Welcome to Gaia! ::

Alright. I just wanted to start off by saying, I'm pretty sure I've never, ever placed responsibility of pregnancy on a woman and just the woman. I always divy it up between her and her partner, unless she artificially inseminated herself. I just don't see it as being one person's fault that Oops, baby.

That being said...

I have heard an awful lot, "Why do they always act as if it's the woman's fault she's pregnant," but then say, "The father's opinion doesn't matter, if he wants a baby so badly he can go find someone else."

I can't reconcile the two statements really. If you're going to say "But it's her body" in the case where pregnancy happens, why not be consistent and also say, "But it's her body," when talking about knowing the risks and choosing to refrain from sex? A man is not going to risk getting pregnant. He is not going to choose to risk something which will involve "compromising his bodily integrity." A woman does, however. If we're going to say the father's opinion doesn't matter because it's not his body, then why is it wrong to specifically say "She should have kept her legs closed" and leave the man out of the equation there too? Sure, he had a hand in the pregnancy, an equal part in it, but in the end, he's not compromising his bodily integrity by having sex. Women do, and it sucks, but why is it okay to have it both ways? I would think when you start taking the father out of consideration, it would happen on both sides, not just the one that's convenient.

I also don't like the argument of, "Well the father has to pay child support even if he doesn't want the baby because it's for the good of the child." Don't like it. Going by the argument that a fetus is not in fact a child, then he should be able to disown it while it is still a potential child, just like women do. And don't try to tell me they don't use abortion to avoid being parents, otherwise arguments of "But a baby will ruin her life! She'll have to drop out of school, she'll have no time left to pursue her own interests, plus the cost of raising a child!" would never come up.

I'm all for women's rights. But giving preferential rights when you can equalize things a bit more without infringing on any other rights is silly, in my opinion. No, I don't agree on a moral level with opting out of parenthood when you get a girl pregnant, but I also don't agree with killing your unborn child to opt out of parenthood, and as long as one is legal I think it should be legal for the other sex as well.

Also, I'm tired of the "Pro-lifers are mostly men," myth, especially since every poll I've seen shows that there are more pro-life women than there are pro-life men. Which makes sense, given that anytime a man says "abortion is wrong," he is swooped upon by a swarm of people going "How dare you, you have no say since you can't get pregnant!" You would think it was a racial slur from the way people react.

In conclusion. It takes two to make a baby but OMG don't you dare have an opinion on abortion you dirty man, I want to blame you and take your money but I don't want you to have any say in your future or the future of your children. I'm a special snowflake like that.

>__> <_< I think you are special.

Don't forget they always get people on their side but lying and saying "it's just a piece of tissue and only a potential human" or as some once said to me "It doesn't have a brain so it's already dead".

Really, when it comes to pro-choice, it's a double standard. It's ok for the woman not to have the baby and make a choice, but a man (even though he is involved as well).

They can came they are a special snow flake and yell at others and tell them they aren't or the unborn child isn't?

If I said that during a debate, they would tear me to shreds.

xd And again, I find it freaking hilarious that pregnancy can be compared to a heartbeat.

In a world where people sue McDonalds for getting fat, it shouldn't surprise me that people shirk responsibility wherever they possibly can. But taking it to the level where it becomes sheer ignorance of nature and science (redundant, I know) is just funny to me.

I used to think it was just an excuse, but now I'm increasingly alarmed and amused that people honestly believe that pregnancy cannot in any way, not even halfway, be blamed on the woman who gets pregnant from consensual sex. Pregnancy is just a biological function and there's nothing you can do to prevent it from happening if that fetus really wants to be there. Even if you refrain from sex it will attack your uterus and your uterus will betray you and foster it. Clearly, the solution is to spend billions of dollars on the war on fetii, to learn how to identify and neutralize these terrorists of the womb and keep them from divebombing poor defenseless women who through no actions of their own just end up pregnant.

It's just a wonderful double standard, no matter how you try to justify it, that pregnancy is not a woman's fault even halfway because it is a biological function but men need to pay child support or pay for the abortion, or else they're deadbeat scum who hate women. Having your cake and eating it too? It just won't work.

Uhhh... the two aren't comparable at all.

I mean in terms of debating, yeah they want to say that a guys opinion isn't relevant because they want to drop our numbers, but they've never said that about minorities.

Plus Germany claimed that those people weren't people, and exterminated them, the choicers just claim that their opinion is not relelvant in this situation. Which is completely and utter bullshit, and yeah they're obviously doing it to try and bring down the numbers of pro-life supporters. They also have said that pro-choice males are allowed. It's just a really stupid, immature tactic you play on the playground.

The problem with the Nazi's was that they truly believed that they 100% were superior (which is the case for some of the choicers, let's not name names) and they felt the other groups were an infestation on Germany and their pure blood. It wasn't as "Let's prove we're superior!" it was "We're superior, and these guys are just bringin' us down!"

What the choicers do can be compared to the Nazi's in so far as they dehumanize someone, strip them of their person hood and then splatter propaganda saying that it's okay to kill them. But they are not systematically destroying a group of people, in an attempt to cleanse themselves of the group.

Mm, I was going to mention a while back that, while they are similar, it's because their tactics are to pick a group, blame them for everything, and get everyone else to band together against them. Not because they just exclude everyone who isn't perfect.

Just, Germany picked a lot more groups. And Planned Parenthood is a lot sneakier with their minimizing the minority population. ninja

P.S. I didn't mention it before because I didn't want to look like I was just trying to argue with Divine; Since he can't see this now, there's no problem. wink

Sorry, this is true. Not all choicers think this. But I have seen it in many a pro-choice argument and in many a documentary on the subject. It seems like one of the more common pro-choice arguments. Not a core argument, but one that is still brought up on occasion. Edit- You seem to mistake my meaning. They don't think ONLY minorities should be pro-choice, but that ESPECIALLY minorities should be pro-choice. or, if you're not pro-choice, you dislike minorities. (They meaning the choicers who are using the tactic mentioned, not all choicers ever)

Yes, that's what I meant though- in that debate, we lose credibility for being what we are. This is because of that exclusionary or inclusionary wartime tactic. (It can be used to exclude those you want to beat, or to include those you want to join your cause) edit- and no, not all of them do this. But when it is done, there is a reason for it.

Sorry, I tend to make connections between things in obscure, metaphoric, roundabout ways. The logic is there, somewhere.

The logic applies if you allow for the swapping of words for their equivalent. War is like debate, personhood is like respect, enemies are opponents, winning is...still winning. If you match them up to the debating equivalents, it's the same idea.