Yes, something is wrong if the woman gets pregnant"

Stop. You're making me laugh!

'...And considers it none of the father's business or concern"

I can't stop laughing. You are really quite funny.

"Just because you have a legal right to make your own decision, doesn't mean that you are morally right in doing so."

OMG. What a comedian! Stop it! I'm rolling on the floor laughing my ass off.

[CreekDog]

310. I was taking issue with opinions on this thread

And I was surprised to see them stated so plainly.

[stirlingsliver]

328. I See

So you were "taking issue" with "opinions" on this thread.

And you were "surprised" to see them stated so plainly.

Still, the way you took issue really --REALLY -- made me laugh.

[CreekDog]

344. Ignorance is bliss my friend

So, keep laughing.

[CreekDog]

219. You (the man) should be open with your spouse

But it's none of your business if they are pregnant.

At least if I got my morals from this thread.

============

Absolutely the pregnancy is a topic that both partners in a marriage should discuss fully, openly and make decisions together on. That is the default. The exception is done only when extraordinary circumstances mean that the information can't be shared, but this is the exception.

If you're going to bother being married or make a child with another person, you should want them to be involved with that decision and you should want that person to want to be involved with the decision.

It would be a curse to be married to someone who takes a hands-off approach to a pregnancy.

[bridgit]

230. It's not unreasonable to conclude that others may be concerned for the welfare...

of the child.

[stirlingsliver]

238. Child?

Excuse me, but there is no "child" to be concerned about here.

The OP concerns a possible discussion about having an abortion.

[bridgit]

243. And then what is 'it' that is to be aborted?

There's a case in recent memory, where a young woman had a abortion so as to fit into her prom dress. Oh sure, it was her decision to make. But it's time to lend reason to that what is reasonable.

[iverglas]

254. no, really; what it's time for

is people to withdraw their noses from other people's business.

You can start the movement, if you like.


There's a case in recent memory, where a young woman had a abortion so as to fit into her prom dress.

Oh; is there really ...

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/11/0080278

American law doesn't require specific reasons. From time to time, for rhetorical purposes, the prom-dress girl is invoked—a fictional teenager who has suddenly decided she's too pregnant for her formal and walks into a clinic at twenty-eight weeks demanding to have it taken care of. Nobody has ever produced an actual prom-dress girl; the point about the prom-dress girl is theoretical, and in a theoretical way it is true: under Roe, and under Casey, in the unlikely event that the prom-dress girl were able to find a suitably cooperative doctor, she too would theoretically be able to claim a legal right to abortion—a constitutionally protected “right to choose.”

But it's time to lend reason to that what is reasonable.

I'm not quite sure what that's intended to mean, but it sounds like some advice you might want to take.

[bridgit]

260. hahahahaha, ding! and you can break it down Barney Style for people just like you...

you haven't even asked if i agree with 'choice', which i do, offering instead a litany of links to Harper's :rofl: and words quoted back to my self as though there has been some unencumbered Atticus Fitch spasm spoken within an argument that does not even exist what a loon!! no truly, i mean it, get a grip :eyes:

[iverglas]

261. good lord

Did you fall into a dictionary and become unable to get up??

A cloo for yoo: words mean things. Unlike your post.


And when what yours mean is vile false things, people sometimes notice.

You can "agree with 'choice'" all you like; your words were still vile and false.

[bridgit]

262. of course words mean things, they possess a specific gravity, which is why...

you should consider coming up with some of your very own...give it a try see how it goes: "vile and false" are themselves slurs, and mere canards

[iverglas]

263. ah, mais si tu commences à parler français

ça va finir mal pour toi.

"vile and false" are themselves slurs

Actually, they're adjectives. One represents an assessment that, while subjective, can be a subject of broad consensus; the other represents an objective assessment, which could of course be demonstrably accurate or inaccurate itself.

Your claim about the prom-dress girl abortion was both. Vile and false.

Feel free to offer some facts to refute that assessment, or argument to defeat it.

Or keep quacking. Me, I go to eat supper.

[bridgit]

264. merci...

[in_cog_ni_to]

268. "it" = ZYGOTE

definition: An early stage in the development of a fertilized egg.
boards.webmd.com/content/article/73/88004.htm

[bridgit]

269. agreed...

[DemBones DemBones]

240. No.

But a lot of people here seem to think abortion should be mandatory unless the mother is one of us bizarre women who:

actually wanted to get pregnant every time and/or

accepted unplanned pregnancy(ies) because we love our husbands/partners, and love children,

likes being pregnant (despite morning sickness, swollen ankles, backaches),

and wants to give birth to and raise her child(ren.)


It's not easy being a pro-life Democrat at DU, to say the least.

[Sparkly]

244. Wow.

:wow:

[iverglas]

258. yeah, eh?

You stick around long enough, you think you've seen everything ... and then the sewers back up ...

[iverglas]

256. isn't lying an un-Christian thing to do?

I'm just asking for your general guidance on that point, y'know. I thought maybe the Pope might have had something to say on the question that you could tell us about.


But a lot of people here seem to think abortion should be mandatory unless ...

Maybe you could write to ol' Ratzenburger and ask him what he thinks of that statement. Send him the whole thread, and ask him for his opinion about the truthfulness of the claim, and about the ethics of someone who would make it.

Truly, I want to know the answer.


It's not easy being a pro-life Democrat at DU, to say the least.

I can only imagine how hard it must be to be an anti-choice propagandist, anywhere, anytime.

Of course, it must be bad enough just being someone who behaves like this, anywhere, anytime, about anything at all.

Please Leave Anti-Choice Venom at the church exit. Thank you.

[iverglas]

259. oh, and while you're consulting

How 'bout you ask Dennis Kucinich how he feels about having his name associated with this filth?

[in_cog_ni_to]

266. Please post a link to the post where ANY DUer said abortion should be mandatory.

What a load of BULLSHIT. I'll be waiting for the link.

[CreekDog]

273. Whether one considers it a baby or not, a fetus is life

I'm not anti choice, but I am extremely ambivalent about abortion depending upon why it's chosen.

And you can say it's not my choice, well, legally, I don't have a say. However, morally, we all are accountable to judge what we see as wrong, right, or simply, I don't know.

[iverglas]

275. so's my big toe

(Actually, my big toe isn't "life", but then neither is a fetus.)


So now I expect to have someone start a thread expressing the pious wish that everyone everywhere "suggest" to me that I should consult the nearest adult male before deciding what colour to paint my toenail.


However, morally, we all are accountable to judge what we see as wrong, right, or simply, I don't know.

Sure thing, whatever. Actually, not, but like I say, whatever.

And everybody gets to judge your judgments, you should not forget.

I see your judgments as wrong. Very wrong. 'K?

[Colorado Progressive]

278. Iverglas, dont get so angry about ignorant people you get cancer or something

The world has survived hundreds of thousands of years of ignorant fucks. Not worth your bp or heart rate killing you off. Better you are here than there sweetie, you can do more good here.

[iverglas]

283. well ...

I'll never reject genuine friendly interest.

The problem is, that dry Canadian humour, of which mine own is the driest, just doesn't come across when viewed on a monitor in the US. ;)

I guess what doesn't come across in this particular situation, actually, is the snickering and snorting on this side of the monitor when the ignorance and illwill in what I'm responding to are as transparent, and as ineptly expressed, as they generally are.

I bin snickering and snorting at them for a few decades now. Yeah, the ignorance and illwill aren't really funny, but the people expressing 'em very often are. One must not approach the situation in the hope of persuading them to inform themselves and find some goodwill in their tiny hearts; one must content one's self with letting them know that their raiments of righteousness work about as well at fooling the world as the emperor's non-existent new clothes did, and maybe helping the occasional someone else to say "the emperor has no clothes!" out loud.

The people who seek to have women treated like something other than human beings just don't have a rag to clothe their naked misogyny, and it's fun to point at them!

[CreekDog]

305. If you don't see the difference btw your big toe and a fetus

Then you are not intelligent enough to make your own decisions.

[iverglas]

307. If you want to pretend that is the meaning of what I said

(believe me, that is what I expected and all I expected you to do; you people are nothing if not predictable)

then you are not moral enough to be allowed to have any influence on the life of any human being in the world.

[CreekDog]

309. that's what you said, you made the comparison to say a fetus wasn't life

If you didn't want that, you should have made a different argument.

[iverglas]

318. look, I'm sorry you're not equipped for the situation

but that doesn't mean you get to make false representations of what I said.

If you don't understand what I mean by what I say, ask. I'll try to help you.

If the only other thing you can think of doing is to claim, or pretend to believe, that what I say means something it does not mean, the only help I can offer is to suggest that you shut the fuck up.

Life is a quality, a characteristic of living things. A fetus is not "life". A fetus has life: it is composed of living cells. Just as I am, just as you are, just as my big toe is.

And just to give you a leg up here, a fetus is also not "a life". Nor am I "a life", nor is my big toe "a life".

A life is what I HAVE. I am a human being; I have a human life. It is mine. Concommittently with being a human being, I have human rights. The two are inseparable: that which is a human being has human rights, that which has human rights is a human being. That which is not, does not have; that which does not have, is not. If and only if.

I am a human being, I have a human life, I have human rights, and I have interests that are protected by those rights.

A fetus is not a human being. It does not have a human life. It does not have human rights. It does not have interests.

A fetus is a fetus. It isn't a human being, it isn't a body part, it isn't a parasite, it isn't an acorn, it isn't a sperm or an ovum.

A fetus shares some characteristics with all those things, just as I share some characteristics with them. But just as I am not a parasite, even though both I and a parasite have unique DNA, a fetus is not a human being, even though it has a beating heart ... just like a parasite has.

I am a human being, a fetus is a fetus, and a big toe is a big toe.

A fetus isn't "life" because it isn't life, and to assert that it is, is to speak utter nonsense.

And the fact that a fetus is composed of living cells, living human cells, is no more conclusive of the question of what a fetus is than the fact that my big toe is composed of living human cells.

If you cut off my big toe, it "dies". That doesn't make it a human being. In that way, it is like a fetus. In other ways, it is unlike a fetus.

Once again, some things are just obvious. Even to those who pretend really hard not to notice, or to look like they don't notice.

[CreekDog]

342. You have life, I agree. But, your life doesn't "belong" to you

Just as my life doesn't "belong" to me. It belongs to God for the good of others --you and me are secondary in our own lives. That's morality.

I think that's the crux of our difference, not the gender issue.

[iverglas]

380. jeezus fucking christ

take it somewhere else, will you? There are actually forums here for god-botherers where rational people aren't allowed to bother them, odd as it seems. You might enjoy a stay there.

But, your life doesn't "belong" to you

My life doesn't belong to me. It IS me. Just as my body IS me. And my mind IS me. That's what I AM. It's also what I HAVE: I have a life, a body and a mind. And toes. I am a sum of my parts; I have my parts, and my parts are me.

It belongs to God

And my life doesn't belong to your god, believe me. Any more than my bicycle belongs to the pink unicorn.

for the good of others --you and me are secondary in our own lives

You can be secondary in your own life if you want, or believe you are or pretend to believe you are.

I am primary in my own life, because my life is me and I am my life and no one else is me and I am not anyone else.

For me to assert that I am secondary in my own life would mean that others are secondary in their own lives. No chance I'll be saying that.

I choose to do and be things for the good of others. A lot. MY choice. MY definition of the meaning of my life. Your definition of the meaning of my life is of the most supreme irrelevance, as is my definition of the meaning of anyone else's.

The minute I presume to ascribe meaning to someone else's life, I treat that person like an object. That would make me like you, and I don't want to be like you.


That's morality.

That can be your morality if you want it. It is not "morality". And you undoubtedly know this.


I think that's the crux of our difference, not the gender issue.

Maybe you do, maybe you don't.

I'm pretty sure that the crux of our difference is that you regard other people as objects for your attentions in the service of your agenda, and I don't.

[CreekDog]

316. Hey, it's what you said

Iverglas said:

"(Actually, my big toe isn't "life", but then neither is a fetus.)


So now I expect to have someone start a thread expressing the pious wish that everyone everywhere "suggest" to me that I should consult the nearest adult male before deciding what colour to paint my toenail."

You said it and it's absolutely ridiculous.

I completely agree that the color of nail polish on your big toe is really nobody's business. What's ridiculous is that you are saying a fetus is in the same way, nobody else's business, meaning your partner or spouse. Well, if you care about that fetus, it is someone else's business because "it takes a village..."

[Hoof Hearted]

277. Excuse me? I am a STRIDENT pro-choice Democrat on the losing side of an infertility battle

I want DESPERATELY to be pregnant again, preferably with twins.
I LOVED being pregnant, unfortunately my husband at the time was an abusive loser, with a capital L.

I ache inside every time I see a baby nestled snugly in his mommas sling or a dad tussling his little baby's head. I'm so damn jealous I can't stand it.
My husband and I have longed for a baby in our life for TWELVE YEARS. That deeply held longing has been thwarted by a lack of insurance and the fact that we are not quasi-millionaires, a virtual requirement for adoption.


What the HELL does "wanting to get pregnant every time" have to do with anything? Does that make you MORALLY SUPERIOR somehow? Should we give you a title? Mrs. INTENTIONAL PREGNANCY 2007! When is the pagent?

[iverglas]

284. may I call on you

next time someone gets all strident about how any woman who has sex must be held responsible for the consequences -- i.e. compelled to carry a pregnancy to term and deliver?

You seem to be getting off scot free, if you don't mind my saying.

(I think you'll forgive me being facetious here; it's not meant at your expense, believe me.)

I'll also let you know next time someone starts exploiting you by drafting you into the service of the anti-choice agenda -- all those poor infertile couples who would just love to have that fetus the anti-choice brigade want to force someone else to gestate, once it's born.

It just ain't the choice advocates who are demanding ... or "suggesting" ... that anyone else do their bidding or bend to their wishes. One wonders how dishonest someone would have to be, to say it is; or how much weight someone has to pile onto that suitcase full of internal conflict between his/her values and his/her actions, in order to rationalize actually thinking that it is.

[in_cog_ni_to]

288. Hoof Hearted,

I just have to say I know EXACTLY what you are going through. Been there, done that for 19 LONG, depressing years. I went through infertility programs, took hormones, had test after test after test and finally an unsuccessful artificial insemination. We finally, after so many years, just gave up and turned to adoption. That never panned out either. Eventually we just accepted the fact that we would be childless. It was the most painful thing I ever had to go through. My best friend at the time was pregnant every year for 4 years. While we were always happy for them, it was PAINFUL, PAINFUL, PAINFUL. For years I couldn't go to baby showers...it just hurt too much.

Years later we divorced, eventually I remarried and not ever getting pregnant for all those years, I never took birth control. After 3 years of marriage to my second husband....SURPRISE! I was pregnant at the age of 37. Happiest day of my life, needless to say. I bought 3 pregnancy tests because I didn't believe the results of the first one! The young man below in my sig line is that baby.:loveya: He's my heart and soul...my reason for being.

So, for you, I want to say, Don't give up (like I did). Keep doing everything you need to do to have your baby, whether biologically or by adoption, it doesn't matter....JUST DON'T GIVE UP because miracles DO HAPPEN.:hug:

There needs to be some adoption agency SOMEWHERE that just wants to give a baby a home and not be out to make millions off the suffering of infertile couples? It's been a long, long time since I've done my search for an agency, but surely there's one somewhere that can help you without wanting the shirt off your back.:( Have you thought about a surrogate? Private adoption?

And for those in this thread who say that the Pro-Choice group here demands people have abortions.....even having gone through what I had to go through with infertility, I NEVER felt I had the RIGHT to tell any woman what to do with her own body. As much as I wanted a baby, if the woman next to me was pregnant and didn't want a baby....WHO AM I TO TELL HER ANY DIFFERENT. It's none of my business and it's none of your business.

[in_cog_ni_to]

265. If a woman is pregnant and doesn't tell the man, how does that affect him? NOPE, it's no one's

business but the woman who's pregnant. If she wants an abortion, that's her business. Her body, her business. A man has no "right" to know if the woman chooses not to tell him....it's her body. Sorry. Men have no say on this subject. No Uterus, no input on the issue. It's as easy as that.

[CreekDog]

272. It affects him, he's her partner, how many big secrets should we keep?

Maybe if he's gay it's none of her business, after all it's his body? You agree?

[in_cog_ni_to]

286. WRONG. If he doesn't know she's pregnant, it's IMPOSSIBLE for it to affect him.

What's a man being gay have to do with a woman having control over her own body? Stay on topic.

[CreekDog]

306. So keeping it from the guy makes it ok since he won't know

That's BS.

Also, a man being gay can be kept from the female partner and that wouldn't be right either. That's the point.

It should be shared, it is not simply about the woman, morally. Legally, it is her choice, morally, it is not hers alone.

[in_cog_ni_to]

320. Yes it is. It's her body. No man or woman has a RIGHT to tell her what to do with it.

Whose morals are we talking about here? The woman's or the man's? It doesn't matter what the man's morals are because it's none of his damn business. Period. End of subject.

I really detest it when people try to pass THEIR "morals" off on everyone else. That's what fundie RW wacko nut jobs do and I, for one, resent it. Mind your own house and we'll get along just fine. Try to tell me how to live my life and what to do with MY body...you've got a fight on your hands.

[CreekDog]

340. What makes your decision correct?

What is the moral basis that you say justifies your opinion?

We all claim to make moral decisions, but that itself doesn't make all those decisions morally "right".

Just because you can make a decision you think is right does not make it right.

I'm a man, I control my own body, but that doesn't mean what I do with that control is right.

So how do you know what you have said is correct behavior? You are claiming it's right --why?

[in_cog_ni_to]

346. What makes my decision correct? It's correct because "I" say it is!

That's all you need to know. I make my own decisions and the decisions I make are none of your business because I say so. This is especially true when it comes to abortion. If I choose to have an abortion, that decision is a correct decision because it's the decision I decided is best for ME.

[CreekDog]

349. that you decide it's right doesn't make it right

If everyone lived according to their own "code" the world would be even more messed up than it already is.

[in_cog_ni_to]

353. Sorry. Yes it does and it's none of your business as much as YOU want to make it your business, it's

NOT.

[CreekDog]

365. That YOU decided is not sufficient to say its right

That's the only basis for your decision.

You shouldn't be proud to hold this opinion. Also, you are in the extreme minority here on this thread, nearly everyone else disagreeing with your opinion.

But to you, you are the only one that matters, nyah nyah nyah.

If you reproduce, please don't teach your child that what they think is the only thing that matters. God help us, we don't need more of this.

[iverglas]

391. allow me to dissent

If you reproduce, please don't teach your child that what they think is the only thing that matters.

I very much hope that she does in fact teach her child that what s/he thinks is the only thing that matters WHEN IT COMES TO HIS/HER BODY, which you know very well (please, please tell me you know this) is the only matter under discussion here.

Yeesh. You are maybe proposing that children should invite third-party opinions on the proper use of their bodies, and consider the possibility that those opinions are better than their own?

Yes, Mr. Neighbour Man, you have a good point. Letting you use my body as you propose would make you feel good, and wouldn't really be much trouble for me. I am, after all, secondary in my own life, and live but to serve the interests of others. Why not yours, eh?

God help us, we don't need more of this.

What we don't need more of is people who make every effort to use other people as objects in the service of their own interests and agendas. And I'm pretty sure that this is exactly what you will be teaching any child who crosses your path to do, sadly.

[in_cog_ni_to]

394. I'll teach my child that he and he alone is in control of HIS body. Not the morality police

on some Internets discussion board. G-d help you that YOU think you have the right to tell ME or anyone else what to do with THEIR body. Mind your own business.

[CreekDog]

396. It's the topic of this thread

You'd better expect someone to comment on you and your opinions here.

[in_cog_ni_to]

399. You can comment all you want and I can continue to tell you to mind your own body and leave MY body

and my son's body alone because it's none of your business what we choose to do with OUR bodies. NONE. End of subject.

The question was: so isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

That doesn't mean YOU have any input in my life or my body. Got it? YOU are not my other half and YOU have no RIGHT to tell me how to feel or what to do with my body. If you want to preach that crap, go here:www.freerepublic.com

If I want an abortion, I'll get an abortion and if you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine. Mind your own house.

[smokey nj]

401. How in_cog_nito lives her life or raises her children is NOT the topic

of this thread. The topic of this thread is whether or not it's misogynistic to think a woman should be "encouraged" to inform her husband/boyfriend/whatever of her plans to terminate a pregnancy.

in_cog_nito contends that she'll decide whether or not she confides in her husband/boyfriend/whatever because she is capable of making that decision on her own. She never indicated what that decision would be (nor should she because it isn't anybody's business), only that it would be the correct decision for HER.

I agree with her in that I will decide whether or not I would confide in my husband if faced with an unwanted pregnancy. I'm capable of making that decision without "encouragement" and it will be the correct decision for me, and whatever that decision is, it's of no concern to you.

[CreekDog]

403. The topic is what a person should do in that situation

And what is the morally right thing to do. Yes, what you do is your business, however, what one should do is exactly the topic of discussion and when people use themselves as examples, then what they would do becomes the topic of discussion and everyone's business (for the sake of argument).

I couldn't care less what these individuals do actually, except for the sake of the discussion.

[Triana]

314. Bingo! Well said. NO uterus, NO choice - stay the H311 out of it. (n/t)

[Triana]

313. YOUR say in that choice ENDED when you put it in her....

...at that point, you had MADE your choice and you're DONE. That is the extent to which men have a say or choice in whether a woman they impregnated gets an abortion or not. From that point on, it's HER decision and NO she shouldn't have to tell anyone if she doesn't choose to.

[mattomjoe]

323. So men can either have sex and face the consequences....

or abstain?

Last time I checked, abstinence was found to be an unrealistic option for most people.

[iverglas]

325. well, then there's always

face the consequences.

I mean, if we really do have only the two options, and aren't going to acknowledge the infinite variety of real options contained within that "have sex" part ...

[mattomjoe]

333. And in spite of the "infinite variety of real options"

men AND women still find themselves facing consequences being discussed on this thread.

[jpgray]

315. Like age of consent laws, sometimes you can't decide what's right based on a healthy scenario

The resistance to your post, as I see it, is aimed at protecting the women who would either be in danger or have their right of choice limited/removed by the extra hurdle of "discussion" with the biological father. In other words, if prevailing opinion were that discussion is necessary, many women would be constrained in their freedom of choice by emotional, verbal and physical coercion from the father. In a healthy relationship, what you describe would be a great thing. But though for example a relationship between a 20 year-old and a 17 year-old isn't necessarily abuse in certain situations, prevailing wisdom needs to protect the vulnerable sometimes while inconveniencing the protected.

A healthy relationship would discuss this already, without compulsion from any third party whatsoever. Would it be a good idea to discuss it? Yeah, but that good idea could harm or constrain some women.

[LanternWaste]

329. I'm a wee bit of a traditionalist...

I'm a wee bit of a traditionalist when it comes to most aspects of marriage. One thing I firmly believe is that (all other things being equal) after vows are freely exchanged, it becomes incumbent upon both parties to share equally in making decisions of importance.

'My income' becomes 'our income'. 'Her passions' become 'our passions'. 'My choice' becomes 'our choice'.

Now I'm off to read the 300+ responses to your OP to find out how much I must absolutely hate the opposite sex because of this belief...

:scared:

[JuniperLea]

343. Well said!

Me too. And I'll take it a step further. I can't see myself having sex with anyone that I didn't feel strongly enough about, respect, and love enough, to be able to discuss these basic issues.

[iverglas]

348. yeah, me too!

I'm a wee bit of a traditionalist when it comes to most aspects of marriage.

So I guess we agree that the rest of the world should keep their noses out of other people's marriages, and refrain from suggesting to either party to a marriage that is not their own what that party should do within that marriage.

So when the opening post asks

isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

in reference to a pregnant woman, you'll be joining me in saying NO, I assume. NO, it is not a good idea to stick one's nose into another person's marriage.


'My income' becomes 'our income'. 'Her passions' become 'our passions'. 'My choice' becomes 'our choice'.

And that's entirely between the two of you. And you certainly don't want some officious intermeddling outsider coming along and offering "suggestions" about how you should organize the internal affairs of your marriage. Right?


Now I'm off to read the 300+ responses to your OP to find out how much I must absolutely hate the opposite sex because of this belief...

Well, since you appear to believe that what goes on in a marriage is the business of the parties to the marriage and not of anyone else -- that's a "traditionalist" view, I'd say -- you should probably have no fear.

[LanternWaste]

407. Why the number of implications referencing government...

Why the number of implications referencing government/officious meddlers taking a direct concern and/or control re: the original question? It appears to be a construct that bears little to no relevance to both the OP's and my post. I fear I am missing a very clever point of yours...

Your comment, "NO, it is not a good idea to stick one's nose into another person's marriage" seems a bit contrived to me, as neither the OP nor I suggested sticking a nose into anyone else's marriage; but simply qualifying a part and parcel of marriage which is to construct and maintain open communication. Did my post make the implication I wanted to meddle in someone's marriage?

Is suggesting open communication in a marriage engaging in 'putting our noses in other people's marriages'? It doesn't really mean anything, right? It makes for good copy, but if and when I feel the need to inform you of my agreement with your position, I'll make it a point and let you know...

[iverglas]

408. er, what?

Why the number of implications referencing government/officious meddlers taking a direct concern and/or control re: the original question?

Uh ... I wouldn't know. Where in any of my posts do you see a reference to government? What has anything I have said in this thread had to do with government? (Other than in posts on tangents about criminalization of abortion, a discussion not initiated by moi.)

What have I said about control? (Again, other than in tangents not initiated by moi.)

Perhaps you don't know what an "officious intermeddler" is. It's actually a term of art in the law biz, and to that extent I haven't used it quite correctly. But it pretty much means someone who sticks his/her nose into someone else's business. And that is EXACTLY what the subject of this thread, and of the post of mine to which you replied, is.

Your comment, "NO, it is not a good idea to stick one's nose into another person's marriage" seems a bit contrived to me, as neither the OP nor I suggested sticking a nose into anyone else's marriage; but simply qualifying a part and parcel of marriage which is to construct and maintain open communication.

Well, as is not uncommon, what you have just said doesn't really make any sense, the farther it goes. But allow me to correct the misapprehension/misrepresentation apparent in it.

"Neither the OP nor I suggested sticking a nose into anyone else's marriage". You really do need to read the opening post again. To see what it actually says, not what a whole lot of people here really really wish it had said.

Once more, with feeling:

isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?

You let me know when you think it's a good idea for the world and its dog to offer you unsolicited advice about some aspect of your marriage, and which aspect you think might be a good candidate.

Is suggesting open communication in a marriage engaging in 'putting our noses in other people's marriages'?

To which I can only say: why do you ask? Is that the topic of conversation here, and is it something I have expressed an opinion remotely related to? Nope, and nope.

It makes for good copy, but if and when I feel the need to inform you of my agreement with your position, I'll make it a point and let you know...

Hey, I'd be happy of you'd just answer the question in the opening post to which you were replying. It's copied out right above here, if you've still managed to miss it.

And rewriting the question doesn't count ...

[MissB]

330. As a woman who is pro-choice and a feminist and married,

I don't think you're too far off the mark.

It *is* a good idea. It may even be *best* for a relationship. If the relationship is solid and strong, I think that most couples will talk about pregnancy and childbirth and abortion as well as all sorts of other important events in each others' lives. On the other hand, I'm sure there are a few couples who have a different dynamic where they don't share such important events.

[JuniperLea]

331. I can't believe how harsh people are on both sides of this issue

Harsh harsh harsh.

Seriously.

It is a baby. I had three. They were babies from the moment of conception and I would have never aborted any of them unless I discovered some very serious birth defect. It's my right to feel that way. It's also my right to have enough love and compassion for my s/o, husband, whatever (and no, never a one night stand... that was about the most disgusting comment I read here) to discuss any plans I ever had for their baby.

That being said, the only thing I hate more than the thought of abortion is the thought that a government anywhere in the world might tell a woman, or a man, what to do with their lives. I'm firmly pro-choice. But that doesn't give you the right to call my baby a fucking blastocyst. I have my rights too.

[CreekDog]

337. Thank you for your sane post

I 100% agree.

[iverglas]

345. hmm. Two sides?

Side one:

People should "suggest" that pregnant women of their acquaintance discuss their choices with their male partner.

(I use "partner" loosely to cover any man whose sperm might have been a factor in the conception/pregnancy; he could be a virtual stranger, or the man with whom the woman has been involved in a long, committed and satisfying relationship. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter.)


Side two:

People should mind their own business.


I guess that if you object in principle to people making it their business whether a pregnant woman discusses her choices with her male partner, when it isn't their business at all, you're "harsh".


Let's try, once again, to remember the subject matter of the discussion: the question asked by the author of the opening post.


isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?


What is "harsh" about saying NO, it is NOT a good idea to suggest that a woman do anything at all in a matter that is her business and not yours, in a situation that you know nothing about (even if you think you do), and when your "suggestion", if acted on, could put her at risk?

Why do so many people here persist in thinking, or at least saying, that anyone in this thread is suggesting that any woman NOT "see how her other half feels"?

Why on earth would YOU say:

It's also my right to have enough love and compassion for my s/o, husband, whatever ... to discuss any plans I ever had for their baby.

When NO ONE has suggested it is not your "right" (which would be a really particularly moronic thing to suggest anyway), and no one has even suggested that you not do it??


Now, how about you, and a few others here, put yourself in the shoes of a woman who is pregnant and is approached by some officious intermeddler who suggests to her that she "should" do some particular thing before deciding what to do about her pregnancy, and see how YOU feel?

I suggest that you read post 49 before answering, in the case of the specific suggestion in issue here.

But consider also how you would feel if someone suggested that you think about the burden you will be placing on the ratepayers who will pay for your child's education, or the fact that you are in your 40s, or that you haven't finished your education, or that your husband really loves you even though he hits you, or any other thing that some officious intermeddler thinks you should think about or do?

If the person is your best friend, maybe you wouldn't mind. If you had invited suggestions, maybe you wouldn't mind.

But would you really think it was "a good idea" for anyone with an opinion about your situation to share it with you?

Would YOU not think that your pregnancy, and your decisions about it, are YOUR business and not the business of anyone else unless YOU have invited them to make it theirs by asking for their suggestions? And that anyone who felt called upon and entitled to butt in with their "suggestions" was treating you like a half-wit and/or a person devoid of moral sense or consideration for others ... and/or had no concern for you and was simply trying to make you do something whether or not it was in your own interests?

I would. And I don't believe that a whole lot of other people would not.


But that doesn't give you the right to call my baby a fucking blastocyst. I have my rights too.

Good god. And if you choose to call your dog "Spot", nobody may call it a dog?

I have to agree that a blastocyst is not what is present at the time we are talking about. But neither is a baby. And you really don't have any "right" to demand that other people read from your own private dictionary.


As for that

(and no, never a one night stand... that was about the most disgusting comment I read here)

-- I had to search the thread to figure out what that was about. Was it this?

288. Even if a woman consults with her partner/date/one night stand, she is the one who will have the responsibility of "bringing up baby".

This?

72. One night stands and casual sex, may not guarantee that he's kept apprised of every detail...or that he might even want to be..

... Only the two choices, I guess. I'd think that if you have something to say to one of those posters, you'd say it. But since they were neither addressing you nor saying anything about you, nor even saying anything objectionable about any woman or all women, I'm not seeing what you find so "disgusting" about it. Unless you find other women's sexual choices disgusting, and find it necessary to say so ...

[AnotherGreenWorld]

339. No, it's not.

[mainegreen]

350. Wow. Some really offensive views of men and relationships in this thread.

Alway good to know that some people don't take the whole partnership thing seriously here.

[iverglas]

358. you are so right!

Alway good to know that some people don't take the whole partnership thing seriously here.

There is just an amazing lot of people who think it's their job to meddle in other people's partnerships by telling them what they ought to do within those partnerships.

Absolutely appalling, isn't it? Such total disrespect for other people's intelligence and morality and ability to apply them to decision-making, and entitlement to do so without strangers butting their faces in; such utter disregard for other people's welfare. Such a surprise to see such things at DU.

HAHAHAHA HAH.

[baby_mouse]

363. Yer not kidding.

On the whole, I'm rather glad I'm homosexual.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

379. You're telling me...

Speaking to someone whose wife is 4 months with our first, and is there to rub her back when it hurts, give her a cold pack when she has her headaches, sit with her in the bathroom when she has her morning sickness, and who if it were at all biologically possible would more than gladly carry our child for 4 1/2 months of the pregnancy to help ease some of the burden.

But of course, I'm just a "sperm donor" to some people...

[iverglas]

382. 'I'm just a "sperm donor" to some people...'

Well hon, since it ain't my back you're rubbing, what else might you be to me? Not that I've called you that or anything, myself, but not that if I didn't get sufficiently annoyed by assorted crap I wouldn't, just to get up your nose. I wonder whether that's maybe kinda what did happen ...

And since nobody, least of all me, seems to be proposing to interfere in any way in what you and your wife get up to, what is your point?

Nobody is proposing to interfere in any way in what you and your wife get up to ... and yet ...



I think maybe you're looking for a medal.

... Here ya go! The Medal for Valiant Labour. You can get your wife to pin it on you.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

383. I'm sorry, did I mention your name?

Someone's a little self-obsessed today.

[Alcibiades]

351. Does "husband/boyfriend/whatever" include rapist?

I would rather a million women who have partners get abortions without talking it over with them than restrict the rights of one woman who is raped. My mom was raped by my grandfather and had to get an illegal abortion. She didn't "discuss" it with him until 30 years later.

[JuniperLea]

359. That's absurd to even suggest ... eom

[Alcibiades]

368. It's not absurd. It happens.

The OP wanted to frame the abortion issue as being "about" women in committed relationships who get them for birth control. I want to remind folks that there are many women who get abortions for reasons most Americans would support, and that the right to abortion for all women gaurantees the right for those who have "good reasons," whether they discuss it with their partner/rapist/sperm donor or not.

[JuniperLea]

386. The OP was asking about relationships...

Not rapists. I stand by the absurd comment.

[Alcibiades]

400. It's the thin end of the wedge

This type of argument is used to get someone to accept something they would not otherwise, starting from an apparently reasonable premise. You read into the post that this was about husbands and wives, whereas I read "whatever" to be inclusive of anybody who happens to be the biological father.

At any rate, the object of the post appears to be to gain support for paternal consent laws. It is a small step from "a woman morally should notify the father in the event she's seeking an abortion" to "we must pass laws requiring that fathers must consent before a woman is granted the right to an abortion."

The fact that the OP has framed the issue in such a way as to imply (but note that it's only an implication here, leaving the door open) that there's a committed relationship in the hypothetical, yet many, if not most, abortions take place in the absence of a committed relationship. In other words, he has made abortion more morally objectionable to start with by removing what is probably one of the most common reasons for abortion. What's truly absurd is to frame the issue in this way, rather than to ask the question of whether single women should be forced to bear unwanted children if the putative father objects to an abortion.

[CreekDog]

362. You didn't read the original post, or at least you aren't responding to it here

It was not about a woman talking to a man about her pregnancy caused by his rape of her.

It was a simple, gently worded question, clearly about consensual sex and if both parties in a relationship should decide together regarding pregnancy.

Rape is a different matter, and I don't know, but it was not the topic here.

[Alcibiades]

366. I read it in toto

To quote: "Like I said, it's obviously 100% the woman choice since it's her body, but in the end it does ultimately affect both parties, so isn't a good idea to at least suggest she see how her other half feels?"

There's nothing about the pregnancy as stated that says it is the result of consensual sex. Nothing. It's just assumed.

That's actually my point. when we talk about issues such as this, we tell ourselves little stories. A common one about abortion is that a woman in a committed relationship wants to get an abortion and doesn't want to tell her partner. What percentage of all abortions does this story cover? The reasons why the woman is getting an abortion are also not given--it's assumed it's just purely a matter of convenience.

The right and their rhetoric have done a great deal to frame this. The story we tell today about abortion is one of middle class women getting them for birth control. In the beginning, we used to focus more on other stories, such as rape and incest. My mother won't share her story publicly--even 40 years later, the shame is too great. But I'll be damned before I let it be forgotten that abortion is not simply a matter of convenience for women who get them on a whim.

[CreekDog]

372. What percentage of abortions are for rape-induced pregnancies?

What percentage of abortions are to protect the life of the mother?
What percentage of abortions are for fetuses so compromised that their own lives are at substantial jeapardy?

And what percentage is for something different?

Abortion is legal, but I guess we are not all in agreement that abortion is right in all circumstances.

[Alcibiades]

397. Abortion is obviously not right in all circumstances!

No one is advocating mandatory abortion. We are in perfect agreement about that.

I had a friend about 20 years or so ago who was from that there hippie feminist generation. One of our office colleagues had three abortions. She didn't use birth control because she was Catholic, and good catholic girls don't do that (apparently she justified the sex to herself on the basis that it was the unplanned and spontaneous result of passion, I don't know). Anyway, my feminist friend was very disapproving of this woman, claiming that they didn't fight for reproductive freedom so that she could so casually have abortions willy-nilly, rather than being responsible.

There's part of me that agrees with her, but putting restrictions on abortion is a slippery slope. Lots of folks think some abortions are morally objectionable, which is fine, but when they start putting restrictions on it we find the return of illegal abortions (like the one provided to my mother, which she was lucky to survive with her fertility intact, as what she wanted most from life was to be a mother), and the eventual goal of restricting all abortions until it's illegal. And I'm sorry, but it's bad enough that a man can rape a woman, she shouldn't be forced to carry his child, particularly if he is her dad.

This whole argument is a red herring, anyway. It's a small step from "it's right for a woman to talk to her partner before having an abortion" to "we must pass laws forcing women to get the approval of their partners before seeking an abortion." Maybe your decisionmaking is always guided by statistics, but for me it always goes back to my mom and the fact that she aborted my brother/uncle. If this type of law were in effect, she would have had to report the rape to the authorities, which she never did, because it would have destroyed the family and literally killed my grandmother.

[CreekDog]

404. I'm not arguing for legal restrictions on abortion

And I'm not arguing statistics. I agree with you that not all abortions are made for the right reason. Despite that, I'm not arguing for changes to abortion-related laws.

I do think the rightness or wrongness of abortions is a legitimate topic for society to debate and establish norms about.

I also think suicide is wrong, overdosing on drugs is wrong, etc. etc. even when they don't involve a pregnancy or a fetus.

My overall point is that just because it's your body doesn't mean other people don't have a reason to be concerned and make judgements about what is going on. If you are carrying a baby/fetus/whatever you call it, all the more reason because it affects their life.

For instance, if you see a pregnant woman smoking or drinking, I believe it entirely appropriate to say something about it. Does anyone agree with me on this last point?

[polichick]

357. Well, turns out this thread is a big warning to men...

Be very careful about who you get yourself involved with ~ make sure she has a heart and a mind, not just a body and a bundle of rights.

[JuniperLea]

361. Well said!

Be very careful about who you get yourself involved with... words we should all live by regardless of our sex.

[AngryAmish]

375. This is a very long post

There are many replies.

[truebrit71]

381. Yes. And you are apparently a Bears fan. Do you think Gross Rexman...

...will improve this year (or at the very least try to throw the ball at guys with the same colour jersey as him)?

[AngryAmish]

405. He is who we thought he was

(Sorry Coach Greene)

Anyway, we will have a lot of touchdowns and a lot of picks. The receiving corps is good but Rex's problem is he thinks he can fit a ball into a small window thirty yards down the field throwing off his back leg. He can't. Nobody can. Sometimes he has to take a sack. The Bears have a great punter (maybe the best in the league) and a better than average defense (a great one if Tommy Harris and Mike Brown can stay healthy.

Now they added Adam Archuleta as a safety. I'm not convinced he is the answer but they mentioned his girlfriend the other day. Get a load of her <>

[GOTV]

392. I don't know but, if the woman didn't think my opinion on the matter was important....

... she wouldn't be the woman for me.

[omega minimo]

398. Is that title/post really flamebait?

[Raejeanowl]

402. I Think You're Combining Decisions

Several individual decisions already having been made, I think it should be 100% the women's decision whether or not to discuss the confirmation of a pregnancy with the biological father, and to involve him in subsequent decision making.

[NaturalHigh]

406. Don't you know that men aren't supposed to have opinions on abortion?

We're just supposed to get out there and fight, fight, fight! for abortion rights, even if we consider it morally wrong.

[Alcibiades]

409. Why hasn't this thing been locked as flamebait already?

eom