Discussion about abortion: part 2

[purits]

Can someone explain this idea of "my body, my choice" because it has never sat easy with me.

Some women seem to feel that they are the ultimate arbiter of whether they should / should not have an abortion and that the man involved and society have no say in this.
Yet once a baby is born, women suddenly insist that the man is a part of the process and must pay towards the baby's upkeep, even if he never wanted the baby. It does seem to be a case of 'heads I win, tails you lose'. Not sure that is an apt analogy, but you get what I mean - it all seems stacked in the woman's favour and it all hang's on her "choice" and no-one else gets a look-in.
Doesn't seem equitable to me.
Go on: flame me and tell me where I'm going wrong.

[purits]

"not exactly die"

That sounds even worse!

[slug]

There's always the snip

[MitchyInge]

argh sorry, super defensive twat alert (me not you)

it's just this bit of your post:

MI: "they just can't or shouldn't force someone else to have a baby against their will" But it's OK for the woman to make him a father against his will? ?

because is my initials and I did say the first bit, up to the word 'but'

[msrisotto]

Oh sorry, I didn't mean for it to come off like that, I was quoting the person who quoted you.

[MitchyInge]

aaah will teach me to pay some attention before making death threats

I offer full and unreserved apology for any distress my comments may have caused and obviously wholly retract it etc

(it did occur to me I was being a bit of knob)

[purits]

If the woman said yes but the man said no and she carried on despite his wishes, then the State could allow him to walk away from the liability on payment of a fee - say £1000ish, that should be enough to discourage irresponsible shaggers.

[msrisotto]

No worries Mitch

purits - Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat????????? Other responsible people should pay for (potentially) irresponsible men who don't want to face the consequences of their actions? You must be off your rocker!

[purits]

Both said that they didn't want children but then she changes her mind. She gets to play the 'my body, my choice' card and he can do nothing about it. Is that fair? Why not let him say "I didn't agree to this" and walk away in exchange for a fine/fee.

[purits]

"Other responsible people should pay for (potentially) irresponsible men"

Which 'other' people?

[msrisotto]

Tax payers! Where else?

[purits]

So the man says that the child is not a good idea but the woman goes ahead anyway, knowing that she can't afford to look after the child and assumes that the State will pick up the tab .. and the man is the bad person in this scenario?

[purits]

According to the Dept of Health website there were nearly 200,000 abortions last year. Don't tell me we don't have (de facto) abortion on demand.

[msrisotto]

I have to quote a previous post by swallowedafly:

"and again if a man wants to have sex without any risk of having children he can do so by having a vasectomy. not by abandoning responsibility for children he has created by choosing not to have that operation but expecting a woman to have an operation terminating a pregnancy when it occurs.

there is a way for him to avoid having children. why wouldn't he do that OP?"

Purits, Please answer why you'd prefer women to have to pay some sort of penalty for sex but not men?

[msrisotto]

Ladyintheradiator: "ese questions give way more credibility to your 'idea' than it deserves so take them as rhetorics."

Yes exactly, purits, you're bonkers.

[happysmiley]

How do you come up with the figure of £1K purits? Seems rather random to me.

Why not £100K? Or something more realistic in terms of the cost of bringing up a child?

Obviously most people can't afford £100K in one go. So why not spread payments over the 18 years. Sorted.

[MitchyInge]

am trying to imagine scenario in which a woman forces a man to pump sperm in general direction of her fallopian tubes

against his will, just seems a bit biologically challenging

I suppose she could obtain his sperm deviously and then use it, somehow am just not convinced this is sufficiently widespread (particularly relative to male perpetrated sexual violence) to suggest the odds are stacked in women's favour

[DuelingFanjo]

"Some women seem to feel that they are the ultimate arbiter of whether they should / should not have an abortion and that the man involved and society have no say in this.
Yet once a baby is born, women suddenly insist that the man is a part of the process and must pay towards the baby's upkeep, even if he never wanted the baby."

Of course a woman should be allowed to make a decision herself about what she grows in her own body and of course once a baby os actually born both parents should want to be part of the process.

[purits]

"we should just have repeated abortions till we're so damaged physically, emotionally and spiritually that they don't want to use us as shag bags anymore."

Hmm. Earlier in the day people were sugesting that men should abstain and/or have vasectomies. Can I suggest that women abstain and/or have their tubes tied?