• The forum has been updated. For an explanation of some of the changes, head over here.

Feminism

Currently viewing this thread:

I don't buy the mainstream feminist argument pro abortion. I'm still against a ban, but very open to the possibility that it might be immoral in various cases.

There's also something unfair about men being obliged to look after their biological sons, even though they have no control over it after the sex. women on the other hand can choose to have an abortion.
 

Vermillion_Hawk

Butthurt Bushmaster
Grandmaster Knight
WF&SWBVC
I don't buy the mainstream feminist argument pro abortion. I'm still against a ban, but very open to the possibility that it might be immoral in various cases.

There's also something unfair about men being obliged to look after their biological sons, even though they have no control over it after the sex. women on the other hand can choose to have an abortion.

Having an abortion isn't as easy as you apparently seem to think. Apart from the fact that it involves either drugs that imbalance the body's hormones and result in fairly intense physical discomfort or an invasive surgical procedure, there are psychological and social factors which make it a difficult choice. It is infinitely easier for a man to decide not to have sex with a woman than it is for a woman to decide to have an abortion.

This kind of thinking keeps ultrapatriarchal societies afloat and inhibits social progress.
 
I mean, tbh I'm not suggesting anything policy or action-wise. The situation is completely symmetrical on having sex. Both men and women may choose not to have sex. But the women have this one additional option. That feels a bit unfair. There might not be any good way to improve to situation but it still feels uncomfortable that merely having sex obliges you to something as significant as parenthood.
 
Last edited:

Vermillion_Hawk

Butthurt Bushmaster
Grandmaster Knight
WF&SWBVC
I mean if we're doing equivalencies like that then there's also castration for men to round out the option of abortion for women.
 
I don't buy the mainstream feminist argument pro abortion. I'm still against a ban, but very open to the possibility that it might be immoral in various cases.
I would agree with you on a moral plane. At the very least, both parents are at fault for failing at contraception. Moreso, the defeault setting should be to carry on with the pregnancy and give birth to a child. Lastly, an unborn child is still (on its way to become) a human and thus warrants some protection. In the end, it really is terminating a life that would most likely start, given natural progression of things. Hence, in general, abortion at demand will never be ideal and should not be (and I hope is not) seen as a good thing.

Yet its legal framework is a completely different thing - its is one thing to frown upon a woman for her choices but completely different thing to prevent her from making the choices in the first place.

As far as men's choice is concerned, I think it is the man's problem, basically. Firstly, if you don't want to have a baby, use contraceptions. Secondly, if you don't have a baby, don't sleep with a girl who does not share the same sentiment. If a biological father does not want a child, a huge majority of responsibilities befall the woman in the end anyway - if he is refusing to participate, he will be pretty much just ordered to pay money. While the woman needs to carry the child through the pregnancy, actually give birth and then care for the child for a solid 15-23 years. I don't think this disparity can be waved off just by pointing out that the man didn't want to have the child - this decision is woman's because its consequences are primarily hers as she cannot bail out as easily as the father. Secondly, a child is entitled to have both parents - any post-birth lessening of responsibilites of the father on account of his previous rejection of his parenthood hinders the child's well-being; even if only financially in cases of fathers who don't care about the child.
 

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Archduke
WBNWM&BVC
The two most common arguments for abortion are:
1) women have always had abortions - even forced to have them - but illegally and under poor conditions.
Women will continue to have abortions even if outlawed, which increases the danger of the woman's life.
Best to make it legal under proper medical supervision.
2) unwanted children should not be born if the option to abort is there.

Those arguments do not address the basic ethical issue of terminating life, and that is often where the arguments clash.
 

Weaver

Count
It is not exactly super surprising or shocking, but it concludes that people with pro-life leanings generally hold gender-biased views towards women (see p.19) and hence the pro-life / pro-abortions divide is a part of a much wider discussion than just the general question of from what time does a fetus warrant being treated as a human being requiring strict protection
No, it isn't.
It's just a dirty attempt to smear the entire pro-life crowd as sexist and generally bad people to discredit all of their genuine arguments and paint them as basically mysoginy-driven.
And I'm saying this as a pro-choice person. I just can't stand the manipulative bull**** you're spewing from your high horse.
You should be ashamed.
As far as men's choice is concerned, I think it is the man's problem, basically.
Always fighting for equal rights. Except for situations where men have less rights.
 
I have always found the term pro-life misleading myself, given that most of those people (at least those I have interacted with) couldn't care less about what happens to the children (or the mother) after they are born. Living in abject poverty? No problem at all there, who needs policies to address that. Turns into a criminal because of that? Well, they can just go to jail because that's where bad people go, and worst case we always have to good ol' electric chair. No problem with taking a life there. But well, maybe we could help the single mother out so that she has the means to actually provide for her child... Nope, she made bad life choices, she has to deal with the consequences on her own.

And there's a lot of pro-choice people that most definitely would never want to have an abortion themselves, and think it wrong that others do. They simply don't think it the government business to tell a woman what to do with her body.
 

kurczak

Section Moderator
WB
I mean... Maybe men should not have sex if they don't want to deal with the possibility of becoming fathers? Or have a vasectomy?
.... It is infinitely easier for a man to decide not to have sex with a woman than it is for a woman to decide to have an abortion.
Those are sarcasms, right?
...the woman needs to carry the child through the pregnancy, actually give birth and then care for the child for a solid 15-23 years....she cannot bail out as easily as the father. Secondly, a child is entitled to have both parents - any post-birth lessening of responsibilites of the father on account of his previous rejection of his parenthood hinders the child's well-being; even if only financially in cases of fathers who don't care about the child.
She "has to" do the first two things. She can, and quite a number do, give up the child for adoption immediately after birth. Yes the bail out is not as easy as the father's, but it's also not as taxing as you describe. If the father wants the child and is willing to take care of it for those 15 to 23 years, then (unless the conception was a rape) it seems rather dickish for the law to allow the woman to go lol no.

If we're assuming the position that a) it's just a clump of cells and b) it's her body her choice, then there is no grounds for forcing the man to pay child support for a child he didn't want. If having sex is implied consent to having a child, then why does it apply only to the man?

It's the case in every (?) jurisdiction that allows abortion at will, but only because the outcome feels least bad, not because it makes sense.
 
If we're assuming the position that a) it's just a clump of cells and b) it's her body her choice, then there is no grounds for forcing the man to pay child support for a child he didn't want. If having sex is implied consent to having a child, then why does it apply only to the man?
As stated above, best interest of the child.
 
Those are sarcasms, right?

Mine most definitely was not. Why?

If we're assuming the position that a) it's just a clump of cells and b) it's her body her choice, then there is no grounds for forcing the man to pay child support for a child he didn't want. If having sex is implied consent to having a child, then why does it apply only to the man?

I am not aware of any laws forcing a man to even acknowledge that the child is theirs if they choose not to. As far as I know all you need to do is say that the child isn't yours and refuse to submit to a paternity test. It gets more tricky if you are married, but again in that case if you don't want to be a father there are ways to prevent that.

And my point is not that having sex is implied consent to having a child. My point is that once the woman is pregnant she is the one who has to deal with pregnancy. Not the man. And it's not like women go like "eh you know what, I am not feeling it, am just gunna abort I think lulz".

And since we are talking about expenses for child support, what about medical expenses for the pregnancy? Why is it that anti-abortionists in the US have absolutely no qualms on forcing the mother to pay those on her own? Just doing that and providing economical support for the first few years of the child's life where it is needed would reduce the number of abortions greatly. Admittedly the medical expense part is less of a problem in more civilized countries.
 

Weaver

Count
The irony here lies in how you basically treat men who got into an unwanted pregnancy situation as informed adults who have to take full legal and moral responsibility for their mistakes. You spare them so little sympathy you even suggest they should have undergone surgical sterilization if they didn't want to deal with unwanted kids.
At the same time you treat women in the exact same situation completely differently. You do not suggest they should have used contraception or even sterilized themselves if they wished to stay safe but instead seek ways to provide them with options to make their situation easier or even alleviate any responsibility for a mistake if they wish to.
Could one be more ultrapatriarchal than that?
As stated above, best interest of the child.
That's another disingenuous take. If you do prioritize the child's interests you can not advocate abortion. If you prioritize the woman's interests be honest about it.
 
Last edited:

Weaver

Count
Unlike your ability to deflect and obfuscate.
If two people are to share the responsibility for a decision they ought to also share the right to decide. As long as you offer the man nothing but the good old "you should have known better" pro-life argument your pro-choice stance reeks of hypocricy.
 

Яowan

Grandmaster Knight
M&BWBNW
You spare them so little sympathy you even suggest they should have undergone surgical sterilization if they didn't want to deal with unwanted kids.
At the same time you treat women in the exact same situation completely differently. You do not suggest they should have used contraception or even sterilized themselves if they wished to stay safe but instead seek ways to provide them with options to make their situation easier or even alleviate any responsibility for a mistake if they wish to.

A vasectomy is a reversible procedure - and it isn't a bad idea if you have fair certainty that you don't want any children down the line. There isn't any grounds for comparison between it and female sterilization...

Regardless a gent can always wrap himself - and should, if he doesn't want to bear responsibility for a child - regardless of what contraceptives a woman is using (or not using).
 

Weaver

Count
While I agree that everyone should use contraception, you are basically lumping all responsibility for unwanted pregnancy on a man. Which begs a question if you even consider women as equally free and responsible agents who have the exact same level of control over the process.
 

kurczak

Section Moderator
WB
Mine most definitely was not. Why?
I was not being sarcastic.
Uh ok, how are your statements different from someone screeching at women to just "keep their legs closed" etc. "Just don't have sex lmao" is literally the hard core religious pro-lifer's ""advice"".

Surely not having sex as a man is not the equivalent of a woman having to ponder abortion. A man not having sex is the equivalent of a woman not having sex (and thus not having to ponder abortion; minus rape)

I am not aware of any laws forcing a man to even acknowledge that the child is theirs if they choose not to. As far as I know all you need to do is say that the child isn't yours and refuse to submit to a paternity test. It gets more tricky if you are married, but again in that case if you don't want to be a father there are ways to prevent that.
??? There most definitely are laws that allow a mother all over the (developed) world to sue for paternity and the man is obliged to provide a DNA sample or face some form of legal consequences like perjury, contempt of court or something to that effect.

And my point is not that having sex is implied consent to having a child. My point is that once the woman is pregnant she is the one who has to deal with pregnancy. Not the man. And it's not like women go like "eh you know what, I am not feeling it, am just gunna abort I think lulz".
To abort a prospective child just to spite the father takes a psycho, yes. But there are psychos among women. And while still a small minority in the grand scheme of things, there are also women who treat (early = pre-12 weeks) abortion as basically a form of contraception. I know several personally who have had double digits of those, both from my social circles and from my experience as an assistant DA (DAs oversee child and social services in CZ). Tbh knowing these women's life in general, one can't help but wonder if perhaps the children are better off not having been born to them.

And since we are talking about expenses for child support, what about medical expenses for the pregnancy? Why is it that anti-abortionists in the US have absolutely no qualms on forcing the mother to pay those on her own? Just doing that and providing economical support for the first few years of the child's life where it is needed would reduce the number of abortions greatly. Admittedly the medical expense part is less of a problem in more civilized countries.
I'm left of Sanders when it comes to (American) health care. I'm not anti-abortionist and I share you sentiment that there's a lot of hypocrisy and patting one's back in the American pro-life movement.
 
If two people are to share the responsibility for a decision they ought to also share the right to decide. As long as you offer the man nothing but the good old "you should have known better" pro-life argument your pro-choice stance reeks of hypocricy.
The reason for not allowing the man to force an abortion onto a woman is that a fetus is considered to be a part of the woman's body, hence an abortion is a (pretty serious) interference with her physical integrity. I am not aware of any situation in which a decision regarding your body can be forced onto you in a horizontal relationship (short of parents-child, guardian-incapable etc.).

No matter how you paint it, the issue is different than two people decorating their living room with a woman unjustly having more say in it.
 
Top Bottom