It is nice to see the infringement on the rights of women abortion debate framed in such a succinct manner.
“As I’ve said before (and will almost certainly have occasion to say many times again, until everyone is yawning about what a goddamn broken record I am), the anti-choice position is inherently violent, no matter how politely it is stated. If anyone else suggested that I should be forced to submit my body against my will to nine months of potential discomfort and pain, followed by an act that might include the skin and muscle between my vagina and anus being torn open, I don’t think we’d mince words about whether they were using violent rhetoric. But because we can couch it in the bullshit terminology of “a pro-life position,” that’s supposed to be evidence of civility.
That’s supposed to evidence of an unyielding belief in the sanctity of human life.
LULZ.
I am a human. That does not in any way feel like a respect for the sanctity of my life, or the quality of my life, or the agency over my life to which I am meant to have a public (and, according to Huckabee’s own religion, divine) right.
No one can argue, with any honesty or credibility, that they give a fuck about the sanctity of life if they would force a woman to carry to term an unwanted or unviable pregnancy against her will. That is the opposite of a respect for life, if the definition of “life” is to have any meaning at all.”
Run along anti-choice zealots…run along.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
25 comments
February 23, 2011 at 11:13 am
Vern R. Kaine
What I don’t like about these kinds of articles/posts is that it makes the pro-choice decision out to be one more of comfort and cosmetics than one of life and responsibility. I’m a guy, but for the women I know who’ve had to make this “life or death” choice, it had nothing to do with “potential” pain and discomfort, stretchmarks, or possibly new scars.
I understand that McEwan may be exaggerating to point out a hypocrisy with those who say they care for life but don’t seem to care about the quality of hers, but her ultimate goal seems to be empathy and understanding from men in order for the laws to change, no? If so, I’d argue that she doesn’t achieve it and actually does more to detract than further it.
I came across this article at Salon.com.
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/02/22/men_must_speak_up_on_abortion_debate/index.html The author, a male, shares the weight of the abortion decision that his mom, his sister, and his girlfriend had to make. I think it’s the weight of this decision that needs to be more communicated and understood, not what McEwan tries to emphasize which comes across as far more shallow and self-centered.
Speaking as a guy (and perhaps speaking on my own), if men are going to support a pro-choice position it will be from a position of empathy, not one of adversity and contempt. Of course this will likely never happen amongst the lobbyists in Washington. Out here in the general public, however, I think we can do a little better but I think posts like McEwan’s ultimately promote more “fight” than more understanding.
Perhaps McEwan wrote it to simply vent and say out loud what other pro-choice women think. If so, she probably achieved her goal. If her goal was to point out the hypocrisy of men and the laws they contribute to which basically tell her she must go through this “potential” pain because they want her to, then she probably achieved that goal, too. If she’s trying to change things, however, a post like this isn’t going to do it.
In short (if I may say so), I like your other posts on this topic better, Arb! ;) Oh well, an interesting read nonetheless.
LikeLike
February 23, 2011 at 12:38 pm
The Intransigent One
Comfort and cosmetics? REally? That’s what you got out of that?
As a woman, when I read a description of an episiotomy, I feel physically ill. Apparently to you, it’s cosmetic? What the flying fuck? Do you honestly need to have a vagina that could get fucking torn apart in the process to understand that vaginal delivery is a big deal? This is shit that happens to real people’s actual genitals, asshole. Go read about degloving injuries to the penis and scrotum, and see if you feel that kind of thing is just a cosmetic/comfort issue.
Or, you have an abdomen, presumably you could be able to imagine that recovering from having it cut open, including slicing through your abdominal muscles, would be pretty painful and debilitating for a while, and come with a fairly serious list of potential complications? And that’s why laparoscopy is such an amazing advance in surgical technique? But no, the worry is about having a scar? Yeah, women are so fucking vain. Fuck you.
Look: if you are pregnant and don’t get an abortion or miscarry early, there are two, and only two possible outcomes: push an object large enough to tear it, through your vagina, or have major abdominal surgery. (Not to mention all the other things pregnancy and childbirth can do to fuck you up, temporarily, permanently, or possibly lethally.) Every pregnant woman who carries to viability faces this certainty. Every woman who makes a free and informed choice to bear a child is, in my opinion, engaging in an act of bravery and self-sacrifice.
Yet you call an argument that no woman should be forced to go through this against her will, shallow and self-centred? Really? I think I’m coming to understand why I not only disagree with you, but also dislike you personally: it seems to me that the positions you hold are really only tenable if you have a complete lack of concern for the suffering of others.
LikeLike
February 23, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Did I say that the argument that no woman should be forced to go through (this) against her will shallow and self-centered? No I did not, but obviously your bias is filling in the blanks and it’s what you want to hear. You’ve completely missed what I was trying to say in my reply.
McEwan seems to more/less make the point that the pain and risk of complications in childbirth should be her decision and her decision alone to make, right? Her way however of making that point was a graphic description of what does happen, or could happen, in the delivery room.
My comments on that were as follows:
1) The graphic description does nothing for me of adding to her point. What’s it’s purpose – shock value? Result: zero. And not just for me – three women and two men in my office that I showed this to also agreed.
2) We all talked about this over lunch and where we actually have seen descriptions like these have an impact is in promoting abortions to young teens. Each of us here have heard from certain young girls in our lives (children, nieces, students, etc.) who have said they don’t want kids because of what it will do to their bodies.
You have to agree that there are millions of mothers out there who felt that whatever they had to go through to have their child – risks, c-section, labor, whatever, was worth it. You even say yourself that, “Every woman who makes a free and informed choice to bear a child is, in my opinion, engaging in an act of bravery and self-sacrifice.” Well who are they making that sacrifice for, exactly? Not just that child, but everyone that’s going to be involved in that child’s life. Of course this should be recognized, appreciated, valued, and rewarded – where in McEwan’s post, however, does this happen?
Perhaps it’s not the place for it to. That’s fine, but my point (which obviously I didn’t articulate well enough) is that without those kind of messages included in the dialogue there is a risk that the argument for an abortion can come across as being largely a cosmetic or conceited one. “Who cares about the kid’s future relationships, achievements, etc. – look at the 9 months of hell I had to go through!” kind of thing.
3) My next point was that if she was venting, go nuts. If she wanted to make a pro-choice statement that had impact on a segment whose thinking she wanted to change, however, I would have suggested something more along the lines of the salon.com article that shows how it’s not an easy choice to make for any woman – or couple – in that situation and that we be spared the childbirth 101 lesson that nobody needs.
She’s not going to connect with guys describing what childbirth is (or can be). Connection will happen on the mental anguish, not the physical. While the physical aspect seems to be discussed often I don’t think the mental anguish is discussed enough, as a guy trying to better understand the issue from a female point of view.
4) As easy as you quickly jumped to the conclusion that my reply was anti-female and anti-womens’ rights and you rushed to characterize me, it’s just as easy for someone to assume that McEwan’s post, your comments, and the general discourse on this blog around this issue 99% of the time is one that is anti-male, anti-children, and anti-“anyone else’s rights” but our own.
Like I said, if McEwan’s (and I guess your) goal was to simply vent, alright. If it was to create dialogue or promote greater respect or understanding amongst the different genders discussing this issue or your particular view on it, I don’t think that was achieved.
Regardless of how much I may have misread into McEwans commentary, it’s obvious my comments hit a sore spot with you. Not exactly sure why that happened, but either way it was unintentional.
LikeLike
February 23, 2011 at 5:36 pm
The Intransigent One
Yeah asshole that sore spot is my fucking vagina, which I prefer not to have lacerated.
That’s fine, but my point (which obviously I didn’t articulate well enough) is that without those kind of messages included in the dialogue there is a risk that the argument for an abortion can come across as being largely a cosmetic or conceited one.
No shit you didn’t articulate it clearly enough. You still aren’t. There is absolutely nothing fucking cosmetic or conceited about not wanting harm to come to your own body. What absolutely condescending language to be using. But oh hitting that sore spot was sooo unintentional.
Each of us here have heard from certain young girls in our lives (children, nieces, students, etc.) who have said they don’t want kids because of what it will do to their bodies.
Are you trying to argue that they’re wrong to make an informed choice about what they want to happen to their bodies? Or that some of them, later in life, won’t decide that the effects on their bodies are worth it if they get a child out of it? Is there something wrong with some women deciding they don’t want kids? Should we make sure women are misinformed about pregnancy and childbirth and think it’s nothing but puppies and rainbows, or else the species will die out?
…we be spared the childbirth 101 lesson that nobody needs.
And here you go, totally and completely missing Macewan’s point. Let me spell it out for you one more time: If one adult did to another adult, without said adult’s informed and explicit consent, what pregnancy and childbirth do to a mother’s body, it would be considered a sickening act of violence. Legislation that prevents women from choosing whether or not to carry a pregnancy, is not really that different. When you order a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, you are ordering her to choose* between major abdominal surgery or having a painfully large object passed through her vagina. Forcing either of these on an unwilling person is an act of violence, and is wrong. Full stop.
It’s lovely (and reassuring) that you’re moved by stories of emotional anguish. But the fact is, not all women are anguished about having abortions, and non-anguished woman have the same rights over their bodies as anguished ones.
The argument put forward in Macewan’s article, however emotionally unappealing it may be to you, is an argument based on a human being’s fundamental ownership of their own body and right to protect it from harm – an argument that you, as a lover of free enterprise and private property, should find comfortingly familiar. Why is it different when a woman declares that her own body is private property and she is ordering a trespasser to leave?
Also the part of the dialog that you are missing is the forced-childbirth side always going on about well why don’t you just give it up for adoption. And the answer, among other things, is that pregnancy and childbirth are a big fucking deal, and you can’t just handwave them away by offering adoption as a solution.
—————————–
*where “choose” isn’t necessarily a choice
LikeLike
February 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Vern R. Kaine
You can choose to take whatever I said to be a personal attack on you or simply as (just another?) excuse for you to be/stay angry if you want to, but you’ll still be wrong as to my intent.
Nice stress response, btw.
LikeLike
February 23, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Titfortat
Intransigent One
It may be her body, but if she is really informed then she will acknowledge that it isnt just her decision.
LikeLike
February 23, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Bleatmop
So you’re suggesting that someone else should have a say over a woman’s body? That a woman isn’t in full ownership of her body? Whom else do you propose should have a say in what a person can choose to do with their body?
Wait wait wait, I think I already know your answer. Lets assume you say anything other than the only person who should have control over her body is that person in particular. Then I get to make comparisons to a modern form of slavery and suggest that we legislate the control of your reproductive organs to some body of people of whom you wouldn’t want to have control over said organs. Then you and I can both agree that the other is being unreasonable, further solidifying our own respective positions in this debate and vilifying the opposing side. Deal?
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 6:01 am
Titfortat
Well, lets say there was an agreement with the individual who helped make the baby. Lets say it was agreed that said individual would be responsible for the baby if it was carried full term. Do you think they should be allowed to have a say if the pregnancy is ended? If no, then the deal would be null and void if it goes the other way. But we both know in our little world it doesnt work that way. Can you say double standard? Slavery, yep that may be an apt despcription.
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 8:11 am
The Intransigent One
Don’t worry, I got your intent. You’re oh so concerned that any discussion of the realities of childbirth must include a paean to motherhood and be saturated with imagery of the Gerber-commercial-cute baby you get out of the deal, because, um… (this is the part I didn’t get). Women are bombarded, literally from toddlerhood on and maybe earlier, with the message that motherhood is wonderful, babies are wonderful, your life will be meaningless unless you become a mother, there’s something wrong with you if you don’t want to have babies. Heaven forbid that occasionally a woman points out that the process of growing a baby is on the arduous side.
Oh, and women’s anger is scary, and men don’t like it so women should protect your delicate feelings by only expressing emotions you’re comfortable with us having, like pain and anguish, because there’s no way a man could ever relate to being angry about being put through pain and suffering against their will.
Guess what cupcake, it’s not (just) about you. If you don’t like a particular argument, or way of arguing, that doesn’t make the argument invalid. And just because it doesn’t sway you or a few people you know, doesn’t mean that a particular argument should never be made.
I think the reason I got/am so angry is that, whether it was your intent or not, you expressed an opinion, phrased prescriptively, about how women should, and should not, advocate for our selves. Can you see how that might be a teeny tiny bit offensive?
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 8:27 am
The Intransigent One
It may be her body, but if she is really informed then she will acknowledge that it isnt just her decision.
So are you saying that there are situations in which it is justifiable for one person to force another person to have a medical procedure (either abortion or childbirth)? Would you also want to force a kidney donor to go through with the procedure if they change their mind?
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 9:03 am
Titfortat
So are you saying that there are situations in which it is justifiable for one person to force another person to have a medical procedure (either abortion or childbirth)?(ITO)
As justifiable to making someone pay support for 20yrs against their wishes. If were all for equality then choice needs to be given to both parties in all situations. If not, then its not pro choice, but your choice. Your kidney example doesnt work because the kidney is the sole property of the donor. A fetus or baby is a mix of two people.
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 10:27 am
Vern R. Kaine
There’s nothing scary about you or your anger. And again, your own bitter internal dialogue is once again drowning everything else out where it’s apparently you on both sides of the conversation.
I didn’t once say in my reply what a glorious journey motherhood is, did I? I didn’t say McEwan’s argument was invalid, nor did I
say she (or anyone who agrees with her) is self-centered. I didn’t even say it was a self-centered argument. You’re fabricating here to suit your own rant.
What I did say when the argument is presented that way it can come across as self-centered and lead to more misunderstanding of the issue. Again, perhaps that wasn’t McEwan’s purpose, but if the purpose of posting it here went beyond venting and actually as a prompt for discussion (i.e. “Discussion”, as in what usually happens on a blog) I think there are better places to start.
Whether a fetus is solely the mother’s domain or not is something which is being debated, and should be debated, but I don’t currently have a dog in that fight. As someone who is asked to step up and weigh in on the issue with my vote, however, or donations to a cause, what I think detracts from that debate are posts like McEwan’s which do nothing to my side of the population to get the point across. Did McEwan write it wanting my opinion? No. Does she care what it is? Likely not – but it was posted here on this blog with comments turned on. Is this blog just for your opinions and for everyone to give you warm fuzzies in agreeing with you, or can people ever weigh in with different opinions without you going absolutely apeshit? And btw, why hasn’t anyone else flown off the handle? It wasn’t even a reply to you – it was a reply to Arb which was clearly stated. If what I said was in fact disrespectful, then I’ll hear it from her first, not you.
So rant, insult, and name-call all you want to, but this had nothing to do with me and was never about you. You’ve made assumptions as to who I was, what I was saying, and why I was saying it that you continue to be entirely wrong about. If what I said was received as condescending, then I will be more considerate of that in the future as that was not my intent, but as for your “problem” with it all, that lies entirely with you, not me.
I can respect that you’re very passionate about the causes you believe in, and I can also respect that you’re very firm in your beliefs (as your chosen moniker here implies), but you’re sitting here violently demanding empathy and to be listened to while at the same time you continue to prove that you’re incapable of either. No matter what I’ve said (or you think I’ve said), that speaks for itself.
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 10:27 am
The Intransigent One
I’m just trying to think this one through…
As I understand it, sharing DNA with it, gives the father joint ownership of the fetus when it’s inside the mother’s body.
Is there any other situation where shared DNA grants ownership? For example, do my mother and father still own me? If not, when did I cease to be their property? Do I own my brother? My Sister in Law is pregnant, does my 25% shared DNA with her fetus, mean I have any jurisdiction there?
Look, if you don’t want to pay child support – or be “culpable” in an abortion – but do want to have intercourse with women, it doesn’t have to be that difficult.
1. Use protection. Preferably multiple forms. Every time.
2. Talk before you fuck. If her view on what to do if she gets pregnant is different from yours, don’t fuck.
3. Only fuck women you trust. If you aren’t positive you believe her when she agrees with you, don’t fuck.
Your next argument is probably going to be that women deliberately lie and/or sabotage birth control for the purpose of getting pregnant and trapping a man. I’m sure it does happen from time to time because women are human and some humans are manipulative assholes. What the research shows, however, is that it is in fact largely men who deliberately get women pregnant in order to make them vulnerable and easier to control. See the following for links to, and discussions of, sociological research:
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 1:28 pm
The Intransigent One
What I did say when the argument is presented that way it can come across as self-centered and lead to more misunderstanding of the issue. Again, perhaps that wasn’t McEwan’s purpose, but if the purpose of posting it here went beyond venting and actually as a prompt for discussion (i.e. “Discussion”, as in what usually happens on a blog) I think there are better places to start.
Macewan in particular has been blogging for years, and the discussion on this blog about reproductive rights has been going on for quite some time too. Complaining that this isn’t a good place to start a discussion from is like walking into a graduate-level course in string theory and complaining that they need to make it more approachable.
Further:
This particular argument may not be compelling to you, but it was, in fact, a major turning point for me. Many years ago I was a fence-sitter, leaning towards anti-abortion. It was your standard teenage-invincibility type reasoning, oh, I’m too smart to ever have an unwanted pregnancy so anybody who does is stupid and probably deserves it, and really, why can’t you just give up the kid for adoption if you don’t want to be a mother. A few years and a couple broken condoms later (fortunately, I was able to get Plan B and it worked) to make me realize that preventing pregnancy isn’t 100% foolproof, and having been presented with arguments such as Macewan’s, I came to realize, abortion is not just about not wanting to be a mother. It’s also about not wanting to be pregnant or give birth. And that these are rational things to not want unless you do in fact want a baby very badly. And that being forced to go through pregnancy and give birth to a baby you never wanted, is not something I would want to happen to me or anybody else. So: pro-choice. Full stop.
Finally: Yes, discussion is in fact what often happens on blogs, and if Arb objected to your presence you’d be banned or at least disemvoweled. If Arb objects to my having gone apeshit, I won’t do it again.
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“Complaining that this isn’t a good place to start a discussion from is like walking into a graduate-level course in string theory and complaining that they need to make it more approachable.”
I would agree for the most part, but I’d say this was more a matter of seeing string theory summed up in a paragraph and expressing concern over other parts which were left out for anyone trying to better understand string theory.
I refer you to the first thing Arb said in the post: “It is nice to see the (infringement on the rights of women) abortion debate framed in such a succinct manner.” My reply was to what I thought the risks might be in framing it so succinctly.
“This particular argument may not be compelling to you…”
Actually, I found the argument that laws are in place to in fact force a woman to go through what McEwan described are not only wrong, but cruel to be quite compelling, “forced” being the operative word for me there, and it really made me think. However, it seemed that she was also making the act of childbirth out to be more wrong and just as cruel than the law forcing it, which, I believed, diluted her point. It RISKED sounding more tocophobic and irrational than rational in the way it was phrased, and my question was, is this really the best way to phrase it? Did it need to meet my approval? No, but I believe it was still a valid question considering all the stakeholders on the issue.
“…but it was, in fact, a major turning point for me. I came to realize, abortion is not just about not wanting to be a mother. It’s also about not wanting to be pregnant or give birth. And that these are rational things to not want unless you do in fact want a baby very badly.”
I agree, and what you just said in sharing your story (thank you) is far more compelling than anything McEwan said in my opinion, and does more to further the understanding that any man might hope to have on the issue regarding women either going through the situation, having gone through it already, or about to go through it. This is exactly what I was referring to further on in my reply. If the goal is male understanding, perhaps shock and succinct isn’t the way to go.
(Side note – all debate and differences aside, I greatly appreciate you sharing your story.)
“If Arb objects to my having gone apeshit, I won’t do it again.”
Maybe she appreciated the fact that you did, I don’t know. I’m actually ok with it either way, I just think there’s often a superficial rush to judgment here that does more to fuel stereotypes than break them down. If the goal here (or hope, or intent, or whatever) is actually greater understanding and the breaking down some of those stereotypes, we (myself included) might not want to be so quick to judge or drop people into our most convenient categories to attack them. Your perception of me might be that I’m a full-on asshole (that’s ok!), but after what you’ve written, that view is not shared in reverse. Dialogue can do wonders!
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Titfortat
I like that, “just trying to think this one through”
Isnt that what its all about, thinking? I posed some questions to my daughter about responsibility and consequence and I was amazed at how bright of a woman she is becoming. Your statements are quite illuminating, lets just switch the gender.
1. Use protection. Preferably multiple forms. Every time.
2. Talk before you fuck. If HIS view on what to do if you get pregnant is different from yours, don’t fuck.
3. Only fuck MEN you trust. If you aren’t positive you believe HIM when HE agrees with you, don’t fuck.
Now that is ownership! If only we all would do that. But what happens when you have an agreement and one of individuals doesnt keep their end of the bargain. If it is going to be a relationship that has financial and emotional consequences at the end then how do we determine who is CULPABLE? Afterall, we know a man is responsible for support regardless if he wants to or not. So what if in the arrangement the woman had agreed to carry the fetus full term and then reneged on the deal, how do we determine the financial and emotional penalty for that? If the man has no say in the outcome(emotional) does he not deserve some compensation for his emotional pain and suffering?
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 9:02 pm
The Arbourist
A fetus or baby is a mix of two people.
And where is it? If you answer floating between the two potential parents, you get a mark for creativity, but none for accuracy.
The fetus of course is inside the woman using her nutrients and energy, and if she does not like that condition, she can stop that particular situation at her will.
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Intransigentia
Your gender reversal is, in fact, my protocol for sex with men – though if I’ve fucked them before I tend to assume their opinion hasn’t changed; and if we’ve agreed this is a casual hookup/one night stand I assume he does not want a permanent connection to me through a baby, and the trust issue is more, will he in fact wear a condom and keep it on the whole time as agreed, or is he a Julian Assange wannabe.
As for your hypothetical scenario, I guess it’s a no-win situation. Emotions towards a wanted unborn baby are powerful – you should have seen me and my mom get all giddy when my brother emailed me an ultrasound pic of his future child/my future niece/nephew. The loss of that wanted baby could be emotionally devastating.
Know what else could not only be emotionally devastating, but also physically damaging? Being compelled to give birth against your will – see above.
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Titfortat
and if she does not like that condition, she can stop that particular situation at her will.(Arb)
I guess in a society which believes in fairness and equality the man should not be held accountable(financially) if he does not like the situation. Pro choice should be for all, dont you think?
LikeLike
February 25, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Alan Scott
The Intransigent One,
So the baby inside the mother has no standing at all when it comes to it’s survival ? I suppose it does not feel the scissors thrust into it’s brain during certain types of abortion ? I suppose it does not struggle to live ? I suppose it does not even want to live ?
LikeLike
February 26, 2011 at 10:40 am
The Arbourist
“and if she does not like that condition, she can stop that particular situation at her will.(Arb)”
“I guess in a society which believes in fairness and equality the man should not be held accountable(financially) if he does not like the situation. Pro choice should be for all, dont you think?”
I’m curious how the idea of fairness and equality plays into the idea that a Man should have say over someone else’s bodily autonomy. Are you promoting the idea that his contribution to the process of conception somehow entitles him to a say in what goes on in another body?
I’m unclear to as to what you are exactly arguing as the idea of fairness and equality do not match up well with the procreative cycle.
LikeLike
February 26, 2011 at 11:02 am
The Arbourist
So the baby inside the mother has no standing at all when it comes to it’s survival ?
Is an acorn an oak tree, and if by some chance if you toss an acorn in the shredder do you pine for the lost tree that it could of become?
LikeLike
February 26, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Titfortat
I am saying emphatically that in certain situations a man should be entitled to a say in regards to aborting the fetus which he helped create. I personally think it is unconsciousnable that in certain situations the male’s voice is not heard. Pro choice is a misnomer as it used today. It should read as ” Its my choice as a woman and you as a man can shut the fuck up”
LikeLike
February 27, 2011 at 12:51 pm
The Arbourist
I am saying emphatically that in certain situations a man should be entitled to a say in regards to aborting the fetus which he helped create.
Err…how much input is need from said man after he makes his contribution? The answer of course rhymes with ‘hero’. Therefore, the person with the responsibility of bearing the child then has the say whether or not she likes what is going on in her body.
I personally think it is unconsciousnable [sic] that in certain situations the male’s voice is not heard.
Oh what about the menz!! So in which situations do you think a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term? I’m curious as to actually how much power sperm donation gives a man to run another autonomous being’s life?
It should read as ” Its my choice as a woman and you as a man can shut the fuck up”
Close, but really it should read, “It is my choice as a woman.” End of line. Shutting the frak up, although usually desirable, is not necessary if the first condition is met.
Arguing that men have equal responsibility in a clearly unequal situation has a clearly ludicrous quality to it. Do we poll airline passengers on how to fly the plane? Certainly not, they have a vested interest of course, but they are not responsible for flight, hence do not get a say.
LikeLike
February 27, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Titfortat
Arguing that men have equal responsibility in a clearly unequal situation has a clearly ludicrous quality to it(Arb)
Its interesting how our courts make them equally responsible after the birth. How convient for the woman, right? Also, you assume the man(in all situations) would not suffer if his fetus, baby, child was aborted. Do you not think his emotional pain is relevant? One thing I try to teach my daughter is accountability for her actions. If she was in a situation that can comprimise that, should I teach her that its ok to do whatever she deems acceptable? Or do you think I should help her understand that she doesnt live in a vacuum and her actions have consequences. Sure, I can agree with you that the woman will bear the physical pain and potentially the emotional pain also, but you wrongly assume that the man won’t suffer at all. And if you do believe he will “suffer” also, then how can you suggest he has no say in the matter?
Oh what about the menz!! So in which situations do you think a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term?(Arb)
I never said she should be forced. I am saying that there needs to be open dialogue in certain situations. Afterall, if there is financial responsibility on the man after the child is born could this possible mean the woman may bear some financial responsibility if she terminates the pregnancy? I wonder if stuff like this plays out with surrogates? Mind you, they would probably have that in the contract, right? Maybe before fucking we should start by dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.
LikeLike