'My body, my baby'

py2006

metrovelvet wrote: »

When men get pregnant, then they can fight for abortion rights.

Ridiculous!!

When women grow a penis then they can watch football!

metrovelvet

py2006 wrote: »

Ridiculous!!

When women grow a penis then they can watch football!

I dont need a penis to watch football.

I tell ya what, I'll go out an picket for vasectomy rights and you go out and picket for a man's right to breastfeed in public.

py2006

This unfortunately is an attitude among some women in relation to men and abortion!

Anyway, this is going off topic!

Lets get back to the original topic!

Caitlinn

py2006 wrote: »

Its interesting that, as a woman (I presume?), you are suggesting that women who claim 'my body, my baby and no man will have a say in it' are "immature" or "stupid". There a lot of women who would disagree with you there. You only have to look at the abortion thread in the Ladies Lounge.

There is a hint of 'selfishness' about it alright, especially if there is a husband or serious boyfriend involved.

Forgive me if I interpreted your post incorrectly!

You presume correctly and you interpreted my post correctly I think that it is immature/stupid for a woman to claim that a baby is hers. As if it was an immaculate conception. I understand that it is her body and that a pregnancy can take it's toll on a woman more than a man but just because he isn't physically pregnant doesn't mean it is her baby alone. And to cut the potential father out of any discussions pertaining to abortion is both stupid and immature IMHO.

py2006

Caitlinn wrote: »

You presume correctly and you interpreted my post correctly I think that it is immature/stupid for a woman to claim that a baby is hers. As if it was an immaculate conception. I understand that it is her body and that a pregnancy can take it's toll on a woman more than a man but just because he isn't physically pregnant doesn't mean it is her baby alone. And to cut the potential father out of any discussions pertaining to abortion is both stupid and immature IMHO.

Quite refreshing to hear that from a woman! I am sure there are plenty that share your opinion but I don't seem to read/hear them much!

wolfpawnat

metrovelvet wrote: »

When men get pregnant, then they can fight for abortion rights.

One can then argue, when women have achieved the immaculate conception, they can get 100% of the say.

Caitlinn wrote: »

You presume correctly and you interpreted my post correctly I think that it is immature/stupid for a woman to claim that a baby is hers. As if it was an immaculate conception. I understand that it is her body and that a pregnancy can take it's toll on a woman more than a man but just because he isn't physically pregnant doesn't mean it is her baby alone. And to cut the potential father out of any discussions pertaining to abortion is both stupid and immature IMHO.

You and I share this view I cannot grasp why girls sleep with guys if they are not willing to accept the consequences of said actions. I knew when I was with my boyfriend there was a chance of pregnancy, I was not stupid, when I got pregnant, the first thing we did was have a 3 week long discussion of OUR options!

Malari

wolfpawnat wrote: »

One can then argue, when women have achieved the immaculate conception, they can get 100% of the say.



You and I share this view I cannot grasp why girls sleep with guys if they are not willing to accept the consequences of said actions. I knew when I was with my boyfriend there was a chance of pregnancy, I was not stupid, when I got pregnant, the first thing we did was have a 3 week long discussion of OUR options!

For me, the appropriate time to discuss those options is before you get pregnant.

wolfpawnat

Malari wrote: »

For me, the appropriate time to discuss those options is before you get pregnant.

We had a few issues, his dad died after a very quick illness and a week later I find out I was 9 weeks pregnant, and we were trying to get back to college. Stupid of us to not have been more careful, but we both were part of the discussion!

Maple

Malari wrote: »

For me, the appropriate time to discuss those options is before you get pregnant.

Yes, but there is a world of difference between thinking about what you would do should you get pregnant and actually being pregnant.

The two are effectively incomparable in my experience.

metrovelvet

wolfpawnat wrote: »

One can then argue, when women have achieved the immaculate conception, they can get 100% of the say.



You and I share this view I cannot grasp why girls sleep with guys if they are not willing to accept the consequences of said actions. I knew when I was with my boyfriend there was a chance of pregnancy, I was not stupid, when I got pregnant, the first thing we did was have a 3 week long discussion of OUR options!

They do have 100% of the say because they have 100% of the pregnancy, the childbirth and the abortion.

Maple

It takes two people to make a baby, there should be a discussion with both parties involved as to how they wish to proceed with the pregnancy, or not proceed as the case may be.

However, ultimately the final decision will always lie with the woman as it is her body.

metrovelvet

Maple wrote: »

It takes two people to make a baby, there should be a discussion with both parties involved as to how they wish to proceed with the pregnancy, or not proceed as the case may be.

However, ultimately the final decision will always lie with the woman as it is her body.

Yes of course. But unless Im mistaken, this thread is about rights, legally enforceable powers, not recommended protocols.

The man's decision is essentially financial. The woman's is financial, biological, professional, cultural, religious, etc.

If men can opt out financially what will make them reach for the condom?

Marty McFly

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes you can grant rights to one group and not another. Disabled people get special parking and big vat and duty discounts on cars. Adults can vote and sit on a jury, kids cant.

When men get pregnant, then they can fight for abortion rights.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes of course. But unless Im mistaken, this thread is about rights, legally enforceable powers, not recommended protocols.

The man's decision is essentially financial. The woman's is financial, biological, professional, cultural, religious, etc.

If men can opt out financially what will make them reach for the condom?

Wow all I can say god help any man if they find themselves in this predicament with you.

Your arguments just seem to be getting more and more ridicilous you kind of clutching at straws at this stage really.

Cultural and religious really in modern day Ireland?

What will make men reach for a condom, eh a little something called sexually transmitted diseases, also its not only a mans decision to wear condoms during intercoarse. Some women often carry or insist on condoms as do some men to, if a woman and man decide to have sex without a condom there both equally responsible. The wearing of a condom is not solely a mans choice or responsibility.

metrovelvet

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Wow all I can say god help any man if they find themselves in this predicament with you.

Your arguments just seem to be getting more and more ridicilous you kind of clutching at straws at this stage really.

Cultural and religious really in modern day Ireland?

What will make men reach for a condom, eh a little something called sexually transmitted diseases, also its not only a mans decision to wear condoms during intercoarse. Some women often carry or insist on condoms as do some men to, if a woman and man decide to have sex without a condom there both equally responsible. The wearing of a condom is not solely a mans choice or responsibility.

Thanks for the personal abuse. Always a nice touch in a debate. Even nicer when a mod thanks it.

Modern day Ireland? There are still a lot of very Catholic people here. There are Muslims here too. Yes, there are religious people living in Ireland. This is not news.

Ok, lift the financial consequences, because those are the only legal consequences there are for a man right now, and see how that pans out.

Marty McFly

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thanks for the personal abuse. Always a nice touch in a debate. Even nicer when a mod thanks it.

Modern day Ireland? There are still a lot of very Catholic people here. There are Muslims here too. Yes, there are religious people living in Ireland. This is not news.

Ok, lift the financial consequences, because those are the only legal consequences there are for a man right now, and see how that pans out.

Well im sorry if you read back a few pages ago you replied to a well thought out argument to one of your post in a not so polite manner. Also it wasnt personal abuse it was abuse of your arguments plus some if your arguments in this thread are bordering on trolling and growing tiresome.

Yes there is religious people in every country but its not really relevant in this thread or its topic of disscussion.

Sorry but whats your last point it really makes no sense as regards what were talking about? Are you trying to say if men were able to lift the financial restraint of themselves that all of a sudden there would be a baby boom with men going around impregnating women left right and centre on purpose? Like condom sales would suddenly plummet and women wouldnt have a choice in the matter. Im all for debate but as long as people can come up with logical and well thought out arguments for there point of view, so far you jsut seem to be a man hater really I could be wrong but its how your portraying yourself on here.

Otis Driftwood

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Well im sorry if you read back a few pages ago you replied to a well thought out argument to one of your post in a not so polite manner. Also it wasnt personal abuse it was abuse of your arguments plus some if your arguments in this thread are bordering on trolling and growing tiresome.

Yes there is religious people in every country but its not really relevant in this thread or its topic of disscussion.

Sorry but whats your last point it really makes no sense as regards what were talking about? Are you trying to say if men were able to lift the financial restraint of themselves that all of a sudden there would be a baby boom with men going around impregnating women left right and centre on purpose? Like condom sales would suddenly plummet and women wouldnt have a choice in the matter. Im all for debate but as long as people can come up with logical and well thought out arguments for there point of view, so far you jsut seem to be a man hater really I could be wrong but its how your portraying yourself on here.

There is no need to insult other users,please keep it civilised.

Stheno

py2006 wrote: »

Quite refreshing to hear that from a woman! I am sure there are plenty that share your opinion but I don't seem to read/hear them much!

For me in any new relationship where sex is involved a discussion of the possibility of pregnancy and how we both would view it is very important. Not on a first date obviously but from the time that I'd consider having sexual relations with that person.

Doesn't tend to apply in long term relationships unless there is a shift in attitude which can (and did to me) happen

metrovelvet

Stheno wrote: »

For me in any new relationship where sex is involved a discussion of the possibility of pregnancy and how we both would view it is very important. Not on a first date obviously but from the time that I'd consider having sexual relations with that person.

Doesn't tend to apply in long term relationships unless there is a shift in attitude which can (and did to me) happen

What about flings and one night stands? **** buddies, friends with benefits? Etc.. or people you already broke up with? Married women who got pregnant through the affair?

Or the not unsubstantial number of women who have irregular periods and dont find out they are pregnant until later into the pregnancy?

Do think all of these circumstances should be legislated over?

py2006

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes of course. But unless Im mistaken, this thread is about rights, legally enforceable powers, not recommended protocols.

This thread that I created is more about the selfish attitude of some women and should they be upset if a man responded with an equally selfish statement. Please read my opening thread.

metrovelvet

py2006 wrote: »

This thread that I created is more about the selfish attitude of some women and should they be upset if a man responded with an equally selfish statement. Please read my opening thread.

Ok, the thread took some turns into rights etc...

Well, the women I know who got that response [and worse] yes, were upset by it and it makes their kids very sad too.

Did they have the right to be? I dunno. Feelings are feelings. You feel what you feel. The upset fades and you wade through your life making the best of what you can.

py2006

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ok, the thread took some turns into rights etc...

Well, the women I know who got that response [and worse] yes, were upset by it and it makes their kids very sad too.

Did they have the right to be? I dunno. Feelings are feelings. You feel what you feel. The upset fades and you wade through your life making the best of what you can.

Yes but was this woman you know threatening to abort the baby and that he could have no say in it if that was what she choose to do?

I am not talking about men who do a runner when a baby arrives! It is more about a hypothetical situation where a woman will inform her husband/boyfriend that a potential pregnancy and the option of abortion is nothing to do with him as in her mind the baby is hers! But then when she chooses to keep the baby she wants it very much to do with him (money). And if that is the case, should she be upset or threaten legal action if he responds with 'your body, your baby, I am off'.

Its an unlikely situation (I hope) but as I stated in the original post, I was interested in hearing the response to this from a male perspective primarily but not exclusively!

metrovelvet

py2006 wrote: »

Yes but was this woman you know threatening to abort the baby and that he could have no say in it if that was what she choose to do?

I am not talking about men who do a runner when a baby arrives! It is more about a hypothetical situation where a woman will inform her husband/boyfriend that a potential pregnancy and the option of abortion is nothing to do with him as in her mind the baby is hers! But then when she chooses to keep the baby she wants it very much to do with him (money). And if that is the case, should she be upset or threaten legal action if he responds with 'your body, your baby, I am off'.

Its an unlikely situation (I hope) but as I stated in the original post, I was interested in hearing the response to this from a male perspective primarily but not exclusively!

Sorry, its very hard to talk about hypothetical women. I dont know how to answer your question.

Should she be upset? A hypothetical woman? She can feel whatever she wants to feel. I dont know what that question really means. She can be happy he went, she can be relieved, or disappointed, any number of things...

Should she threaten legal action? That depends on your views. That money is the child's. Do you have a right to steal from your kids? Do you have a right not to demand it? Are you going to put the fathers rights above the child's? Or the child's above the father's?

I know you wanted a male perspective on a hypothetical woman, I cant give you that sorry, too complicated for me.

And for what its worth, a woman who is that determined to have him have no input wont tell him she is pregnant in the first place.

py2006

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sorry, its very hard to talk about hypothetical women. I dont know how to answer your question.

Should she be upset? A hypothetical woman? She can feel whatever she wants to feel. I dont know what that question really means. She can be happy he went, she can be relieved, or disappointed, any number of things...

Should she threaten legal action? That depends on your views. That money is the child's. Do you have a right to steal from your kids? Do you have a right not to demand it? Are you going to put the fathers rights above the child's? Or the child's above the father's?

I know you wanted a male perspective on a hypothetical woman, I cant give you that sorry, too complicated for me.

Well if you can't understand then perhaps you should stop coming into the Gentleman Club posting nonsense about abortion in relation to men and patronising comments like the one above! I was trying to inform you of the topic of this thread and engage in a conversation.

metrovelvet

py2006 wrote: »

Well if you can't understand then perhaps you should stop coming into the Gentleman Club posting nonsense about abortion in relation to men and patronising comments like the one above! I was trying to inform you of the topic of this thread and engage in a conversation.

Its not that I dont understand, its that I cannot supply you with what you are looking for. ANd I apologised and I get this rude response from you.

I will reiterate, a woman that determined for the guy not to have any say, for whatever reason, is not going to tell him she is pregnant in the first place. She is going to just proceed with whatever course she wants to.

I know married women who have had abortions and their husbands have no idea.

I know a man who just found out he has four year old.

The very fact that she is telling you, means your response is important.

That is why your hypothetical situation makes no sense.

Anyhow, I hope you find the answers you are looking for.

SugarHigh

I don't know why metro is getting such a hard time, she's really just pointing out the realities of the situation.

No one has really come up with a strong argument against what she's saying.

The Corinthian

py2006 wrote: »

And if that is the case, should she be upset or threaten legal action if he responds with 'your body, your baby, I am off'.

Well, that's where a little moral slight of hand takes place and "my body, my baby" magically becomes "won't someone think of the child" and in the name of this higher cause all responsibility for her choices are washed away.

So really she shouldn't be upset or threaten legal action, but by then she's rationalized personal responsibility for her actions into something noble and we're back to her having her cake and eating it.

Abort, keep or adopt; these are choices that have repercussions long after the nine months of pregnancy. There are emotional, financial, psychological and social implications that will reverberate throughout the man's (and potentially the child's) life because of the woman's decision to keep or not keep a child.

And to disenfranchise all but the woman (because the child has no choice either) is frankly medieval.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I will reiterate, a woman that determined for the guy not to have any say, for whatever reason, is not going to tell him she is pregnant in the first place. She is going to just proceed with whatever course she wants to.

This is patently untrue in a number of scenarios. For example, if the woman is using the pregnancy as a means to solidify a relationship, or if she chooses to keep the child but wants active assistance with raising the child, then she will inform him and even claim to seek his view.

I say claim, because his view will make no difference to her keeping her child (she's already decided on that), only that such a deception would engender a greater chance at cooperation should he choose the same as her. And if he does not, then she'll go through with it anyway - she can still hit him for money.

A woman will only choose not to inform the man if she has no interest in his involvement - either because she has already chosen to abort/adopt or wants to keep the child but not have him actively involved.

py2006

metrovelvet wrote: »

When men get pregnant, then they can fight for abortion rights.

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't know why metro is getting such a hard time, she's really just pointing out the realities of the situation.

No one has really come up with a strong argument against what she's saying.

Mainly the above comment.

metrovelvet

py2006 wrote: »

Mainly the above comment.

Ok I realise this is a sensitve topic, and I really see very little point in going down the road of speaking for all women, real, theoretical or imaginary, but let's say a man can say "your body, your baby, aurevoir".

So basically, for me to abdicate my parenthood, I have to either have an operation, or go through a pregnancy with all that entails, expenses, emotional and physical costs, risks and all, hold onto the baby for a certain amount of time, then give up the baby.

But you get to sign a piece of paper.

How is that equal? How is that anywhere near a level playing field?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

So basically, for me to abdicate my parenthood, I have to either have an operation, or go through a pregnancy with all that entails, expenses, emotional and physical costs, risks and all, hold onto the baby for a certain amount of time, then give up the baby.

But you get to sign a piece of paper.

How is that equal? How is that anywhere near a level playing field?

Straw man argument.

No one has suggested anything of the sort. Indeed, the debate has been principally concentrated upon the existing inequity rather than any practical implementation designed to remove said inequity.

Suggesting a man can walk away from the long term implications of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy does not mean he can walk away from any implications - he's still responsible for the pregnancy; the costs and potentially damages resulting to it either going to term or not.

But a pregnancy does not last 18+ years. Neither is the postnatal choice to keep a child anything to do with the pregnancy.

So he may be able to walk away from the vast bulk of the liability, but not all and no one other than yourself has suggested this.

Maple

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes of course. But unless Im mistaken, this thread is about rights, legally enforceable powers, not recommended protocols.

The man's decision is essentially financial. The woman's is financial, biological, professional, cultural, religious, etc.

If men can opt out financially what will make them reach for the condom?

I agree with the implications of a woman's choice, but I really think you're oversimplifying the man's and unfairly too.

metrovelvet wrote: »

What about flings and one night stands? **** buddies, friends with benefits? Etc.. or people you already broke up with? Married women who got pregnant through the affair?

Or the not unsubstantial number of women who have irregular periods and dont find out they are pregnant until later into the pregnancy?

Do think all of these circumstances should be legislated over?

No, I don't. I've always believed, well since I became a grown up out in the real world rather than my teenage insular self absorbed bubble, in a woman's right to choose. I always will.

And if a woman found herself in any of those situations, I would think she needs to do what she feels best for herself at that moment in time.