South Dakota and Roe v. Wade

[E B]

Angela,

I think it's a little more complicated than "why not let the men have equal say", when many men haven't and still don't have equal presence in their children's lives. When a woman gets pregnant, it is her duty to raise the child. She produces the milk that keeps the child alive. A man can pack up and leave the day a child is born, and is only responsible financially, but it isn't that easy for a woman. How often do you hear of a woman abandoning her child? Compare that to the number of men who do.

To me, it's really that simple. When a man is forced, by law, not only to be responsible financially, but emotionally as much as the mother is (given he's not a drug addict or abusive), then they should have equal say. Until then, the one who not only provides life and a home for the child for the first 9 months, but for the crucial first year (and for the years beyond) gets the say. Period.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/3/2006 4:38:18 PM
Author: Angela1977
We''re designed to do it. We''re built for it. Is it the easiest thing ever? No, nor did I allude to that. But is it something to make a federal case over? No. Women willingly go through it over and over again. Women pray and cry to experience ''just one more time''. It''s a natural biological function.

It''s a bodily function that changes a women''s ENTIRE life. After nine months you just don''t pop out a baby. Your body - mental, phyical & metaphysical - changes. I have yet to see a man go through pregnancy. Fathers are not mothers. Historically, women have cared for the child. I believe women are hard wired for that & it''s not a societal thing. A minimal amount of child support for 18 years isn''t rearing that child.

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 4/3/2006 4:38:18 PM
Author: Angela1977
I just don''t understand how women can stand up and grand stand about their rights and their choices and their bodies and their babies (or lack thereof depending on your definitioin) when men get no say in the process.

Just out of interest, how many women here think that if men were the ones who had babies, women would get any say at all in the process?

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/3/2006 4:43:43 PM
Author: MINE!!

Date: 4/3/2006 4:40:26 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 4/3/2006 4:07:22 PM

Author: MINE!!

OHHHH Angela.. the neofeminist around here are going to rip you for that comment.



but I agree with you 100%!

Neofeminists? LOL. Please.

Exactly! With a different inflection of course.

but I am through with this thread. The fact is, I think it is ridiculous that women who have never had children, thought about having children, been pregant, etc. are trying to decide on a topic where when that are accusing men of the same thing... making a decision on something about the life of a child without having had children, thought about having children or well.. been pregnant... It is an ironic and ridiculous!

I love the fact that you are through with this thread but seen to need to impart your opinion/wisdom.

I take DEEP offense with your comment. I am a women. Women CAN empathize with women. I CAN and WILL comment/make choices about WOMEN''S issues.

 

[Angela1977]

Incidentally, I consider myself a feminist. I believe in equal pay for equal work. I believe that women are just as valuable as men. I do, however, think that men and women are different and there''s nothing wrong with that. I don''t want to be able to lift things that are as heavy as my BF. I like wearing skirts and makeup. Look at this forum...guys would never sit around discussing diamonds and how much they love them. This forum is a perfect example of how women are different from men.

I agree with the point that I don''t like the govt legislating this issue. It''s sad that it HAS to be legislated. The govt is taking too much control over a myriad of issues.

I was really just bringing up this point about men, because as I was reading this thread, I saw a lot of "men shouldn''t have the right to tell me what to do with my body". Well, if that''s the case, we as women shouldn''t have the right to tell men what to do with their wallets. It just seems like a fair trade-off. The same men in suits who are trying to legislate what we can and can''t do with our bodies are the same ones passing laws dictating how much child support a man has to pay for a choice he didn''t have any say in making.

 

[MINE!!]

Sorry you feel offend F&I, but as a mother I can empathize with mothers and children. I thought my opinions based on this thread and others, were pretty obvious.. I think that it is unfortunate that we demonize men and destory chiildren in the name of convience. Women have a voice, men have a voice, murdered children DO NOT. There has to be someon to standup for them. there are more women in this country that stand up for the lives of whales, dolphins and weasels than for an unborn child... it sad.

but I restate myself when I say that this whole movement has only expressed openess and acceptance to those that express the feministic view of children being nothing more than tissue and men being nothing more than scum.

To add to Angela's point. My ex sister in law (thank God) Told her boyfriend that she was on BC and that should could never get pregnant due to a childhood disease. When she got pregnant 2 months later she told him he had better marry her or she was going to make him pay for this child for the rest of his life. Guess what, she decided to keep the baby, she decided that she wanted him to pay through the nose. She haas never been held responsibl for her actions or her lies. EVER. but he pays for her lies.. every month.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/3/2006 4:54:15 PM
Author: cinnabar

Date: 4/3/2006 4:38:18 PM
Author: Angela1977
I just don''t understand how women can stand up and grand stand about their rights and their choices and their bodies and their babies (or lack thereof depending on your definitioin) when men get no say in the process.

Just out of interest, how many women here think that if men were the ones who had babies, women would get any say at all in the process?

Women would not have much of a say in the process. Really, Viagra is out their in gosh knows how many forms & covered by insurance? Yet, many plans do not cover birth control pills & women in reproductive years INSURANCE rates are FAR higher.

Go figure that''s not in a man''s world.

 

[Angela1977]

Ebree,
No, a woman can abandon her child. It may not happen as often, but it can happen. Just because it DOESN''T doesn''t mean that we should hold men more repsonsible. And that kind of illustrates my point even more. A man probably made it perfectly clear that he had no interest in the child, yet SHE CHOSE (because of all of this "it''s my body I can do what I want) to have the baby and raise it. He had no say, he had no interest in being there emotionally, she did. It was her CHOICE. If we''re all about CHOICE here, then why should a man have to pay for a woman''s choice?

 

[fire&ice]

Bodies & wallets are two completely different things.

 

[Angela1977]

Still, no one is answering my question...I find that interesting.

 

[E B]

Date: 4/3/2006 4:43:43 PM
Author: MINE!!

but I am through with this thread. The fact is, I think it is ridiculous that women who have never had children, thought about having children, been pregant, etc. are trying to decide on a topic where when that are accusing men of the same thing... making a decision on something about the life of a child without having had children, thought about having children or well.. been pregnant... It is an ironic and ridiculous!

Oh, I see! We''re only allowed to have an opinion on abortion if we''ve had a child.

Ridiculous. This is not just a mother''s issue, it''s a woman''s issue. I feel I''m pretty qualified to have an opinion.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/3/2006 4:58:06 PM
Author: MINE!!
Sorry you feel offend F&I, but as a mother I can empathize with mothers and children. I thought my opinions based on this thread and others, were pretty obvious.. I think that it is unfortunate that we demonize men and destory chiildren in the name of convience. Women have a voice, men have a voice, murdered children DO NOT. There has to be someon to standup for them. there are more women in this country that stand up for the lives of whales, dolphins and weasels than for an unborn child... it sad.

but I restate myself when I say that this whole movement has only expressed openess and acceptance to those that express the feministic view of children being nothing more than tissue and men being nothing more than scum.

But, I CAN ALSO empathize with mothers and children. Just because I don''t have children of MY OWN, it certainly doesn''t mean I don''t know what''s up.

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 4/3/2006 4:43:43 PM
Author: MINE!!
but I am through with this thread. The fact is, I think it is ridiculous that women who have never had children, thought about having children, been pregant, etc. are trying to decide on a topic where when that are accusing men of the same thing... making a decision on something about the life of a child without having had children, thought about having children or well.. been pregnant... It is an ironic and ridiculous!

By that logic, the only people qualified to sit on a jury at a murder trial are murderers and those who have had someone close to them murdered. That''s starting to sound horribly close to feudal law rather than democracy.

 

[MINE!!]

Date: 4/3/2006 5:04:36 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 4/3/2006 4:58:06 PM

Author: MINE!!

Sorry you feel offend F&I, but as a mother I can empathize with mothers and children. I thought my opinions based on this thread and others, were pretty obvious.. I think that it is unfortunate that we demonize men and destory chiildren in the name of convience. Women have a voice, men have a voice, murdered children DO NOT. There has to be someon to standup for them. there are more women in this country that stand up for the lives of whales, dolphins and weasels than for an unborn child... it sad.


but I restate myself when I say that this whole movement has only expressed openess and acceptance to those that express the feministic view of children being nothing more than tissue and men being nothing more than scum.

But, I CAN ALSO empathize with mothers and children. Just because I don''t have children of MY OWN, it certainly doesn''t mean I don''t know what''s up.

Of Course it is ridiculous!!! that is my point. Men are not scum, women are so busy fighting over what to do with bodies that men are making laws and women are getting pi$$ed about it. There are always going to be women who think it is wrong to be ''forced to have children'' and there are always going to be women that think that murdering a child is horrible.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/3/2006 5:03:12 PM
Author: Angela1977
Still, no one is answering my question...I find that interesting.

No, I do not think that a man has equal say in this decision.

 

[Angela1977]

And you think that's fair???

ETA: You think it's fair for a man to be financially responsible for 18 years for someone else's decision?

 

[E B]

Date: 4/3/2006 5:00:44 PM
Author: Angela1977
Ebree,

No, a woman can abandon her child. It may not happen as often, but it can happen. Just because it DOESN'T doesn't mean that we should hold men more repsonsible. And that kind of illustrates my point even more. A man probably made it perfectly clear that he had no interest in the child, yet SHE CHOSE (because of all of this 'it's my body I can do what I want) to have the baby and raise it. He had no say, he had no interest in being there emotionally, she did. It was her CHOICE. If we're all about CHOICE here, then why should a man have to pay for a woman's choice?

You make a good point, though I think it's a little more difficult than that, for many. For example, I read (very recently, in an online community for pregnant women) about a woman, married, with one child and another on the way. The husband wasn't happy with the second pregnancy, and so he left her. What do you feel are the husband's obligations? Because he's her husband, should he be responsible for both children? Or just one, the one he chose? Rather sticky, and extremely sad.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/3/2006 5:08:13 PM
Author: Angela1977
And you think that''s fair???

Simply put - yes. The women is way into the majority of "baby". And, therefore should have the majority say.

I''m gonna say it - but I have seen my friends, family even people meeting on the street - it''s the women who is the life of that baby. Men go through FAR less adjustments.

 

[Angela1977]

In a marital relationship, I think a law protecting men''s rights (ie, denying parental rights) shouldn''t apply. It''s part of a contract. Marriage is a contract, and there is a reasonable expectation that children will be the product of this union under this contract.

However, in the case of Mine''s SIL, she lied to her boyfriend, swore she was on birth control, said she couldn''t get pregnant, and then he''s on the hook. And still, while we''re debating CHOICE, which is the whole point of this thread, women get more of a choice than a man, pure and simple. If a woman isn''t ready to accept the emotional and financial repsonsiblity of a child, then she has two options, abortion or adoption where she gives no financial support. Emotional toll is obviously going to be rough, there''s no denying that, in either case. Or she can CHOOSE to support the child on her own if the man doesn''t CHOOSE to be a part of it. All I''m trying to say is that if a woman gets the all important CHOICE, then a man should be afforded the same right, or as close as we can get given our biological differences. Seems fair to me, in our "democratic" society. However, women seem to want to make men pay to make their choices easier. Men get no say in whether an abortion occurs. The playing field is extremely uneven.

 

[Angela1977]

And again, for the record, I'm not advocating that men can go spreading their seed around irresponsibly and say "hey, I didn't want a kid, that's all you." But in cases where they took the precautions they could, they discussed up front whether they wanted to be a father (and what role they would take), and they were assured of the likelihood on the woman's part (if she could become pregnant, whether she was on the pill etc), and THEN they are sued for child support, I think that is WRONG that the women is the only one given the choice. It angers me to hear women talk about how they want all of this choice, and men don't get any.

I don't agree with men abandoning children. I agree that it's a travesty, an epidemic, and extremely sad. However, you NEVER hear about women talking about this issue. Women only talk about their choices and how men need to give them rights. Women need to give men rights as well.

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 4/3/2006 5:24:05 PM
Author: Angela1977

Men get no say in whether an abortion occurs. The playing field is extremely uneven.

How many cases do you think we''re talking about, though? In how many pregnancies out of a thousand does the woman trick the man with the intention of stinging him for paternity payments? And in how many does the man pressure the woman to have an abortion because *he* doesn''t want a baby, so she has the abortion rather than lose the man?

MINE''s ex-SIL is an unfortunate example, but I''m not convinced she''s part of a large enough group that anyone should legislate for all women based on her behaviour.

Men do get a say in whether an abortion occurs, but not all women do 100% what men tell them to do. It makes a pleasant change from the previous 2000 years, in my opinion.

 

[E B]

Date: 4/3/2006 5:30:21 PM
Author: Angela1977


I don't agree with men abandoning children. I agree that it's a travesty, an epidemic, and extremely sad. However, you NEVER hear about women talking about this issue. Women only talk about their choices and how men need to give them rights. Women need to give men rights as well.

For each case like MINE's SIL (which I'm sure isn't too common), I'm sure there are thousands more where a man and woman (or boy and girl) conceive, the boy/man is at first excited, "chooses yes", and later decides he changes his mind. Books it out of town. What then? If dragged into court (to decide if the boy/man's off the hook or not), it'll always be his word against hers. That's why it'd extremely complicated to determine whether or not the man has a financial obligation. With pregnancy, there's a point of no return, and often, there's plenty of mind-changing. Except after the point of no return, the woman can't change her mind. Yes, adoption is always a choice, but sometimes, biology is stronger and affects a woman's choice seemingly unfairly.

 

[rainbowtrout]

Wow, that exploded during my nap...

Angela: Got to say, nope, I don''t think men get an equal say. Is that "fair"? Nope, life isn''t fair. I can''t say I wouldn''t give DB an equal say, honestly, but to legistlate men into having control on this issue? You must *love* Alito. If the world were a different place, where men did, in reality, end up being the primary caregivers most of the time, I might agree more.

I just can''t imagine a man having a legal right to force me to have an abortion. Do I think he should be mandated to pay child support? No, not unless there was marriage involved. Yes, I know women who have screwed with the birth control in a marriage, etc...but I think that gets too hairy to legislate.

Anyway, as for the remark about pregnancy being a natural function. Well, it is. It''s also an extremely DANGEROUS bodily function with huge risks of complications and disease. Women outside of America and the first world die every single day from childbirth. It used to be the leading killer of women. It''s not this safe happy thing. At least according to my mother, grandmother, and stepmother, it can be wonderful and life-changing, but it ain''t easy. Mom almost died in her first miscarriage, Rhonda hemorraged after her first, my grandmother actually didn''t have terrible comps but she was also all of 21. Oh yeah, and I was a C-section--meaning mom and I would have both DIED unless they could cut me out of her warm body in a country where there was no acess to a hospital. What about pregnancy induced diabetes, that does still occur here in the old USA?

Have you read any of the press about fistulas in African women where their husbands had the "say" in their giving birth?? Any of it??
Here''s just one link:

http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=25238

Our bodies aren''t perfectly "designed" for much of anything. Ask any competant biology professor...evolution don''t work that way! It''s much more of a hit or miss process.

Now, does the above relate to men in America? Partially, not completely. But we need to take off the little American-feminist blinders and look at the rest of the world for a minute.

 

[movie zombie]

opinions have been asked for and opinions i can give:

no, a man does not have equal say.

if men were to bear children, we''d not have an over populated world and we wouldn''t be having this discussion because most of us wouldn''t be born: do you really think men can take the pain and self-sacrifice of being a ''mother''? there are some but they are very few and far between.

no one should be forced to have an abortion.

no one should be stopped from having an abortion.

the government should stay completely out of what is a decision between a woman and her doctor.

against abortion? then don''t have one!

limiting a doctor''s ability to do his/her job is not the governments'' job.


movie zombie

 

[partgypsy]

Movie Zombie- Amen.

 

[Angela1977]

I'm Pro-choice here, people, if you're missing the forest for the trees. I do, however, think that women need to be more responsible for the choices that they make. If they want choice, they need to accept the choice that they make for themselves. They need to be able to accept the responsibility for the nurturing, the caregiving, the financial responsibliity if a casual relationship ends up in a pregnancy. And if she CHOOSES to continue with that pregnancy, she needs to understand that she might end up alone in that decision. It sucks, but that's how it might end up. If a guy has made his decision clear, then he shouldn't be forced to accept the CHOICE of someone else since his choices are extremely limited.
If women are all about their rights and their choices, they need to be able to stand on their own two feet in their choices and not inflict those choices on people who have no say in them.

 

[cinnabar]

Date: 4/5/2006 8:52:34 AM
Author: Angela1977
I''m Pro-choice here, people, if you''re missing the forest for the trees. I do, however, think that women need to be more responsible for the choices that they make. If they want choice, they need to accept the choice that they make for themselves. They need to be able to accept the responsibility for the nurturing, the caregiving, the financial responsibliity if a casual relationship ends up in a pregnancy. And if she CHOOSES to continue with that pregnancy, she needs to understand that she might end up alone in that decision. It sucks, but that''s how it might end up. If a guy has made his decision clear, then he shouldn''t be forced to accept the CHOICE of someone else since his choices are extremely limited.

If women are all about their rights and their choices, they need to be able to stand on their own two feet in their choices and not inflict those choices on people who have no say in them.

Angela, you''re arguing from a position where abortion is currently freely available (and therefore you might be missing the forest for the trees): this thread is for those of us who fear that right may be taken away and women who do not CHOOSE to have babies will be obliged to have them anyway, regardless of the father''s interest or choice. I can''t say I sympathise with the father who says "I don''t want this baby so I don''t want to pay for its upbringing" if the mother is denied her choice in the matter.

I don''t know the hows and whys of paternity payments, so I admit I could be talking out of my butt here ... but I am guessing that the number of cases where the a woman gets pregnant against her partner''s wishes are vastly outnumbered by the number of cases where the guy says "Yeah, honey, let''s have a baby" and then somewhere down the line he decides he doesn''t like family life after all and deserts them.

The whole point of the abortion debate is that most women who get pregnant from a casual relationship choose not to continue with the pregnancy. If that choice is denied them, then someone has to pay to bring up the baby and society deems it unfair that the burden be entirely on the mother.

The law is designed to cover the majority of cases in the most appropriate way, but "one size fits all" obviously doesn''t fit all and some people will end up suffering.

Alternatively:

The Powers That Be (at least in S. Dakota and the Supreme Court) seem determined to end "abortion on demand". They therefore have to cover their ass by mandating child support from the father, because if both parents have consensual sex and a pregnancy results, the woman is generally obliged to bring up that child regardless of whether the father wishes to contribute. If there were no mandatory child support, the pro-choicers would have a much stronger case for allowing women to have abortions. By making the unwilling father pay for the child-rearing, the government gets the workforce or the army that it wants.

I don''t disagree with you that it''s wrong for a woman to choose to get pregnant against her partner''s wishes, and then screw him for money for the rest of his life. I also think it is wrong for a woman to be denied access to an abortion and to have to pay to raise a child she doesn''t want, and can''t afford, on her own.

In an ideal world, all babies would be wanted and cared for impeccably. Unfortunately, we live in a far from ideal world and the law-makers can''t suit everyone, which is why we have these debates.

 

[Angela1977]

I understand that I veered off the debate a bit. It''s kind of an "off-shoot" of the abortion debate in my eyes. I thought the abortion debate had kind of played itself, so I brought up a different issue. I''m not missing anything here...I understand what the original debate was here. I was bringing up a new debate.

And I''m not saying that the cases of guys abandoning their children when they were a willing participant through part of the pregnancy/birth isn''t an epidemic. But I wouldn''t say it VASTLY outnumbers the cases where men weren''t given a choice as to whether they wanted to become fathers. I know far too many women who have said "I''m going to have this baby, and you''re going to like...hmmmph." Whether that means they demand a marriage proposal or they demand a hefty child support, the men in those cases weren''t given a CHOICE...they were dictated to. Women scream about their choices, their bodies, etc, but when the shoe is on the other foot, the man''s foot, they''re much less sympathetic about "choice". Women love to have choices, but they don''t like to give men choices. That''s my point in this discussion.

 

[Maria D]

OK, Angela, so basically you are saying that women should have the right to choose to have an abortion AND men should also have the right to choose whether or not to support a child they helped conceive out of wedlock. If you''re not saying that men should have the right to force their partners to have abortions or keep their babies, then I for one agree with you.

I personally don''t think a woman should count on a man supporting the baby she decided to have out of wedlock. If she''s not married, does not have a willing partner, and can''t rear the child on her own, she should consider adoption or have had an abortion. But these are just my little opinions and not the law.

In the real world, sexually active South Dakota women not seeking to be mothers need to be sure they have money for transportation out of state should they need an abortion. In most states, men who indulge in sex w/o birth control are playing roullette with 18 years of child support.

Case in point: a high school girl in my neighborhood is pregnant. She is keeping her baby and her parents support this (she''s 16). She admits to sleeping with three different boys but thinks one particular boy is hte father because he''s the only one that didn''t use a condom. The boy didn''t worry about getting her pregnant because he knew she "slept around" and figured she was using birth control. HIS parents are furious. All the families are waiting for the baby to be born and the DNA tests to come back so they can find out who''s going to have to pay child support. I personally feel that if hte girl''s parent''s support her keeping the child they should back that up with financial support and not expect anything from the "father." But if I had a son I''d tell him two things: ALWAYS use a condom and don''t date pro-lifers if you''re not ready to be a daddy!

 

[Angela1977]

Yes, Maria...that is what I am saying.
Let me outline just in case someone isn''t getting it...
1. If a couple is married, it''s a contract. The man has a reasonable expectation a pregnancy may occur and cannot refuse to support a child that was conceived while in that contract.
2. A man cannot force a woman to bring a child to term nor can he force her to have an abortion.
3. BUT, on the other hand, a woman has a choice to bring the child to term. If she knows that the father, who made his case up front that he wants nothing to do with parenthood, isn''t going to participate, she has three options, adoption, abortion, or raising the child on her own.
4. If a man says that he will support the woman, he makes a binding verbal agreement and should be bound by that. He may not then change his mind at any point he so chooses.
5. A man should have to take all precautions he can to ensure that a prenancy doesn''t occur.
6. AND, (i know this is pushing it a step further) I think a man should have some sort of legal recourse if he was lied to (told she was on birth control or told she couldn''t get pregnant when the woman KNEW she could). Some sort of mental anguish compensation etc. especially if she tries to sue him for medical expenses or child support, when he was mislead from the beginning. (Conversely, if a woman is told that a man has had a vasectomy, the same rules should apply). The precedent for this is someone lying about a sexually transmitted disease. There have been cases of people knowingly spreading diseases, and they have been brought up on charges for that. And not just AIDS which is terminal, but other ones which just cause mental anguish.

I rest my case and I''m going to talk about diamonds and engagements and proposals and girly fun stuff.