Current Events > Japan says women will need consent of their partner to have abortion...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Abortion pill: Why Japanese women will need their partner's consent to get a tablet https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-62515356

Seems like its ripe for women to be controlled.

Its an unjust law.

Good idea in theory if most partners weren't assholes I'd go for it

Yes in some circumstances - if the partner agrees to strap a bowling ball to their belly 24/7, starting with 1lb, then increasing every month up to 9. And also taking pills that make you nauseous every day.

TheHoldSteady posted...

Good idea in theory

Wrong.

It's spreading

Her body her choice, every time all the time

Never ever

That is pretty fucked. Imagine living in a country that thinks it's OK to tell another human being they MUST go through pregnancy and labor, lol.

owait

What a fucked up country

Why does yes have this many votes

No.

I wonder if they can break up and then no longer need permission (since they're not longer partners) or if that just makes it even more difficult to get the permission then

because like, realistically speaking, I think if there's significant enough of a disagreement over this between two people that getting the permission is difficult, they probably won't stick together long regardless of which way the final decision goes

Japan seems pretty fucking awesome a lot of the time, but I won't give them a pass when they fuck up. In this case, they fucked up badly, like indefensibly.

I think the idea is that it takes two people to make a child and it should take two people to abort it. But in actuality that just means that the woman doesnt have any control.

I think that people should discuss these things, but push come to shove nobody should be able to make someone have/not have one. That being said there should be a way from men to legally withdraw themselves from the situation.

So this is how Japan decided to deal with the declining birth rate.

totally fucked.

also makes 0 sense. what if you didn't know who the partner was, for example.

im some ways it's even more fucked up than what we have going on.

Well that sucks...

If men could get pregnant then abortion would be something you could order at Starbucks.

pinky0926 posted...

If men could get pregnant then abortion would be something you could order at Starbucks.

And it would be declared a 'God given right'.

In an ideal situation, both parents would have a say. But since the woman is the one who gets pregnant, it 100% should be her decision, ultimately.

Women's choice, always. Their body.

Perhaps in marriages, where it is traditionally expected for both partners to be in agreeance on major life decisions, I could see needing a partners consent. I'm not saying that couldn't be abused or is even preferable, just that I could see that being the only 'acceptable' situation for partner consent

Outside of marriages, it should be wholly the woman's decisions.

The_Popo posted...

In an ideal situation, both parents would have a say. But since the woman is the one who gets pregnant, it 100% should be her decision, ultimately.

This.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It's more than that, in America at least.

There's a whole racial element to it.

They want ways to punish minorities and with the advent of a large middle class, less and less white women were having large families full of white people so in order to ensure the future of the white race, they've wanted to find ways to prevent affluent families from getting out of having those "pure, white babies"

It's wholly fucked.

Robot2600 posted...

totally fucked.

also makes 0 sense. what if you didn't know who the partner was, for example.

im some ways it's even more fucked up than what we have going on.

I was thinking that regardless there would be a lot of yes, this is my boyfriend types of situations happening

Pretty bad. But better than what the us is headed for I suppose.

hitokoriX posted...

That being said there should be a way from men to legally withdraw themselves from the situation.

I disagree with this. The question of acceptance of responsibility financially for a child should be a separate debate from abortion rights.

CyricZ posted...

I disagree with this. The question of acceptance of responsibility financially for a child should be a separate debate from abortion rights.

Agree in principal but both are so tightly intertwined I dont think its practical. If a women can unilaterally decide to have an abortion a man should be able to unilaterally allowed to withhold financing the baby.

I'm surprised Anglicans aren't more popular in the US. Can Protestants officially divorce easily?

For some reasons I expected better from Japan.

To be fair, the baby does belong to both parents, and the father should absolutely have a say when deciding the fate of his child.

The baby "belongs" to no one. The baby is the legal responsibility of the parents. Nitpicky, I know, but I feel it's an important distinction.

Because it underlines that the decision of whether to keep the baby is entirely with the person carrying them.

If the other person could get pregnant, then the argument changes, but there is a biological inequality there, which is why we've as a society decided to offset that by essentially creating a counter inequality.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

To be fair, the baby does belong to both parents, and the father should absolutely have a say when deciding the fate of his child.

But the father doesn't have to go through the potentially life risking process of carrying and birthing the baby.

Not to mention the potential life long complications that can result from being pregnant, ranging from the physical to the mental to the hormonal.

It sounds easy to just say "carry the baby, at least" but people forget pregnancy isn't just 9 months of joy. It can have a lifetime of complications as a result.

Women and Men, should be able to provide their gametes at a state sponsored human-hatchery, where they're put into an artificial womb, and either partner may void their relationship with the fetus, up to nine months.
If both void their relationship - the fetus merely becomes a ward of the state.

Women shouldn't be naturally having children at all: it's dangerous, massively effects their economic potential, and has life-altering effects on them.

Timmyjinkle posted...

Women and Men, should be able to provide their gametes at a state sponsored human-hatchery, where they're put into an artificial womb, and either partner may void their relationship with the fetus, up to nine months.
If both void their relationship - the fetus merely becomes a ward of the state.

Women shouldn't be naturally having children at all: it's dangerous, massively effects their economic potential, and has life-altering effects on them.

How can this not be based

makes sense if they're in a marriage. not sure about anything else.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It's both.