|
UllrsIshtar -> RE: 'Legislative slut-shaming': How the German 'Cuckoo Kids' Law' punishes women (9/16/2016 11:08:20 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HoneyBears
quote:
ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
Abortion does not equal birth control.
Not according to Awareness.
No inference either, it came right out of the horse's mouth more than once.
*shrugs*
So? I don't take my gospel from Awareness.
quote:
ORIGINAL: HoneyBears
quote:
ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
Furthermore, women have half a dozen of non-invasive birth control options available to them.
Men have ONE non-invasive birth control option available, which are condoms.
Most of them ARE invasive, need to be implanted and/or can result in scarring delicate reproductive tissue.
(And who wants to taste the spermicidal jelly that has to be applied inside of a woman's diaphragm and not her natural unadulterated juices?)
Hell, using tampons can be invasive. I have a sorority sister who suffered toxic shock syndrome, ended up with scarred Fallopian tubes, which resulted in infertility when she was just in her 30's.
A couple other girlfriends have experienced terrible side effects from taking the pill and had to discontinue the use thereof.
If you are a smoker, you risk getting life-threatening blood clots. A neighbor's granddaughter was just 21 when a blood clot got loose in her leg, travelled up to her heart and killed her instantly, so that kind of thing can happen without warning (and she wasn't a smoker, but she was on the pill).
I stopped taking the pill (it was a joint decision) primarily because it dried up my natural lubrication. Dry squirting is no fun either. [:(]
I'm not arguing that all women's options are non-invasive. But the simple fact is that they have far more options, including far more non-invasive ones.
For starters they have the same option that men do to use condoms. From there their options only increase.
And don't go the route of 'some of these are unpleasant to use' like a diaphragm and spermicide, because the vast majority of men will tell you that condoms aren't optimally pleasant for them either.
Either way, the point remains that women have tons of options when it comes to avoiding getting pregnant, and what to do after they accidentally DO get pregnant.
Men have 1 non-invasive option: condoms.
If that 1 options fails them, the rest of their lives is at the mercy of the decisions of the woman.
quote:
ORIGINAL: HoneyBears
quote:
ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar
Considering that conception happens -planned and wanted or not- why are you advocating that it's the woman and the woman alone who gets to decide whether both parties then have to be parents or not?
Women can refuse parenthood. Why can't men?
As a society, we have not caught up with technology. DNA testing is nothing short of revolutionary. However, this is ipso facto a huge grey area in terms of father's rights. Paternity must be established before a father can be extended any parental rights. Until then, how can a man be entitled to pre-parental rights, given that his paternity has not been established?
DNA testing isn't relevant to the discussion considering that a women can decide whether or not to have the child without consulting the man in question.
If a woman gets pregnant, wants to keep the child, and the man does not, the fact that he's genetically the father shouldn't matter. She chose to bring a child into the world by herself. The responsibility for that choice should be hers, and hers alone.
Again, the same thing applies for a woman who does not want to have the child carrying it to term for a man who has declared he wanted to raise it. He chose to bring a child into the world by himself. The responsibility for that choice should be his, and his alone.
quote:
ORIGINAL: HoneyBears
Let me ask you this, though. At what point does life begin? Who decides whether a man, or anybody else for that matter, has the right to veto a woman's use of the morning-after pill, for example? That is a whole other can of worms none of us needs to have opened. [:-]
Legally speaking, it's the woman's body, and I don't believe that the law should force women through an unwanted pregnancy. It's too physically dangerous, impacting on the woman's health, body, and mind, for the legal decision to be anybody but the woman's. Pregnancy, in and of itself, carries with it a lifetime of consequences for the woman, and it should be her choice whether or not she wishes to face those consequences.
Ethically speaking, I think the man has a claim to have input on what happens with the pregnancy as soon as the woman burdens him with the responsibility of it by informing him that she's pregnant and the child is his.
As soon as that deceleration is made "you're going to be a father" she's assigning him responsibility. And thus it's now up to him whether or not he accepts that responsibility. If he does, and claims the child as his own, and desires it, he should now be granted a say in the matter in my opinion. If the woman doesn't want him to have that say, she should not burden him with the responsibility of being assigned prospective fatherhood, and deal with the matter herself.
Again, I'm not arguing that the above should be a legal matter. I don't believe the state should be able to force a woman to do something as risky as carry a pregnancy to term.
But a woman who decides to actively involve a man in her pregnancy by claiming it's his child now ethically should consider his wishes on what happens to that child.
|
|
|
|
