Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Mad Poster
#26 Old 16th Apr 2019 at 4:15 PM
Wow @Happychappy the way you replied to Pideli was absolutely disgusting. I think we all need to keep in mind that this is a debate thread, not for petty name calling and gross assumptions thread.

However I do think you came up with an interesting question - What about if the dad wants the baby but the Mum doesn't? I'm pretty torn on the subject personally. I'd love to know what other pro-choice people think

~Your friendly neighborhood ginge
Advertisement
Test Subject
#27 Old 17th Apr 2019 at 3:57 AM
Oh cry me a river. It's people like this who support murder of unborn human beings but nevermind that, I'm being absolutely DISGUSTING with my text on the interwebs. Get the feck outta here.

Where's my banhammer anyway? Can't be far off given I'm in SJW clown land AKA modthesims. The place where we discuss mods that make male sims pregnant WTF?
Mad Poster
#28 Old 17th Apr 2019 at 4:36 AM
Quote: Originally posted by happychappy
I'm in SJW clown land AKA modthesims. The place where we discuss mods that make male sims pregnant WTF?


Don't like the site?

Quote: Originally posted by happychappy
Get the feck outta here.

Because the earth is standing still, and the truth becomes a lie
A choice profound is bittersweet, no one hears Cassandra Goth cry

Test Subject
#29 Old 17th Apr 2019 at 9:04 AM Last edited by heaven : 17th Apr 2019 at 12:39 PM. Reason: removed deleted quote
I absolutely hate the idea of abortion and wish every child could be born to a parent who wants them and has the means to care for them! Unfortunately that is not reality and by making something illegal will definitely not make it go away.

I was totally against abortion until a girl I worked with had one. It was years ago before abortion was legal where I live and she had fallen pregnant, she was not in any way promiscuous or immoral but it was obvious she had serious problems in her life. Anyway, she eventually found a doctor who would help her, he performed the abortion in his consulting rooms after hours. She was given a stiff shot of brandy, 2 pain killers and a cloth to bite down on and it was done! The pain was excruciating and lasted for days, but that was the least of her problems the emotional trauma and self loathing has never gone away. Seeing how she suffered changed my way of thinking. My views on abortion remain pretty much the same but it did give me an idea of how desperate someone has to be to put themselves through that!

Its all very well to have strong opinions, you have that right but you cannot allow it to make you judge and jury over someone else's life, you have absolutely no idea of what their life is like. The fact that abortion was illegal was not a deterrent to her, her desperation was greater than that so all that happened was she was denied proper treatment in the form of pain management, she ran the risk of post procedure infection due to lack of after care and she was denied any psychological counselling that a properly run abortion clinic would offer. Later abortion was legalised and a young girl I know went in to a clinic and after chatting to them she changed her mind and had her baby. Pregnancy is not the result of sleeping around, its the result of sexual intercourse, fullstop. It has nothing to do with a persons moral fibre, it can happen to the moral, the immoral and the amoral.

Abortion will be around as long as there are unwanted pregnancies and desperate women. The alternative is to force them to go to dangerous and sometimes life threatening lengths to try and solve their problems and surely it is better to at least try and save one of those lives than none at all? By offering a safe and 'legal' environment at least there is some form of accountability and control over those who perform the procedures.

I have no idea why you seem so angry, but the world is filled with flawed humans who make mistakes and have to try and deal with the consequences as best they can.
Mad Poster
#30 Old 17th Apr 2019 at 9:40 AM Last edited by simmer22 : 17th Apr 2019 at 2:11 PM.
I'm pro-choice with certain limitations. Don't know if I'd be able to go through an abortion myself, but I think there are a lot of reasons why abortion should be legal and a matter of choice (though with some regulations in place, because after a point it really does become a matter of the baby being able to survive outside the womb).

Before anyone goes around screaming bloody murder, you should know this:
- If all egg cells the woman produces could potentially become a baby, she'd be "killing" at least one "potential baby" once a month.
- Not all fertilized eggs turns into a fetus.
- Not all fetuses turn into a baby, and it's rarely the woman's fault (spontaneous abortions, for instance)
- According to statistics, most abortions are carried out when there's just a lump of cells in there, no face or fingers or even a heart or the mere beginnings of a nervous system. Removing that lump of cells is about as murderous as removing a cancerous tumor.
- Carrying a baby to term can be very hard on the body, sometimes even dangerous.
- Up until around 20 weeks, the fetus is not able to survive outside the womb, medical attention or not. Before this, the fetus is basically no more than a lump of cells sporting a parasitic behavior.
- After 20 weeks, up until around 23 weeks, the survivability of the baby is hazy, more on a case-to-case basis, but most likely not, and there's a high risk there will be medical issues in the future (CP, blindness, learning disabilities, etc.).
- After 23 weeks, the baby has a fair chance at life, with a lot of medical attention. The more weeks it gets to spend inside the womb, the better chance it has, and less risk for medical issues later in life.
- There may be medical reasons as to why the baby even after 23 weeks wouldn't be able to survive or would be able to have a chance at a good life, for instance genetic diseases or congenital disorders.
- The future life quality of the baby should count (not always easy to predict, may even be on a case to case basis).

"But we need diversity!" people don't know what they're saying. Who actually wants their baby to have a disability or disease? The choice of whether to carry the baby to term when there's a known medical issue should be up to the parents. If they do get handed a child with a disability and don't get the choice, that's a whole different situation. Just because one child with X type of disability is fine and manages well in life doesn't mean a child with the same type of disability will have the same kind of life situation. The child may get handled a life with a lot of pain and suffering, perhaps bullying, and the stigma of being different from everyone else. If parents think they can handle that, then fine. But some parents just want to give their children a good start in life, without a known overhanging disability to slow them down. You can't know what comes later in life. Nobody knows if your seemingly perfectly healthy little kid could turn out to have a severe genetic disorder, or suddenly get run over by a car. But if you do know that the unborn lump of cells has a disease or disorder, you as a parent if choosing to carry the baby to term is perhaps even more responsible for that child's wellbeing than someone expecting a healthy baby.

The life of the mother and her ability and determination to take care of a child should always count:
- Age (some teenage moms do fine, others don't)
- life situation
- Health (does carrying the baby to term, or even to a viable gestational age cause significant risks to the mother?)
- rape or other situations outside the mother's control
- her ability to take care of a healthy baby
- her ability to take care of a possibly very sick child that needs medical attention troughout parts of or their whole life.
- Does she actually want a baby? Sometimes it's just bad luck, maybe even a broken condom or a forgotten pill. No protection is 100% safe.
- If you really don't want kids, why should you be forced to have them?
- If the circumstances are so that the parents don't want to keep the baby but for some reason go over the limit where the baby is viable, there should be systems in place for adoption and the like. People shouldn't be condemned for not wanting to have a baby, and there's plenty of people who actually want to have kids but can't have them, so the child may still get a good home and a set of loving parents.
- In countries where abortion is illegal, women may do stupid things to themselves to get rid of the baby. Knitting needles, drinking substances poisonous to the fetus, etc. It's much better to have a healthcare solution that takes good care of these women, giving them fully legal options that aren't as potentially life threatening as the DIY options. And at the same time there should be social systems in place to better their life situation.
- Proper sexual education and family planning goes a LONG way to avoid unwanted abortions. If teenagers know how to 'do it' safely, and learn the meaning of the word "no", that helps a lot. Have a video about the implications of bad sex-ed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0jQz6jqQS0 (and everyone should watch the last part - funny and informative at the same time )

I'm pro-choice up until 12 weeks (your body, your decision), and if there are good reasons as long as the fetus is clearly not viable even without medical attention, whether it's a healthy or sick fetus (roughly until 20-22 weeks). After that, there should be rules and regulations, because then you're really carrying a baby with certain rights to life, since it can potentially survive outside the womb. Heavyweighing medical and social reasons should always be considered no matter the gestational age, and the woman's life should never be put at risk for the sake of the baby unless by her own choice.

If you want to know how some insane laws and regulations can make it really tough for women even in countries where abortion is technically legal (we're talking USA here), have a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRauXXz6t0Y

Quote:
What about if the dad wants the baby but the Mum doesn't?


What the father thinks? Sure, he should get a say, but the's not the one supposed to carry all those extra kilos, possibly vomit and have all those annoying side-effects of pregnancy, ending up squeezing a squirming football-sized human being out of her (way too small) nether region. Sure, the father may take part in taking care of the kid until it's old enough to leave home (and then continue to worry about the kid's wellbeing the rest of their life), but that first part is on the woman. Until men are able to carry babies to term and squeeze them out of a small body hole, the woman should have the last word as long as the fetus/baby is part of her body. In a relationship, if the man wants kids but the woman doesn't, it's her choice. He's welcome to either accept that, or break up the relationship and find a new girlfriend/wife who actually does want kids. But flip the coin, and the woman shouldn't force the man to become a father, either (some do, and it often enough ends in a breakup, but with a child in the middle with no say over their situation). The choice of becoming parents in a relationship between two adults should ideally include both of them wanting it.
Mad Poster
#31 Old 17th Apr 2019 at 10:14 AM
Quote: Originally posted by happychappy
Oh cry me a river. It's people like this who support murder of unborn human beings but nevermind that, I'm being absolutely DISGUSTING with my text on the interwebs. Get the feck outta here.

Where's my banhammer anyway? Can't be far off given I'm in SJW clown land AKA modthesims. The place where we discuss mods that make male sims pregnant WTF?

K dude you're not sounding like much of a happy chappy right now.

~Your friendly neighborhood ginge
Mad Poster
#32 Old 17th Apr 2019 at 10:46 AM Last edited by simmer22 : 17th Apr 2019 at 1:58 PM.
Quote:
Know why it's illegals to wreck Eagle eggs? Because it is recognised that the egg had value. It contains life which is yet to sprout. Think about it. It's called infanticide.


I think it's more a matter of Eagles being close enough to extinction to want to preserve the species. This goes for other species close to extinction, too.

As far as I know, humans are not close to extinction. You might say we're part of the problem of other species becoming extinct. I guess there's a lot of guilt-tripping in the matter. Making a problem, and trying to fix it. Breaking their eggs is a bad idea if you want to preserve the species.

Chickens are in plentiful, and breaking chicken eggs is not illegal (some might even find them delicious). Chickens do lay unfertilized eggs all the time, though. Eagle eggs, and the eggs of most other egg-laying species tend to be fertilized most of the time, and if you want to preserve certain species, making sure their young have a decent chance to grow up is probably the best way.

Humans are egg-producing species too, but most fertile women lose at least one egg each month, and nobody cares about those "potential lives". Men in general squirt out way too much sperm for their own good, and nobody cares about all those million of "lost lives" either. It's only when the two happen to combine and by chance starts growing inside the woman when people start crying out bloody murder. A lot of potentially fertilized human egg cells (they don't always fasten in the uterus wall) get washed down in the toilet or thrown in the bin every day and no one bats an eyelid.
Top Secret Researcher
#33 Old 17th Apr 2019 at 1:04 PM
I wonder why people who are clearly not interested in debating and LISTENING, but only in putting people down for their beliefs, come to a debate thread? Like, what do they think this is?
Just wanted to put that out there real quick, I'm currently quite busy but I will be back in a couple of days.

Omnia - Fantasy / Mythological / Medieval Hood
Ephemera MoreColorful - SimpleSkin Recolors
Field Researcher
#34 Old 18th Apr 2019 at 12:44 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Bigsimsfan12
Wow @Happychappy the way you replied to Pideli was absolutely disgusting. I think we all need to keep in mind that this is a debate thread, not for petty name calling and gross assumptions thread.

However I do think you came up with an interesting question - What about if the dad wants the baby but the Mum doesn't? I'm pretty torn on the subject personally. I'd love to know what other pro-choice people think


Well the dad doesn't need to carry the baby for nine months. If both aren't on board she can get an abortion imo.
Mad Poster
#35 Old 18th Apr 2019 at 1:48 AM Last edited by HarVee : 18th Apr 2019 at 2:14 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
I'm pro-choice with certain limitations. Don't know if I'd be able to go through an abortion myself, but I think there are a lot of reasons why abortion should be legal and a matter of choice (though with some regulations in place, because after a point it really does become a matter of the baby being able to survive outside the womb).

Before anyone goes around screaming bloody murder, you should know this:
- If all egg cells the woman produces could potentially become a baby, she'd be "killing" at least one "potential baby" once a month.
- Not all fertilized eggs turns into a fetus.
- Not all fetuses turn into a baby, and it's rarely the woman's fault (spontaneous abortions, for instance)
- According to statistics, most abortions are carried out when there's just a lump of cells in there, no face or fingers or even a heart or the mere beginnings of a nervous system. Removing that lump of cells is about as murderous as removing a cancerous tumor.
- Carrying a baby to term can be very hard on the body, sometimes even dangerous.
- Up until around 20 weeks, the fetus is not able to survive outside the womb, medical attention or not. Before this, the fetus is basically no more than a lump of cells sporting a parasitic behavior.
- After 20 weeks, up until around 23 weeks, the survivability of the baby is hazy, more on a case-to-case basis, but most likely not, and there's a high risk there will be medical issues in the future (CP, blindness, learning disabilities, etc.).
- After 23 weeks, the baby has a fair chance at life, with a lot of medical attention. The more weeks it gets to spend inside the womb, the better chance it has, and less risk for medical issues later in life.
- There may be medical reasons as to why the baby even after 23 weeks wouldn't be able to survive or would be able to have a chance at a good life, for instance genetic diseases or congenital disorders.
- The future life quality of the baby should count (not always easy to predict, may even be on a case to case basis).

"But we need diversity!" people don't know what they're saying. Who actually wants their baby to have a disability or disease? The choice of whether to carry the baby to term when there's a known medical issue should be up to the parents. If they do get handed a child with a disability and don't get the choice, that's a whole different situation. Just because one child with X type of disability is fine and manages well in life doesn't mean a child with the same type of disability will have the same kind of life situation. The child may get handled a life with a lot of pain and suffering, perhaps bullying, and the stigma of being different from everyone else. If parents think they can handle that, then fine. But some parents just want to give their children a good start in life, without a known overhanging disability to slow them down. You can't know what comes later in life. Nobody knows if your seemingly perfectly healthy little kid could turn out to have a severe genetic disorder, or suddenly get run over by a car. But if you do know that the unborn lump of cells has a disease or disorder, you as a parent if choosing to carry the baby to term is perhaps even more responsible for that child's wellbeing than someone expecting a healthy baby.

The life of the mother and her ability and determination to take care of a child should always count:
- Age (some teenage moms do fine, others don't)
- life situation
- Health (does carrying the baby to term, or even to a viable gestational age cause significant risks to the mother?)
- rape or other situations outside the mother's control
- her ability to take care of a healthy baby
- her ability to take care of a possibly very sick child that needs medical attention troughout parts of or their whole life.
- Does she actually want a baby? Sometimes it's just bad luck, maybe even a broken condom or a forgotten pill. No protection is 100% safe.
- If you really don't want kids, why should you be forced to have them?
- If the circumstances are so that the parents don't want to keep the baby but for some reason go over the limit where the baby is viable, there should be systems in place for adoption and the like. People shouldn't be condemned for not wanting to have a baby, and there's plenty of people who actually want to have kids but can't have them, so the child may still get a good home and a set of loving parents.
- In countries where abortion is illegal, women may do stupid things to themselves to get rid of the baby. Knitting needles, drinking substances poisonous to the fetus, etc. It's much better to have a healthcare solution that takes good care of these women, giving them fully legal options that aren't as potentially life threatening as the DIY options. And at the same time there should be social systems in place to better their life situation.
- Proper sexual education and family planning goes a LONG way to avoid unwanted abortions. If teenagers know how to 'do it' safely, and learn the meaning of the word "no", that helps a lot. Have a video about the implications of bad sex-ed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0jQz6jqQS0 (and everyone should watch the last part - funny and informative at the same time )

I'm pro-choice up until 12 weeks (your body, your decision), and if there are good reasons as long as the fetus is clearly not viable even without medical attention, whether it's a healthy or sick fetus (roughly until 20-22 weeks). After that, there should be rules and regulations, because then you're really carrying a baby with certain rights to life, since it can potentially survive outside the womb. Heavyweighing medical and social reasons should always be considered no matter the gestational age, and the woman's life should never be put at risk for the sake of the baby unless by her own choice.

If you want to know how some insane laws and regulations can make it really tough for women even in countries where abortion is technically legal (we're talking USA here), have a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRauXXz6t0Y



What the father thinks? Sure, he should get a say, but the's not the one supposed to carry all those extra kilos, possibly vomit and have all those annoying side-effects of pregnancy, ending up squeezing a squirming football-sized human being out of her (way too small) nether region. Sure, the father may take part in taking care of the kid until it's old enough to leave home (and then continue to worry about the kid's wellbeing the rest of their life), but that first part is on the woman. Until men are able to carry babies to term and squeeze them out of a small body hole, the woman should have the last word as long as the fetus/baby is part of her body. In a relationship, if the man wants kids but the woman doesn't, it's her choice. He's welcome to either accept that, or break up the relationship and find a new girlfriend/wife who actually does want kids. But flip the coin, and the woman shouldn't force the man to become a father, either (some do, and it often enough ends in a breakup, but with a child in the middle with no say over their situation). The choice of becoming parents in a relationship between two adults should ideally include both of them wanting it.

One thing I don't get about your argument which I had otherwise agreed with was when you stated how father has no say so and earlier you were talking about how life can give unexpected circumstances. But what if--and this is just a hypothetical--What if the father wants the baby, the mother doesn't, and it turns out that the father has testicular cancer and this may be his only opportunity to ever conceive a child. Should he be then denied the joy of being a father because the mother said no?

Per your argument such circumstance could happen.

I'll give you my take on my hypothetical. And it's a completely reasonable one. If say the father wants the child and the mother doesn't then the child should be allowed to be born, but after the birth the father is sole legal guardian, and the mother then has no legal jurisdiction over the child. This way the hypothetical father could still be a father, and the mother doesn't have to deal with the responsibility of attending to the care of a child and can continue her school and/or career. It's the classic compromise scenario.

Also I'd like to point out that your argument contradicts itself. You say the father should have the choice and then completely say the opposite 2 sentences later. As such:

Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
What the father thinks? Sure, he should get a say


Contradiction:

Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
Until men are able to carry babies to term and squeeze them out of a small body hole, the woman should have the last word as long as the fetus/baby is part of her body. In a relationship, if the man wants kids but the woman doesn't, it's her choice.


Now I get where you're coming from--the whole "her body, her rights" argument. It was a solid argument until that last part with the mentioning of the father.

Because the earth is standing still, and the truth becomes a lie
A choice profound is bittersweet, no one hears Cassandra Goth cry

Test Subject
#36 Old 18th Apr 2019 at 9:04 AM
I do not agree the father should have no say, I think in some cases dads get a raw deal. The trouble I have with the 'its my body, its my tiny hole' (which by the way is designed to stretch and has done, is doing and will be doing billions of times all around the world till the end of time!) argument is that it puts all the power in the hands of one party, and completely removes the rights of the other.

So what we end up with is that the mother can decide to abort if she chooses and the father has no say, AND she can decide to have the baby and the father has no say.............yet she has the right to legally force him to take financial responsibility for decades for a child he did not want in the first place? So, the father can be denied fatherhood, even if he is willing/able to support the child, and he can be forced into fatherhood, even if he is unwilling/unable to support the child? How is that fair?
Mad Poster
#37 Old 18th Apr 2019 at 10:22 AM Last edited by simmer22 : 18th Apr 2019 at 11:30 AM.
... so the woman should be forced to push out the baby just because the man (and not the woman) wants kids? Isn't that how it used to work in the olden days?

I'm for things like same-sex couples adopting, surrogacy, dads/moms getting the full responsibility for their child after birth if both agree to it or there are reasons why the other parent shouldn't have responsibility for the child, and whatever other method people use to have kids that involves mutual conscent, but for those roughly 9 months the baby is supposed to stay inside the mother, it's part of her body, and ultimately she does have the right to make the decisions. It's similar (but perhaps not entirely) to the rights she'd have on whether to have an elective surgery or not.

What comes after the baby is out is a whole different thing, at least in a modern society. Where I live, men do have a lot of rights concerning their children, to a point of almost equal rights between men and women - though on some points the rights still go in favor of the mother.

Quote:
What if the father wants the baby, the mother doesn't, and it turns out that the father has testicular cancer and this may be his only opportunity to ever conceive a child. Should he be then denied the joy of being a father because the mother said no?


Then we're into some special circumstances, and perhaps a serious discussion between the two, but I still don't think the woman should be forced by law to have the child. There are a lot of possible ways around this, and maybe they could come to an agreement or compromize. It would still come down to the mother's choice, though.

Quote:
the father wants the child and the mother doesn't then the child should be allowed to be born, but after the birth the father is sole legal guardian, and the mother then has no legal jurisdiction over the child. This way the hypothetical father could still be a father, and the mother doesn't have to deal with the responsibility of attending to the care of a child and can continue her school and/or career. It's the classic compromise scenario.


That's one possible solution, and something the two of them could discuss, possibly even be a win-win situation for both of them.

Quote:
Now I get where you're coming from--the whole "her body, her rights" argument. It was a solid argument until that last part with the mentioning of the father.


What I meant was that the man should have an opportunity to say what's on his mind regarding whether or not to have the baby, but the woman should be the one making the final decision because it's her body doing all the heavy lifting. It's possible his arguments can make her change her mind, so it's not like he doesn't have a say at all.

There are also cases where women feel pressured or are forced to have an abortion even if they don't want to, perhaps by their husband or parents (if they're under a certain age). That's not right, either.

You can turn the tables and ask if a woman should be able to decide whether the man should have a surgery that he doesn't want to have. Or if a woman wants children but the man with testicular cancer doesn't want kids at all. Should she be able to force him to freeze down sperm "for the future" before the surgery to remove his testicles? Isn't his right to decide over his body equally important as her right to decide over her body? You also have those "missed pills" times when the man doesn't want kids but the woman does, so she "forces" the child on him, and he ends up walking away but still has to pay for it. That's not right, either.

The father's rights are in a lot of cases (depending on country you live in) limited, and I don't think he should be forced to pay for a child he didn't want, but this is a grey area (he could say he didn't want the child even if he did at the start).

It's not all black and white. There's a lot of grey areas in here as well.

Abortion is not an easy thing, but it being completely illegal is not a valid solution. This drives women to desperation, and causes more trouble than it's worth. There are a lot of factors, like I mentioned above - age, life situation, and the fact that if you have this child it's legally your responsibility for roughly 18 years. It's a heavy decision, and not everyone is ready for this. Sure, there are alternatives, but isn't it a lot better that a child is wanted by its parents and they're prepared to take care of the child?

No matter how liberal or strict abortion laws are, abortion should at the very least be legal when there's danger to the mother's life, when it's the result of a criminal act, or when there's severe damage to the baby/fetus. Some countries don't even have that.

When abortion is made completely illegal, we get cases like this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-46600886 (could have gotten 20 years in prison for suspected try on abortion)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-43395436 (15 years in prison for stillbirth)
Possibly even worse.
Test Subject
#38 Old 18th Apr 2019 at 11:53 AM Last edited by Jezzie : 18th Apr 2019 at 12:17 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
... so the woman should be forced to push out the baby just because the man (and not the woman) wants kids? Isn't that how it used to work in the olden days?

I have no idea how it worked in the 'olden days', I don't know what situations you are referring to? What I do know its not a very modern or forward thinking society that denies the rights of roughly 50% of the population.

It would not be fair for a man to force a woman to abort a child he doesn't want but she does, would it? So, if he really wanted the child, she should not force him into that choice either. Obviously men cannot carry children, but that choice was made for them and if a woman chooses to be a single parent she can do so quite easily, in the case of men, it can be done but is way more difficult. I'm just saying in our modern society men and women should be given equal rights over their unborn children.

Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
What comes after the baby is out is a whole different thing, at least in a modern society. Where I live, men do have a lot of rights concerning their children, to roughly a point of equal rights between men and women at most points - though they sometimes go in favor of the mother.
Certainly. Men have rights once the child is born, that is commonplace, its their rights before birth that are neglected. Look, if a woman truly didn't want to be a mother, she could always keep her mouth shut and quietly have an abortion and he would be none the wiser, but if she brings him into it then she needs to take his views into consideration.

Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
it's part of her body, and ultimately she does have the right to make the decisions.
A fetus is not part of a woman's body, it would not exist without the contribution of the male sperm. Its inside her body but certainly not a 'part' of her body. We are separate and our fathers contribution is as great as our mothers.

Edit: I got distracted while typing and it seems you added a whole bunch of other thoughts.

Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
Or if a woman wants children but the man with testicular cancer doesn't want kids at all. Should she be able to force him to freeze down sperm "for the future" before the surgery to remove his testicles? Isn't his right to decide over his body equally important as her right to decide over her body?
No she should not, but sperm in a freezer is vastly different from a fetus already in place and growing. The one is before the fact and the other is after the fact.

You are right is isn't a black and white situation, but I don't understand the whole "even if he wants it too bad, its my body" attitude? Woman will always have the upper hand, because if she is absolutely adamant about not having a child then leave the father out of the situation completely and get on with it. If she is unsure then its a decision the couple should make together, but then she has to be prepared to follow through and respect his rights if he wants the child.
Mad Poster
#39 Old 18th Apr 2019 at 4:32 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 18th Apr 2019 at 5:31 PM.
You know, he (or she) has got every right to quit their relationship and try to find anoher wife/girfriend who does want the same thing as they do.

Quote: Originally posted by Jezzie
A fetus is not part of a woman's body, it would not exist without the contribution of the male sperm. Its inside her body but certainly not a 'part' of her body.


How is a fetus not a part of the woman's body? The fetus/baby has fed on nutrition from the woman's body for up to 40 weeks, and is literally inside one of her organs.The fetus up until a certain time in the pregnancy is not able to survive outside the woman's body, and after that time it's completely dependent on medical attention for a while yet if it's born to early.

It can even be argued that in the future, women might be able to have kids without a male contribution. To make a female human you technically only need the X-Chromosomes, so with a bit of petridish tinkering an all-female human species could theoretically be a possibility, and you'd technically only have to tinker a bit with the egg cell to make two women the parents of one child. A woman is already able to have a baby without ever having intimate contact with a man (though with a little bit of scientific help and a sperm donor). There are a few animal species that can self-impregnate and make 'clones' of themselves if there aren't males around, and some species can change gender if need be, so nature tends to find a way.

Quote:
You are right is isn't a black and white situation, but I don't understand the whole "even if he wants it too bad, its my body" attitude? Woman will always have the upper hand, because if she is absolutely adamant about not having a child then leave the father out of the situation completely and get on with it. If she is unsure then its a decision the couple should make together, but then she has to be prepared to follow through and respect his rights if he wants the child.


If she is unsure, then of course they should try to figure it out together. But if she is sure she doesn't want to continue the pregncy, then shouldn't he also be prepared to respect her wishes and rights?

Quote: Originally posted by Jezzie
We are separate and our fathers contribution is as great as our mothers.


Well... the sperm from a rapist is also a "contribution", but do you think he has the right to be a father for that child? Or any rights to decide what happens to the lump of cells/fetus/baby/child? Just asking, because there are circumstances where you might argue the rights of the sperm donor.

There are men who willingly donate sperm to a sperm bank so an unrelated couple an have babies, and do they have equal rights to choose what happens to their sperm and/or future babies? Same if egg donation is made legal (probably is in some parts of the world). I'd argue the donor woman doesn't have the right to those children, either. If you've donated an organ or blood or bone marrow to someone, it's not like you can ask to have it back. I'd think you'd have to sign away the rights to those cells, even if they've got the potential to create life.

Tings may be different in a relationship, of course, and both the woman and man should have a say. But if the woman for some reason is unwilling to finish the pregnancy for whatever reason, can you honestly say it's right to force her to do it? A pregnancy isn't just five minutes of fun in the bed and out pops a baby nine months later. Her body goes through a lot of changes, not all positive, and for some women a pregnancy can be life-threatening. Childbirth used to be one of the more dangerous things a woman could go through, and it wasn't certain that the baby or the mother would survive. Even with modern healthcare and hygiene, carrying a baby to term may not be all sunshine and roses even if it's technically much safer now. It's difficult to find valid exampes for "but what about the man?" as there isn't anything to compare it to, because men simply don't have the risk of pregnancy and childbirth to consider when it comes to their own body.
Test Subject
#40 Old 18th Apr 2019 at 9:09 PM
Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
You know, he (or she) has got every right to quit their relationship and try to find anoher wife/girfriend who does want the same thing as they do.
OMG! Are you serious? OK, this comment annoyed me, so I'm not even going to go there. With all due respect your argument has no merit in my opinion, it seems simply like rehashed archaic feminist thinking, predictable and old fashioned. We live in modern times and old fashioned feminist battles do not interest me.

Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
Well... the sperm from a rapist is also a "contribution", but do you think he has the right to be a father for that child?
You do realise that pregnancies as the result of rape, while not impossible, are also not that common? The woman is under tremendous stress and trauma during the assault and and conception does not occur that often. Besides, where I live, once any kind of sexual assault has been reported the victim, after rape kits have been taken, the victim undergoes procedures that prevent not only disease but pregnancy as well.

We live in a time where modern medicine has all but eliminated death due to childbirth, so to say that childbirth is dangerous and abortion is a safer option is ludicrous and archaic.

I guess I am not a 'woman's rights above all others' kinda gal! I'm rather proud of the fact that I am willing to see both sides.
Mad Poster
#41 Old 18th Apr 2019 at 9:48 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 19th Apr 2019 at 1:39 AM.
^ Doesn't have to be a feminist view, just a realistic view. If the man absolutely wants kids, and the woman absolutely doesn't (or opposite), and they can't agree on a compromize, then maybe they're not right for each other, and they may find it easier to go their separate ways and perhaps find another partner that does want the same as they do. It does go both ways, you know. The woman shouldn't be forced to become a mother, and the man shouldn't be forced to become a father.

Not everyone lives in a place where women have anything to say. Rape does go underrapported all the time. It's not always assaults by strangers. Often it's done by close relatives or friends, and it's not always rapported, or the woman waits until it's too late to do anything because she's scared or embarrassed. Rape can even happen between married couples, from an abusive partner, in relationships where various substances are involved, and so on. This may happen more often in countries where women don't have equal rights to men, and may be a problem in places with very strict abortion laws (the woman doesn't dare to report it, and ends up trying a DIY abortion, or giving birth to a child that'll always remind them of what happened). The children born into such situations may live with abuse, perhaps in poverty, and in an unsafe environment where they're also at risk of getting raped or mistreated.

So even if pregnancy from a rape may (or may not? I'm guessing statistics may be a bit hazy here) be rare, it does happen. It's not like the woman's body realizes she's getting raped and that her body shouldn't make a baby - it's more like the body just so happens to be in a part of the cycle that wouldn't cause pregnancy in those cases where she doesn't get pregnant, or she gets to a hospital in time to stop an eventual pregnancy.

Quote:
We live in a time where modern medicine has all but eliminated death due to childbirth, so to say that childbirth is dangerous and abortion is a safer option is ludicrous and archaic.


Well, there are still things like preeclampsia/eclampsia, cancer neding quick treatment that may cause damage to the unborn baby, spontaneous bleeding, ectopic pregnancy. and various other things that may make it a lot safer for the woman to have an abortion in some situations (list), particularly when it happens in the first or second trimester and the mother's life is in danger if the pregnancy isn't terminated. So in some cases, abortion is the safer choice.

And "we" may live in a time and place where modern medicine is very much on the rise, but there are still a lot of women around the world who don't have access to any healthcare, or just the bare minimum. In places where medical care is very expensive or inaccessible, some may not even afford prenatal care, let alone having another mouth to feed, even if they do live in one of the more developed countries in the world. Some of these women live in places where rape and abuse is a daily part of life, even from relatives. They may be poor, they may already have 5 children and not enough food for half of them, they may not have access to general education, sexual education and family planning is practically unheard of, contraceptives is more of a DIY thing and hardly accessible, and their rights may be very limited. In some of the places, abortion may be illegal, so even faced with a difficult choice, they may risk years in prison.

Abortion should be accessible as an option for every woman on the planet, and it should be up to them to decide whether they want to do it or not, at least within the timeframe where the baby wouldn't be viable outside the womb (possibly in some other circumstances after this timeframe). Their life may depend on having the right, in a lot of ways. And women, whether they live in a rich or poor part of the world, should not be treated as baby-making machines or as an object the man can put their thingie inside without her conscent.

Judging the rights of the unborn baby is difficult. Before 20 weeks, the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother. After those 20-24 first weeks of gestation, the baby may be able to survive, and it's not like you can go around killing these babies. Once they are in that grey zone where life is possible, I do think they have a right to give it a try. Occasionally doctors may realize that a particular tiny life can't be saved, and it can be decided to stop medical care. This happens in the case of adults, too.

As for the man, I don't think he should have the right to force a woman to get pregnant or carry out the pregnancy if she doesn't absolutely want to. Compromizes can be reached, but I don't think it's right that the man should have the final say. You can argue all you want that it's his spermie that made the baby happen, but there wouldn't be a baby without her egg cell, and without her uterus there wouldn't be a place for the baby to grow. You may be able to fully grow a baby in a synthetic uterus sometime in the future, but for now the woman does have a bigger part in the pregnancy than the man has, and it does happen inside her body. Unless he's a seahorse.

An abortion shouldn't be something you do lightly, and there are a lot of ways to avoid abortion being neccessary - from teaching teenagers (and adults) about contraception and the meaning of the word "no", to family planning and better education all over the world, and support systems that makes it possible to keep the baby, or give it away for adoption. But when you're already in a difficult situation, and abortion is one of the choices you face, it should be legal (at the bare minimum up until 12 weeks, and in cases where health or wellbeing is on the line), and it should not force the person through a lot of hoops to get there.
Test Subject
#42 Old 19th Apr 2019 at 6:53 AM
Ok then! I didn't read through your entire post, its really long, but its seems to be a lot of what you've said before, and I guess Ive said all I wanted to.
Mad Poster
#43 Old 19th Apr 2019 at 11:14 AM
Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
... so the woman should be forced to push out the baby just because the man (and not the woman) wants kids? Isn't that how it used to work in the olden days?

You want to give me ludicrous statements such as the 'olden days'. How is this broad concept of time even applicable? How long ago were these olden days? 1940s? 1800s? 3000BC? Were you alive and experienced the culture of these 'olden days' to make a definite statement? Was I alive in these 'olden days' you're referring to?

Basically the gist of what I'm saying is that there is no answer because neither of us were even alive.

Because the earth is standing still, and the truth becomes a lie
A choice profound is bittersweet, no one hears Cassandra Goth cry

Mad Poster
#44 Old 19th Apr 2019 at 12:42 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 19th Apr 2019 at 12:56 PM.
^ In times and places where women had fewer rights than men (of which there are plenty). Does that satisfy your need for clarification? Or do I have to specify the places or timeframes exactly? If you're so interested, here's a Wiki article that can specify things better than I can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights

Getting the spesifics correct isn't that easy, because some times and places, women had pretty much equal rights to men, other places this fluctuated with time, often influenced by changes in religion and culture, and some places haven't had equality until recently. I'm no history expert, but considering women's rights to vote was a hotly debated theme just a couple or so hundred years ago in the US and parts of Europe (around 100 years ago in my own country), it's pretty much a game of pick and choose. Ancient times do sound a lot more liberal than the past thousand or so years, though (I did say 'olden', didn't say ancient).

Doesn't really matter if anyone of us were alive back then, because in recent history (at least in more developed countries), rights of men and women are moving closer to more or less equal. There's still a way to go in some places of the world, though.

The whole "but we live in a modern world!" thing does irk me a lot, because there are still parts of the world where people don't have equal rights, and there's poverty, low levels of education, and so forth.
Test Subject
#45 Old 19th Apr 2019 at 2:45 PM
Ugh! I knew I should have stayed away!

Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
The whole "but we live in a modern world!" thing does irk me a lot, because there are still parts of the world where people don't have equal rights, and there's poverty, low levels of education, and so forth.


Its quite difficult to understand exactly what you are saying because you contradict yourself, and seem to speak in generalisations. For example, you speak here of "people" not having equal rights, and by people I assume you mean both men and women, yet your whole argument has been centred around the fact that a woman should have more 'rights' than a man over any (of THEIR) unborn children. So everyone should be equal but in this regard woman are more equal?

Of course we live in a modern world, YOU may perceive that parts of the world are backward/primitive (which kind of irks me) because what what on earth do you consider 'un-modern', and what are standards are you judging them against?
Mad Poster
#46 Old 19th Apr 2019 at 4:27 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 19th Apr 2019 at 10:28 PM.
I guess whatever I write, someone is just going to find that one thing and blow it out of proportions. And if I use two different ways to say something similar in two different paragraphs, it doesn't have to mean I'm contradicting myself. Could simply be I chose the wrong way to word myself or didn't proof-read to make sure everything fit together (English is not my first language, so mistakes happen). Maybe you're just too hung up on the details. Keep in mind that I'm writing a forum post, not a scientific article.

Parts of the world don't have equal rights for women and men. Parts of the world don't have equal rights for rich and poor people. Some parts of the world you may be at an even greater disadvantage if you're both female and poor. You may not be able to say what you want, do what you want, live like you want, even if hose things are things people in a country with less restrictive laws can do. If some of these places can seem a little backward, it may be because a lot of these people lack basic education and knowledge (and again, women/girls are often - but not always - at a disadvantage here too), and have laws that make them afraid of doing things that's entirely legal in other countries. Some places still have very patriarchal societies, where women are still at a disadvantage. The reason I'm generalizing here, is that I don't want to point to any spesific locations, because then someone is bound to find that bad, too. But it does happen, it's in the news from time to time, and there's got to be a reason why we still need organizations that help further womens' rights, or help with basic needs for all people (men included), and why people risk their lives and everything they have to get away from a bad situation in their home country. We may be able to get to a place where everyone really do have equal rights and an equal chance at having a good life, but for now we're not there.

As for what standards to judge this by, isn't "the modern world" (or rather, the ways we do things in "the more developed parts of the world" the basics of how we judge if something feels backward to us? I as a woman have certain rights and privileges in my own country, and in general our laws and restrictions are fairly liberal but protective of those who don't do harm to others - so when I hear about a woman in some other country getting imprisoned or shut out from her family for doing or saying or wanting some of those things that I take for granted, that's very frustrating, because I'd very much like that woman to have the same level of freedom to live her life as I have. And yes, I do want men to have that kind of freedom, too. On the flip side, I can imagine some of our "modern" ways feel rather backwards to those who do live with those more restrictive laws and social rules.

Argue all you want on whether mixing in womens' rights in to an abortion debate is just a feminist thing or not, but the abortion debate is very much tied up in the woman's right to decide over her own body (just like men should be able to decide over their body). Yes, the unborn potential life and the man's contribution can be factored in too - but with any decision that abortion should be completely illegal, some of the woman's right to decide over her own body and life is also taken away, and can in some cases be life-altering in negative ways, or outright dangerous. (Still the same opinion, slightly different words, I know ).
Test Subject
#47 Old 20th Apr 2019 at 9:29 AM
Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
Argue all you want on whether mixing in womens' rights in to an abortion debate is just a feminist thing or not, but with any decision that abortion should be completely illegal, some of the woman's right to decide over her own body and life is also taken away, and can in some cases be life-altering in negative ways, or outright dangerous.


Firstly....what?? I NEVER EVER said anything remotely like this! Please go back and read some of my previous posts!!

I said
Quote: Originally posted by Jezzie
You are right is isn't a black and white situation, but I don't understand the whole "even if he wants it too bad, its my body" attitude? Woman will always have the upper hand, because if she is absolutely adamant about not having a child then leave the father out of the situation completely and get on with it. If she is unsure then its a decision the couple should make together, but then she has to be prepared to follow through and respect his rights if he wants the child.


Again...I said "if she is absolutely adamant about not having a child then leave the father out of the situation completely and get on with it"' Simply put, abortion is completely private so I have no idea why she would include him by telling him she was pregnant and then disregard him completely? Leave him out of it, unless of course she has a hidden agenda of some sort. I know of a situation where she wanted an abortion and he didn't, yet she still expected him to pay for it!


Secondly, the reason I asked what standards you are using to judge other societies is because people often have a skewed view on what is 'backward', and its a tiny bit insulting to assume that all women want the same thing you do and if they don't they are backward and oppressed.

I live and travel extensively in Africa and a lot of communities are patriarchal. If we use abortion for example; women may be denied legal abortion in some countries (except under certain conditions) yet they don't feel oppressed or limited because as a society they welcome children. Children take care of them in their old age, its a cultural thing. We may look at them and feel they are denied their rights because their rights and privileges are not the same as ours, but they don't feel that way.

I'm sure there are exceptions to every rule but then there are women suffering abuse all over the world all the time in countries with even the most liberal of constitutions and laws, yet there are women elsewhere living under 'patriarchal domination' quite happily. They may seem to be disadvantaged but we need to find out from them what their needs are before assuming they even want the same rights as we have. Even poverty, a lot of people we perceive as poor and struggling do not see themselves that way, at the end of the day they have food on the table and roof over their heads and their needs are simple. What is poverty to you is not to them.

Finally, with all due respect, if you are going to debate then please read through posts carefully, its very frustrating to be misquoted or misunderstood.
Mad Poster
#48 Old 20th Apr 2019 at 10:10 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Jezzie
Secondly, the reason I asked what standards you are using to judge other societies is because people often have a skewed view on what is 'backward', and its a tiny bit insulting to assume that all women want the same thing you do and if they don't they are backward and oppressed.

I live and travel extensively in Africa and a lot of communities are patriarchal. If we use abortion for example; women may be denied legal abortion in some countries (except under certain conditions) yet they don't feel oppressed or limited because as a society they welcome children. Children take care of them in their old age, its a cultural thing. We may look at them and feel they are denied their rights because their rights and privileges are not the same as ours, but they don't feel that way.

Agree completely. I traveled and lived in Egypt for a few months last year and every native woman I met was quite happy with their lives. All of them had careers and responsibilities. Many of them owned their own car and one I met even had her own business. They weren't these stereotypical stay-at-home moms. They didn't mind if they didn't have the same legal rights as western women, because they were more concerned about their day-to-day lives.

Many seem to be stuck in this mentality that doing things differently is backwards and everyone must live the same way. It's a bit narrow minded to assume that other countries are backwards simply because they follow different standards of living and it makes a person sound like they've never traveled outside of their native country.

Because the earth is standing still, and the truth becomes a lie
A choice profound is bittersweet, no one hears Cassandra Goth cry

Top Secret Researcher
#49 Old 20th Apr 2019 at 4:15 PM
You sound like that Saudi Arabian guy in that clip saying "but women don't want to drive!"

Just because you have a right it doesn't mean you need to use it. If you don't have the right you can't do it whether you want to or not. Are you saying not a single woman in those countries wants those rights?

I'm sure many women didn't mind not being able to vote back in old times, since they didn't know any other way. Do you mean society should never have progressed just because people are used to the oppression?

Omnia - Fantasy / Mythological / Medieval Hood
Ephemera MoreColorful - SimpleSkin Recolors
Mad Poster
#50 Old 21st Apr 2019 at 5:30 AM
Ah typical narrow mindeded response. Not surpirising to see that.

Because the earth is standing still, and the truth becomes a lie
A choice profound is bittersweet, no one hears Cassandra Goth cry

 
Page 2 of 6
Back to top