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

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Your skin cells don't have the unique, brand new genetic combination separate from yours. They're not actively developing and growing. If you leave your skin cells where they are, they won't eventually say their first words.

This whole arbitrary time-gating situation of "a baby isn't a baby until we say so" doesn't change the fact that the "clump of cells" has its own unique genetic code, and is actively developing into a fully-functional human being.

Almost 40 percent of CE hates women?

Gobstoppers12 posted...

This whole arbitrary time-gating situation of "a baby isn't a baby until we say so" doesn't change the fact that the "clump of cells" has its own unique genetic code, and is actively developing into a fully-functional human being.

And vice versa. The fact that the cells are developing into a human doesn't change the fact that the decision of when "life" happens is arbitrary.

hockeybub89 posted...

Almost 40 percent of CE hates women?

Please don't tell me you're surprised.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I think abortion is a necessary evil that we have for a reason, but I don't agree with the notion that a father has absolutely no recourse to try to protect the life of his child before birth.

When someone is so dead set with life starting at conception, a reasonable discussion is near impossible to have on this subject

CyricZ posted...

That is not equivalence. That is unfairly skewed towards the father.

The reason the mother has control over whether or not the pregnancy is carried to term is because mothers are the only ones who can get pregnant.

It's a biological inequality that only one party can get pregnant. The choice of the mother (and not the father) to carry the pregnancy is a corresponding inequality to temper that biological inequality. It has nothing to do with the father.

Therefore, tacking an extra "the father can choose to abandon financial responsibility" is a third inequality on top of that, tipping the scales towards the father, only because you see it as an injustice that the father gets no say in the outcome of the pregnancy.

To which I say, better get to work figuring out a way for fathers to get pregnant if you want to "fix" that.

If the argument is "third inequality", then shouldn't child support be illegal considering a "third inequality" favors the woman?

Oswaldo posted...

If the argument is "third inequality", then shouldn't child support be illegal considering a "third inequality" favors the woman?

How do you feel the concept of child support "favors the woman"?

CyricZ posted...

How do you feel the concept of child support "favors the woman"?

You just said not being required to pay child support favors the man.

Oswaldo posted...

You just said not being required to pay child support favors the man.

I said a man being allowed to financially abandon his child favors the man, and trying to pretend that such a concept is a "balance" to the idea that a woman can terminate the pregnancy is fallacious.

So please tell me what specifically your issue is with that.

I don't think anyone but the woman should have say in the abortion. However I do believe that men should be able to walk away from the baby pre child birth and have no responsibility. If he says he doesn't want the kid from the start and she decides to keep it. Then that's her responsibility imo.

Also idgaf about the child so the argument that child support is for the kid doesn't matter to me.

Key posted...

However I do believe that men should be able to walk away from the baby pre child birth and have no responsibility.

Why?

Will_VIIII posted...

When someone is so dead set with life starting at conception, a reasonable discussion is near impossible to have on this subject

I mean, from the topic it seems more like the other side is the one so dead set on it.

Using Gobstoppers posts, it looks like he's at least trying to find some kind of middle ground.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

I think abortion is a necessary evil that we have for a reason, but I don't agree with the notion that a father has absolutely no recourse to try to protect the life of his child before birth.

^ Like this. But CE has such a cult-like approach to discussion that they're probably gonna take that as "Men should have equal say or 100% say in the matter" :x Just a bunch of people jumping on someone with the intent to shut them down, because the numbers make them feel empowered and like they're right.

I mean come on... you had someone trying to equate a fetus to butt cells. You don't think that's a LITTLE strange to entirely omit context to make that comparison in the first place? xD

To go even further, someone said something like, "You don't own us." And it's just like... really? That's not what they said. At all >_>

TheHoldSteady posted...

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

Yeah I do feel sorry for men that really wanted the kid. No perfect solution so just best go with the one that damages the least which is its the woman's choice.

Man can and do abandon children and pay no child support to the point it is implicitly permissible if you are willing to uproot your life.

CyricZ posted...

Why?

Because if you want nothing to do with the child and your partner does that's their choice.

If a woman wanted nothing to do with the child but carried it to birth for her partner I belive she should have that option as well.

Hell I'd be fine with the removal of child support all together regardless of which party keeps the child and maybe only have it exist in dual custody situations.

lennethsoki posted...

Using Gobstoppers posts, it looks like he's at least trying to find some kind of middle ground.

A middle ground between "enslavement of women" and "not enslavement of women"?

Key posted...

If a woman wanted nothing to do with the child but carried it to birth for her partner I belive she should have that option as well.

The argument of being able to give up child support is a different one than that of abortion, and it would require both parties' consent, not just one.

We're arguing about abortion alone, or do you not realize that "wanting nothing to do with the child" may also include "not wanting to carry the child"?

CyricZ posted...

I said a man being allowed to financially abandon his child favors the man, and trying to pretend that such a concept is a "balance" to the idea that a woman can terminate the pregnancy is fallacious.

So please tell me what specifically your issue is with that.

My specific issue is that I believe woman have a choice of whether or not to be a mother. A man should then have the choice afterwards of being a father.

Isn't Japan in a fertility crisis? I imagine this is more out of desperation to raise it if anything.

Oswaldo posted...

My specific issue is that I believe woman have a choice of whether or not to be a mother. A man should then have the choice afterwards of being a father.

I understand that that's your issue.

And I'm telling you that the reason a mother has sole decision over whether a pregnancy is carried to term is because the mother is the only one to carry the pregnancy.

To see the mother have this right afforded her by virtue of a biological inequality and decide "the father should get something too" is selfish.

Key posted...

I don't think anyone but the woman should have say in the abortion. However I do believe that men should be able to walk away from the baby pre child birth and have no responsibility. If he says he doesn't want the kid from the start and she decides to keep it. Then that's her responsibility imo.

Also idgaf about the child so the argument that child support is for the kid doesn't matter to me.

If we had better finicial aid for women who want to keep the children I'd might agree.

It does bug me though when a man has to pay child support when the woman has way more than enough means to take care of the kid. Or atleast the fact the more money he makes the more he has to pay. I knew a dude who refused to raise above his lowely position as a bagger at food lion because he'd have to pay more child support.

Maybe it's cause how I was brought up. My mom refused to go after my father for child support. 1. She knew he couldn't afford it. 2. She knew she could manage without it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The way this is framed suggests that the options for the pregnant woman are to raise her child as a single mother or accept an abortion based on the whims of the father.

That still gives the father a level of control over whether she terminates the pregnancy or not.

Unacceptable.

Prismsblade posted...

Isn't Japan in a fertility crisis? I imagine this is more out of desperation to raise it if anything.

If that's the case, why don't they just produce a bunch of test tube babies with donated eggs and sperm?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This perspective downplays the fact that that the mother would also have a heavy personal and financial burden for raising her child.

Or if you want to get real and into bad faith operation, tell me which happens more often: deadbeat dads or pregnancy traps?

CyricZ posted...

I understand that that's your issue.

And I'm telling you that the reason a mother has sole decision over whether a pregnancy is carried to term is because the mother is the only one to carry the pregnancy.

To see the mother have this right afforded her by virtue of a biological inequality and decide "the father should get something too" is selfish.

How the hell is it selfish? You're only giving women the right to have the choice of being a parent.

Being a parent =\= bringing the pregnancy to term. A mother can always put her baby up for adoption, or let the willing father take care of it.

Being pregnant is solely a woman's issue. And it should be her choice. But once the baby is born, it's irrelevant that the mother gave birth to it. Both parents should have equal rights regarding who is legally responsible for the child.

How shitty.

As much as it must be shit for the father if the mother gets an abortion that he didnt want, theres no ethical way to stop that from happening. If the woman has to carry the baby, and she does because the father cant, it has to be her choice.

Oswaldo posted...

Being pregnant is solely a woman's issue. And it should be her choice. But once the baby is born, it's irrelevant that the mother gave birth to it. Both parents should have equal rights regarding who is legally responsible for the child.

This does not match what you seemed to be arguing earlier. What I was reading is that because the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy, the man should be allowed the right to abandon the child. Did I read that incorrectly?

EDIT: These words right here:

Oswaldo posted...

My specific issue is that I believe woman have a choice of whether or not to be a mother. A man should then have the choice afterwards of being a father.

CyricZ posted...

This does not match what you seemed to be arguing earlier. What I was reading is that because the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy, the man should be allowed the right to abandon the child. Did I read that incorrectly?

EDIT: These words right here:

So instead of addressing my point, you want to backtrack to something else in an effort to argue semanticsc.

Very good faith

Oswaldo posted...

So instead of addressing my point, you want to backtrack to something else in an effort to argue semanticsc.

Very good faith

I want clarity on your argument. Do you or do you not think it's unfair to the father that the mother has sole control over the pregnancy?

CyricZ posted...

I want clarity on your argument. Do you or do you not think it's unfair to the father that the mother has sole control over the pregnancy?

I dont know about the guy you are responding to but I do for the reason I made in post 99.

SHRlKE posted...

I dont know about the guy you are responding to but I do for the reason I made in post 99.

"What if the mother is a shitty person" is unfortunately not an airtight argument, given the number of relationships where the father is a shitty person.

lennethsoki posted...

I mean, from the topic it seems more like the other side is the one so dead set on it.

Using Gobstoppers posts, it looks like he's at least trying to find some kind of middle ground.

Middle ground doesn't apply in a situation like this. It's not dissimilar to then idea of slavery being legal or illegal. How do you find middle ground there?

Will_VIIII posted...

Middle ground doesn't apply in a situation like this. It's not dissimilar to then idea of slavery being legal or illegal. How do you find middle ground there?

For slavery you dont because the very nature of it is designed to strip rights from humans for servitude. This sort of thing you can kinda see a middle ground in a sense but the problems also tricky to say the least since the woman has to carry the baby to term.

Like I would think the only compromise in this situation is a surrogate being used but that becomes just as tricky.

CyricZ posted...

Do you or do you not think it's unfair to the father that the mother has sole control over the pregnancy?

No.

I think it is unfair that the mother is the only person who has the choice of being a parent.

CyricZ posted...

"What if the mother is a shitty person" is unfortunately not an airtight argument, given the number of relationships where the father is a shitty person.

The problem is you are applying logic to what is ultimately an emotional problem. People arent robots.

Oswaldo posted...

No.

I think it is unfair that the mother is the only person who has the choice of being a parent.

I mean generally Im on the side of more mens rights but being a parent and providing finances cause of the law are two different things. You can most definitely have a kid and not be a dad to them if you chose. This sounds like maybe we are getting into semantics though.

CyricZ posted...

A middle ground between "enslavement of women" and "not enslavement of women"?

This why no one in real life takes progressives seriously.

The fact that you think someone being against abortion or thinking a man should have some say is the same thing as making women slaves is just so mind bogglingly stupid that I can't even comprehend it.

Gamerguymass posted...

This why no one in real life takes progressives seriously.

The fact that you think someone being against abortion or thinking a man should have some say is the same thing as making women slaves is just so mind bogglingly stupid that I can't even comprehend it.

It's the MAGAs who aren't taken seriously.

It should be a woman's choice but it should be a man's choice to financially abort if he wants to abort and she doesn't.

Trapping people is bad, man or woman.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

That's a risk one takes when having sex.

Don't want to be on the hook for child support? Then don't have sex.