Right to Choice vs. Choice for Men

>>Here we go again. Women make "poor choices" but the man making the same choice (to have sex) is off the hook<<

It's not the same choice.

Of course, presenting men as a "victim" of sex is so much more rewarding isn't it? By the way, are you going to be leading the movement to be surgically castrated?

Rewarding? Did you read any of my posts?

Are you saying that women are not the ultimate arbiters of both sex and pregnancy? Men want to have sex. Women want to have sex. The difference is that women, by both convention and law, are in control of whether or not that happens.

If a man is using birth control, he knows it and so does his partner. Women's birth control is practically invisible. So, again, women certainly have greater control over whether or not pregnancy will occur.

If you would like to point out how this differs from reality, I'd like to hear. Otherwise, please loose the insinuations, it makes you sound like you can't defend your argument.

First off, conception is the default consequence of sex. There is no contraception that is 100% effective. Even sterilization is not 100% effective.

I specifically excluded failed birth control. READ MY POSTS.

Secondly, about 75% of women either do not morally/ ethically believe in abortion, or cannot go through with an abortion in the final analysis. We know this because of the documented ratio of births to abortions.

If that's so, then why are there so many abortions? No one would be happier than I if abortions would not occur.

Therefore, you are presenting inaccurate information that implies that MORE women have abortions than acutally do.

Huh? Any abortions are too many. Obviously, birth control isn't the answer, as its been around for decades. Giving the woman total control over sex, pregnancy, abortion, and child rearing isn't the answer either. I'm suggesting that, once a life is created, it can't be snuffed out just because its inconvenient for the woman. Also, I believe, as I think others do, that the ability of a woman to just point to a man and garnish his wages for 18 years does little to disincentive woman from becoming pregnant.

Hey, if you have better ideas, let's hear 'em.

Your view of women's "options" is deliberately inaccurate. Just because abortion is available does not mean women are compelled to choose it. And they don't in large part. The vast majority of pregnancies are brought to term which means women don't abort as often as you would mislead us to believe. Your propaganda is showing.

READ MY POSTS. I specifically said I don't believe in abortion, but currently, its the law of the land and it is legally exercised over and over. I don't know what propoganda you mean. Once again, I suggest you READ MY POSTS.

If you have some other options, please tell me what they are.

In addtion, your choice of words belies your true agenda. Your phrase "no longer has to result in childbirth" is prescriptive. It advocates more abortions than actually occur presently

Good God. Are you paying attention here? These are facts. Abortion is legal. Pregnancy no longer has to result in childbirth. I don't like it, but that's the way it is. My opinion, is that if this weren't the case, then perhaps we'd have more responsible sex that doesn't result in unintended pregnancy.

If anything, I'm saying that BOTH parties are responsible thus BOTH parties should have a say in both the result of the pregnancy, and the raising of the child. The way it is now, both consent to sex, but lets face it, the woman largely decides if she'll get pregnant, decides if pregnancy will be aborted, and decides if the father will pay for the child's upbringing.

An alternative, which maybe you are suggesting, is to say that the act of consensual sex with a woman is an implied contract to allow her to solely determine:

a) if she will get pregnant
b) if pregnancy will be aborted
c) if the father will be forced to financially support the resulting child.

If that's what we, as a society believe, then lets codify it in law.

Yes it is. You were referring to the decision to have sex. Both people make exactly the same choice.

Are you saying that women are not the ultimate arbiters of both sex and pregnancy?

No, women are not the "ultimate" arbitors of sex. Both people make a decision to have sex (excluding rape). Both people are the arbitors of sex because both people have free will.

Since conception is the default consequenced of sex (nature's law) then BOTH people are the arbitors of "pregnancy". Note you use the word pregnancy to try to distance men from the dual contribution required for conception to occur. By focussing on "pregnancy" instead of conception, the male role in procreation is diminished to the point where some people have convinced themselves that males are not involved at all in human reproduction. These relentless rhetorical device does not negate the fact that without male involvement, there would be no conception and therefore no pregnancy.

If a man is using birth control, he knows it and so does his partner. Women's birth control is practically invisible. So, again, women certainly have greater control over whether or not pregnancy will occur.

Irrelevant. Both parties to sex have a responsibility for the default consequence. The man knows that conception could occur whether or not he uses contraception, she does, or they both do. In ALL cases conception is still possible. So, whether he uses contraception or she does, he knows or doesn't know.... none of it is relevant. If you have sex, you are risking creating biological offspring. Period. Who knows what is irrelevant. This is the 21st century already. Every adult with an IQ over 70 knows basic biology. Playing dumb doesn't cut it.

Any abortions are too many

I agree. But let's not demonize people who DON'T abort. Being accurate is not a sign of weakness. The vast majority of pregnancies in the US (about 75%) are NOT aborted. To imply otherwise is to be inaccurate.

I'm suggesting that, once a life is created, it can't be snuffed out just because its inconvenient for the woman. Also, I believe, as I think others do, that the ability of a woman to just point to a man and garnish his wages for 18 years does little to disincentive woman from becoming pregnant.

Let's get this straight. You don't like abortion but you don't like men to be held responsible for the children they co-create either? Also, and once again a women doesn't "become pregnant". We know how it exactly how conception occurs and subsequently pregnancy occurs. If you're unsure how all this works, take a Biology class. Hint: it takes one man and one woman.

You use "pregnancy" as a derogative. Pregnancy is not the problem. If we make pregnancy the problem, elimination of pregnancy will be the answer. This is how we got into the abortion quagmire to begin with ... by making "pregnancy" a problem. Do you realize that the presence of a baby is what is manifest in a "pregnancy". Therefore you are demonizing the baby, and making the baby the "problem". You also wish to stick the mother with this "problem" as a form of retribution for "getting pregnant", as if the father has no role at all in the creation of the "pregnancy" (baby).

Rhetorical weaseling. Let's talk accurately and correctly when we discuss how the baby came into being. No more mystical "becomes pregnant" as if out of the ether. How about that?

You still haven't answered my question. How are we going to disuade men from co-creating a new human life?

My idea, since you asked, is to STOP all the BS and talk about procreation and responsibilities in truthful and accurate ways. If a conception occurs, BOTH pro-creative parents played an exactly equal role in creating that new life. Therefore, both have an OBLIGATION to the child. Period. If we had done that from the get go, we would not be in the mess we are in now. We may still be able to reduce/eliminate abortion if we would STOP demonizing "pregnancy" with no mention of the father and STOP treating the child as a punitive tool against one or both adults.

As long as the child is considered a problem or a liability for one or both parents we'll continue to see abortion and other social diseases in our society. Children are a net asset to society. We should speak of them as such from conception onward.

Women get pregnant. Men don't.

Your assertion that their decisions re: sex are "the same" is like saying that a man standing on a stool and a man standing on top of the Empire State Building are making the same decision when they both decide to jump.

bump

Your assertion that their decisions re: sex are "the same" is like saying that a man standing on a stool and a man standing on top of the Empire State Building are making the same decision when they both decide to jump.

Well said.

I don't know which is more entertaining...your petty vindictiveness, or your desperation to find something that will make men see things your way.

Women get pregnant. Men don't.

So? As long as pregnacy is not made to be a "problem" by societal measures, then it makes no difference. In fact we "choose" to demonize pregnancy and demonize the mere existence of new life. This is why abortion came about and how it has increased.

Even the SCOTUS cited this arbitrary societal burden on women who procreate as a reason to keep abortion legal. God forbid in the United States that we consider equal justice under the law. Yikes, anything but that!

Pregnancy is not a problem. Historically, society has chosen to make the pregnacy (baby in utero) a problem for some women (but not the father), and also make the baby outside the uterus the "problem" for the mother (but not the father). We don't have to make that choice. It's completely arbitrary.

The majority of women surveyed about who have had an abortion were not concerned with "pregnancy" per se. They are most concerned with other matters, such as being treated unfairly and discriminated against unfairly relative to the other parent of the child .... both during pregnancy and after.

Being pregnant is not the problem for women. How women are treated relative to the male co-creator of the child is the problem. In countries where men and women who procreate are treated more equally (Scandinavian, Netherlands) the abortion rate is very low compared to ours. The teen and pregnancy rate is also very low relative to ours in these countries. Ever wonder why?

The choice to be made is: Are we going to continue to unilaterally demonize and penalize one party to conception in the USA? So far at least, pregnancy is not a crime here. However, mandated abortion is a closer reality than we think.

No, women are not the "ultimate" arbitors of sex. Both people make a decision to have sex (excluding rape). Both people are the arbitors of sex because both people have free will.

Since conception is the default consequenced of sex (nature's law) then BOTH people are the arbitors of "pregnancy".

Then both people should have a say in the pregnancy. That's not happening now. Women have all the say. I'm suggesting that both parties should.

Note you use the word pregnancy to try to distance men from the dual contribution required for conception to occur. By focussing on "pregnancy" instead of conception, the male role in procreation is diminished to the point where some people have convinced themselves that males are not involved at all in human reproduction. These relentless rhetorical device does not negate the fact that without male involvement, there would be no conception and therefore no pregnancy.

I wish you would refrain from this illusion that I am couching some hidden agenda. I'm not trying to diminish the male role, quite the opposite. Right now, men share half the responsibility (although I would dispute that the control is even) over conception (do you prefer that to pregnancy?), yet they get no say in the result. I'm arguing that the man should have a sayso. I'd prefer that both agree to have the baby, but if the woman doesn't want to, and the man does, the situation now is that his concerns are irrelevant. I argue that, if either of them wants the child, then the child should be born, but whichever wants the baby gets both sole responsibility and sole custody, and the other is out of the picture. You seem to be assuming that the man will always chose abortion. I don't believe this is the case, and we won't know until we give him a choice in the matter.

Obviously, in my ideal world, abortion wouldn't be available. The reality is that it is. Now, in spite of this, how can we discourage unwanted pregnancy, and thus the need for abortion? I argue that increasing the probability that you can't have an abortion (because the father has a say in the matter) is one way.

Irrelevant...If you have sex, you are risking creating biological offspring. Period. Who knows what is irrelevant. This is the 21st century already. Every adult with an IQ over 70 knows basic biology. Playing dumb doesn't cut it.

Fine, I'll concede that women and men are equally stupid, even though women currently have the ability to deceive men into conceiving. That doesn't change the issue that the man's input is over at that point, at least under the current legal situation and that's what is wrong.

I agree. But let's not demonize people who DON'T abort. Being accurate is not a sign of weakness. The vast majority of pregnancies in the US (about 75%) are NOT aborted. To imply otherwise is to be inaccurate.

That statistic is less-than-relevant. What's the percentage of unintended pregnancies between non-married adults that are aborted? I'm not demonizing those who don't abort, quite the contrary, I believe that the father should have the right to override the mother's wishes if she wants to abort.

Let's get this straight. You don't like abortion but you don't like men to be held responsible for the children they co-create either? Also, and once again a women doesn't "become pregnant". We know how it exactly how conception occurs and subsequently pregnancy occurs. If you're unsure how all this works, take a Biology class. Hint: it takes one man and one woman.

Exactly the opposite. There are men, who want to take responsibility for the child, but are barred from it because the woman choses to abort the baby. Men only have responsibility after the woman makes a decision as to whether or not to have the child.

You use "pregnancy" as a derogative. Pregnancy is not the problem. If we make pregnancy the problem, elimination of pregnancy will be the answer. This is how we got into the abortion quagmire to begin with ... by making "pregnancy" a problem. Do you realize that the presence of a baby is what is manifest in a "pregnancy". Therefore you are demonizing the baby, and making the baby the "problem". You also wish to stick the mother with this "problem" as a form of retribution for "getting pregnant", as if the father has no role at all in the creation of the "pregnancy" (baby).

Sigh. Pregnancy is exactly the problem. The reality is, millions of adults have sex all the time without conception. If only intended conception happened, abortion, child support, custody, all would be non-issues.

Rhetorical weaseling. Let's talk accurately and correctly when we discuss how the baby came into being. No more mystical "becomes pregnant" as if out of the ether. How about that?

I don't know where I've said that babies appear out of nowhere.

You still haven't answered my question. How are we going to disuade men from co-creating a new human life?

You've got me. As it is, the deck is stacked against them. Obviously giving total decision-making ability to the woman isn't cutting it. Maybe we should give the man a say.

My idea, since you asked, is to STOP all the BS and talk about procreation and responsibilities in truthful and accurate ways. If a conception occurs, BOTH pro-creative parents played an exactly equal role in creating that new life. Therefore, both have an OBLIGATION to the child. Period. If we had done that from the get go, we would not be in the mess we are in now. We may still be able to reduce/eliminate abortion if we would STOP demonizing "pregnancy" with no mention of the father and STOP treating the child as a punitive tool against one or both adults.

As long as the child is considered a problem or a liability for one or both parents we'll continue to see abortion and other social diseases in our society. Children are a net asset to society. We should speak of them as such from conception onward. I think I agree with you, but it doesn't change what I advocate. However, its not going to happen anytime soon. It's a war, and every step we can take that reduces the casualties is a step in the right direction.

Let me try this again...

Two adults have consensual sex.

They don't intend to get pregnant, they don't want to get pregnant, but it happends. Maybe they used birth control, maybe they didn't.

Its both of their fault.

Now there's a baby inside the woman.

Current situation on having the baby:

If they both agree to have the baby, there's no issue - we have legal mechanisms in place to deal with this.

If the both don't want the baby, unfortunately, there's nothing legal that can be done about this, short of outlawing abortion (which I would advocate, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon). An adjunct to what I'm suggesting, is that anyone who wanted that baby could somehow convince her to have it. Better it was adopted than killed.

What the original article was saying, and what I am advocating, is that there be a change in what happens when the man and woman don't agree. Right now, if the woman wants to abort, there's nothing the man can do. I argue that if either wants the child, it should be born. Anticipating the argument that we're forcing the woman to go through pregnancy because the man wants the baby, I'm saying that it isn't unreasonable for the man, or someone else, to compensate her for that.

So now we have a baby born that one parent wants, but the other doesn't. It's a bad situation. It would be better if it didn't happen, but it does, and it will. Right now, if the woman wanted the baby and the man didn't, she could compel him to financially support the baby. Let's reverse the roles and take the pain and suffering of pregnancy out of the picture. If the man wanted the baby and the woman didn't, should he be able to compel her to financially support the child if he gets custody?

I'm thinking that no one would agree to this, so I'm suggesting we take the actual nine months of pregnancy out of the equation, by compensating the mother. Now, both parents are on equal footing. My solution, is that the parent who wanted the baby gets custody, and is financially responsible.

Maybe the solution is that the non-custody parent in either case is financially responsible. I'd agree to that if custody was awarded to the father as often as to the mother.

I'm not saying men shouldn't be responsible, I'm saying they should have the chance to be responsible. The current situation denies them that. I also am saying that, if men had the opportunity to force the birth despite the desire of the mother to abort, then more women might exercise some control, because they wouldn't have the "easy out" of abortion, nor would they be guaranteed the 18 year support of the man.

You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge basic facts of Biology. You are willfully obtuse. That shows an agenda.

Meanwhile, I've got nothing to hide from on behalf of women. According to you, insisting on accuracy in discussing basic reproductive biology is "vindictive". My my, talk about spin.

I hold BOTH parties to conception accountable. You don't.

Thus, your agenda is pure unadulterated weaselhood for men.

Then both people should have a say in the pregnancy. That's not happening now. Women have all the say. I'm suggesting that both parties should.

Then we agree on that point.

You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge basic facts of Biology.

Name it.

According to you, insisting on accuracy in discussing basic reproductive biology is "vindictive". My my, talk about spin.

This is what I love about your posts Lorianne. You just can't seem to get over the fact it's not within your authority to decree the glass half empty.

Women in the absence of men do not get pregnant, therefore men cause pregnancy in women. I'd write you the syllogism but it wouldn't make any difference to you.

>>Even the SCOTUS cited this arbitrary societal burden <<

How many falsehoods can exist in a clause?

the distinction between men and women is not arbitrary, it's genetic.

And it's not societal, it's biological.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

When I read a statement like the following, I'm reminded of a thought experiment I once undertook: Even the SCOTUS cited this arbitrary societal burden on women who procreate as a reason to keep abortion legal. God forbid in the United States that we consider equal justice under the law. In an effort to give the 1973 SCOTUS the benefit of the doubt, I tried to imagine what their ruling would have been had they been presented irrefutable evidence that the thing in the womb is a unique individual human being from, for argument's sake, the third month onward. I came to the conclusion, after reading many of the members' rulings prior to Roe v Wade, that only one Judge would have opted to legalize abortion after the second month. I also concluded that this would have created a Constitutional crisis, but that's fodder for another discussion.

One immediately sees that if the life in the womb, beyond the second month from ovulation of the mother, were assumed to be an individual human being, the Court would have opted to protect the innocent life, leaving the society of 1973 America to figure out how to pay for the implications. Since the court chose to see the life in the womb as gradually achieving greater humanity, greater individuality, they opted to defend the 'privacy' rights of the female life supporter ... the proverbial bait and switch with a twist of passing the buck to later courts who subsequently chose to ignore the individual humanity of the unborn.

O'Connor's ruling in the Stenberg Carhardt case shows the idiocy involved in current support of serial killing institutionalized as a right of privacy for the one hiring the serial killer: O'Connor ruled that she would support the right of the state of Nebraska to criminalize partial birth abortion as murder if the state would re-write the statute to give a pass to any woman hiring a serial killer to slaughter the unborn should a physician --including the profiting abortionist-- declare that continuing to give life support to the alive unborn child would be a health concern OF ANY TYPE, including her sense of oppression! IOW, O'Connor was ready to agree that partial birth abortion is murder (the act of willfully killing another human being with malice aforethought and no self defense component) as long as the statute is written to give the widest escape clause possible. That, my fellow freepers, is patent absurdity!... Especially when one understands that partial birth abortion is NEVER an emergency medical intervention, always an elective procedure!

The 1973 ruling was so flawed that such mental gyrations are now essential from Supreme Court Justices in order to continue supporting the errors compounded over three plus decades. In conclusion, had the SCOTUS approached the Roe ruling from the perspective of life support for an already existing innocent individual human life, more than 40,000,000 American citizens would have been granted immigration status and the vast majority would have been productive members of this society today. Time to refocus our attention, to view the unborn as already existing individual human beings on life support; are we willing to give women the right to choose to murder already existing individual human beings? If so, that right should logically extend to crib-bound infants, the elderly, dependent children with 'imperfections', and any stage in the human life cylce should be fair game for harvesting exploitation to support the lives of the ill, infirm, and any wishing to make themselves 'better' physically. [That isn't an America I would want to live in or contribute tax dollars to support and defend, yet that is just about the frankenscience monsters we've become!]

Ping-a-ling

Thanks for the heads up!

Outstanding post, Marvin. Thanks so much for your input.

"The pro-choice dogma is a tremendous windfall for unprincipled women. They gain the new privilege of deciding whether or not to accept maternal responsibility while retaining the old prerogative of compelling paternal responsibility, with both options codified into law and supported by the coercive power of the state."

All too true, but this is not the argument by which to win the Hearts and Minds of the Sheeple, IMHO. Pro-Lifers can not make this a battle of Men vs. "Unprincipled Women" if our goal is to save the lives of unborn children. Of course it ain't fair as the Law is presently, but making this issue a primary selling point of the Pro-Life argument is a LOSER strategy that will only push potentially sympathetic women over to the RATS who relish the thought of SLAUGHTERING as many Unborn as possible.

Let's fight hard and fer keeps, but let's fight smart...MUD