• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?

Do Men Have the Right to Control Women's Health Issues and Reproductive Systems?


  • Total voters
    41
Half the women are pro choice. Why should they bother to take the pill or do anything else to protect a sensitive male? Protect yourself or don't moan.

Has nothing to do with the point being argued. As someone who complains about "people putting words in your mouth," you tend to go off on these kinds of wild tangents quite a bit.
 
That's simply wrong. How can there be an honest conversation on this if this is the kind of militancy which goes around? This kind of absolutism, whomever it comes from, helps nothing and no one.
Any male who is anti choice should never have sex without a condom. Remember that at least half the women are pro choice and may not use anything in the way of pills. Why should men not take the necessary steps they can to prevent pregnancy. Think of it this way, the abortions that have already been preformed would be cut by at least 85% if men wore condoms. Wow all those pro choice males and they didn't even know it.
It's not militant at all by the way it is truth. Why should you have a say over what I do with my body when it comes to my health? That's the height of militancy and arrogance.
 
Any male who is anti choice should never have sex without a condom. Remember that at least half the women are pro choice and may not use anything in the way of pills. Why should men not take the necessary steps they can to prevent pregnancy. Think of it this way, the abortions that have already been preformed would be cut by at least 85% if men wore condoms. Wow all those pro choice males and they didn't even know it.
It's not militant at all by the way it is truth. Why should you have a say over what I do with my body when it comes to my health? That's the height of militancy and arrogance.

It is as militant as saying that anyone who believes in a religion has a mental disorder.
 
Any male who is anti choice should never have sex without a condom. Remember that at least half the women are pro choice and may not use anything in the way of pills. Why should men not take the necessary steps they can to prevent pregnancy. Think of it this way, the abortions that have already been preformed would be cut by at least 85% if men wore condoms. Wow all those pro choice males and they didn't even know it.
It's not militant at all by the way it is truth. Why should you have a say over what I do with my body when it comes to my health? That's the height of militancy and arrogance.

you are a woman... you have no say in what a man does.
 
Truly, with such an astounding ability to determine exactly what the intent and thoughts are of an entire segment of the population...even when they themselves don't even believe that's what their actual intent and thought is....you really should not be wasting your time on a forum. Please, call up the CIA and let them know of your amazing and astonishing gift so they may hire you out to fight terrorism or something. I am truly in awe of your awesome ability to determine with factual clarity what large groups of people's actual purposes are.

If a male is concerned about abortion it is absolutely an arrogant attempt to control a women's reproductive rights. There is no other way to look at it. If there is an optional opinion you may have let me know. If there is no other way to look at it than I guess I'm correct. I look forward to your sharing of an alternate opinion that means something.
 
Why should you have a say over what I do with my body when it comes to my health? That's the height of militancy and arrogance.

When the situation involves another body created by both man and woman, it's most definitely the man's business too.
 
No, you were putting it in terms of consent, as in, a fetus can't consent to life. Neither can an infant.

And there's no real physical difference between an infant about to be born and and infant a minute after birth. Or really, any viable fetus, except for size. So, if an infant is a "life," then so is any viable fetus. (Which is why it's permissible to restrict abortion after the point of viability.)

Perhaps not, but they can display consistency and behaviors associated with will to survive. More on this after the next quote.

Actually there's a huge difference. Try removing a 6-month-old fetus and an 9-month-old fetus from the uterus and see which one lives longer. The former doesn't even have full lungs yet, and will probably die without heavy medical intervention. Even with medical intervention, it may die anyway and if it doesn't it will probably be extremely disabled.

Using your "consent" touchstone, why should there be? And what "risk" is there in terminating them?

These behaviors of desire to live suggest to us to act in the best interest of it continuing to live. Anything beyond that is a choice we make on our own.

But that wasn't really the point. The point is that people act as though an embryo is just leaping at the chance to be alive at some later date. It isn't. It can't even display survival behaviors that I mention above. Whatever we decide to do with it is ultimately something we do for our own selfish reasons.
 
Why do you think a pro choice women is obligated to be concerned about your feelings

Why do you think I'm obligated to be concerned about a pro-choice woman's feelings?

when it comes to the fetus?

We have all been fetuses.

Even if contraceptives aren't perfect if you are so concerned about abortions you personally would do all you can to prevent them.

You're saying I have the right to control women?

If you don't then you add to the number of abortions.

Why is the duty of care on me?

That would make you pro choice.

No, that would make me a victim of negligence.
 
Any male who is anti choice should never have sex without a condom. Remember that at least half the women are pro choice and may not use anything in the way of pills. Why should men not take the necessary steps they can to prevent pregnancy. Think of it this way, the abortions that have already been preformed would be cut by at least 85% if men wore condoms. Wow all those pro choice males and they didn't even know it.
It's not militant at all by the way it is truth. Why should you have a say over what I do with my body when it comes to my health? That's the height of militancy and arrogance.

That statement is a bit off, since you're basically stating that pro-life men should never have sex without condoms, even though those men will undoubtedly be having families. Why do you seem to focus only on the men when it comes to pro-life men? There may be quite a few pro-life women as well.

Why shouldn't women, as well, take the necessary precautions? Men are taken out of the abortion issue, yet now you would say only men should protect themselves? If you state that abortions would decrease if 85% of men wore condoms. Logic dictates that abortions would decrease even more if women were as responsible as the men in using protection. Is it not enough to make contraceptives easier to obtain? Now only men have to be responsible, even though it take two to make a baby?
 
If a male is concerned about abortion it is absolutely an arrogant attempt to control a women's reproductive rights.

Sure there is, you just refuse to be open minded enough to accept that everyone doesn't view the world as you view it. You are too militant and arrogant in your belief that you refuse to even consider that it is reasonable, understandable, or true that someone may dare to have a different view point than you. You stated unequivocally in your other post, as if in your arrogance you believe yourself to be some kind of omnipotent being, that it is "not about the fetus". Many do, unquestionably, believe that the fetus is a human and as such its right to live is greater than the right of a woman to control her reproductive rights just as a 5 year olds right to live is greater than a woman's right to spend her money how she see's fit or take care of who she wants to take care of.

It is YOUR arrogance and militant attitude on this issue that leads your to your own unrealistic and egocentric view of what must be the singular view legitimate view point and belief structure an individual can have and thus provides the basis for your ridiculously narrow and inaccurate statement earlier.
 
But that's just baseless speculation. No, that's not "what this is all about." The issue has always been about the unborn child; you are seeing this in a very partisan light, my friend.

Is it? Why should someone beyond me have a say over my reproductive system? Who do you think you are that you should have a say in that? The issue has never been about the unborn child or every male in the world would wear a condom every time they have sex. The abortion rate would have been at least 75% less if males were half as concerned as they pretend to be. A condom is far better than 75% by the way. But I am giving you the benefit of a lower number. So to not wear a condom is to support pro choice. At least half of the women are pro choice. You are banking when you have sex without a condom that the woman cares one way or the other.
So the issue is absolutely about the woman. Men prove by their not using a condom that they don't really care either. It is not a pro choice women's responsibility to see your feelings aren't hurt. That is what you are saying. How arrogant is that?
 
Has nothing to do with the point being argued. As someone who complains about "people putting words in your mouth," you tend to go off on these kinds of wild tangents quite a bit.
This certainly does have a great deal to do with the issue. If not abortion why would a man give a rats ass about a woman's health? You certainly aren't discussing brain surgery, or vitamin deficiencies are you?
 
That statement is a bit off, since you're basically stating that pro-life men should never have sex without condoms, even though those men will undoubtedly be having families. Why do you seem to focus only on the men when it comes to pro-life men? There may be quite a few pro-life women as well.

Why shouldn't women, as well, take the necessary precautions? Men are taken out of the abortion issue, yet now you would say only men should protect themselves? If you state that abortions would decrease if 85% of men wore condoms. Logic dictates that abortions would decrease even more if women were as responsible as the men in using protection. Is it not enough to make contraceptives easier to obtain? Now only men have to be responsible, even though it take two to make a baby?

I tend to agree with you.

As a woman is not only pro-choice but also childfree, I assume 100% of the responsibility for preventing pregnancy, to the extent of keeping my own stash of condoms, putting them on myself, and paying for 100% of any other contraceptive I may use. The reason is this.

Any man who gets involved with me knows before we ever had sex what my position is. He has no say in it, and I make that clear. He can choose at that point whether to have sex with me or not. Yes, he has to wear a condom, but that is for both of our benefits beyond just preventing pregnancy and I am assuming all responsibility for providing them and applying them. I don't care if he never buys the condoms for the entire duration of our relationship.

Because if that is how I'm going to operate, if I am going to assume 100% of the decision-making power for pregnancy without accepting any input, then I also assume 100% of the responsibility for my own reproductive choices. The man has zero burden to provide me with anything, ever, under any circumstances.

When we make a choice, we assume responsibility for that choice. And honestly, I think feminists who believe their choices are someone else's responsibility, even in part, are degrading the compitence of women.
 
Is it? Why should someone beyond me have a say over my reproductive system? Who do you think you are that you should have a say in that? The issue has never been about the unborn child or every male in the world would wear a condom every time they have sex. The abortion rate would have been at least 75% less if males were half as concerned as they pretend to be. A condom is far better than 75% by the way. But I am giving you the benefit of a lower number. So to not wear a condom is to support pro choice. At least half of the women are pro choice. You are banking when you have sex without a condom that the woman cares one way or the other.
So the issue is absolutely about the woman. Men prove by their not using a condom that they don't really care either. It is not a pro choice women's responsibility to see your feelings aren't hurt. That is what you are saying. How arrogant is that?

When a man and a woman have sex, it's up to them to decide together if they are going to use protection or not. You make it sound like the woman has no say in if a man wears a condom or not. If neither of them thinks about protection, it's BOTH of their faults and they are BOTH responsible for the consequences. Therefore, BOTH man and woman should make the decision is a baby is conceived.
 
No, I'm not talking about a 9-month-old fetus except in very select circumstances. Don't tell me what I'm talking about.

:roll: oh for ****'s sake.

Here let me try again. Hey smokeandmirrors, how about we talk about 9-month old fetuses? You said there is no difference between giving birth to a fetus and terminating a fetus. If that statement is true, isn't it true of 9-month old fetuses?

In the case of a 9-month-old fetus, if it comes down between saving the woman and saving the fetus, I'll vote for the woman every single time and without reservation.

kewl. me too. anyway....

Like I've said numerous times, we have other protections for organisms that can't give intellectual consent, but can display a desire to survive. This can be applied to a 9-month-old fetus. But, just like in every other case where we apply this, the sentient human wins out at the end of the day. Especially if the non-sentient being is the aggressor.

What I'm talking about, mostly, is elective abortions. Elective abortions are uncommon after the 1st trimester, and almost unheard of in the 3rd. Therefore, this has nothing to do with my argument.

actually, it does. I'm not saying there is no difference between third trimester abortions and first trimester abortions. I know there's a difference. My whole post was a counterargument to your claim that there is no difference between giving birth to a fetus and terminating a fetus. Which is flat out false. As illustrated by my 9-month old fetus example.

Your argument accounts for none of the nuance that exists in actual reality. Are you telling me there is no difference between an embryo and a 9-month-old viable fetus? Then what is the difference between a sperm and an adult human? Before you tell me a sperm can't become a human on its own, neither can an embryo.

:roll: who do you think i am rick santorum? of course there's a difference. you seem to be assuming an awful lot about my position on abortion. i'll give you a hint: i'm not prolife (or antichoice or whatever disingenuous sensational term you like to use).


Yes, there's a difference. The difference is actually demonstrated perfectly by my example above, where when it comes down to the life of a woman or a 9-month-old fetus, the woman wins.
as i've already said, i agree. this is uncontroversial, really.

But there's a second argument that could made here which also applies to an unwanted pregnancy. The heartworms aggressively and nonconsensually threatened the life of the dog. Ethically, the dog's desires in that situation are automatically more important than the heartworm's desires, in the same way that killing is generally acceptable if it's in self-defense. This can be applied just as readily to a ZEF in a woman who never desired to be pregnant. That ZEF is posing imminent risk to her health without her consent, and even the most textbook pregnancies leave some nasty scars.

again, you seem to be arguing against a phantom position you assume i hold...
 
Perhaps not, but they can display consistency and behaviors associated with will to survive. More on this after the next quote.

Actually there's a huge difference. Try removing a 6-month-old fetus and an 9-month-old fetus from the uterus and see which one lives longer. The former doesn't even have full lungs yet, and will probably die without heavy medical intervention. Even with medical intervention, it may die anyway and if it doesn't it will probably be extremely disabled.

The point is, if a fetus can live on its own outside its mother, then there's no definition by which it's not an existing "life" -- which is what you said the difference was. It may have a rougher chance at survival, but then, so do quite a few full-term, naturally-born babies.



These behaviors of desire to live suggest to us to act in the best interest of it continuing to live.

And all life exhibits this, except in the few cases you mentioned. Does a fetus behave in such a way as to suggest it doesn't "desire" to live? If it doesn't, why would you not assume that it does?

But that wasn't really the point. The point is that people act as though an embryo is just leaping at the chance to be alive at some later date. It isn't. It can't even display survival behaviors that I mention above.

It is, and it does, as much as any life which can't express an opinion on the subject.


Whatever we decide to do with it is ultimately something we do for our own selfish reasons.

I think your opinion on this is far from universal. Not to dredge up other threads, but I can't help but think that your own self-stated lack of a maternal instinct is very much at play here. I mean that only as an observation and not as judgment, 'coz after all, I have no desire to have kids, either.
 
This certainly does have a great deal to do with the issue. If not abortion why would a man give a rats ass about a woman's health? You certainly aren't discussing brain surgery, or vitamin deficiencies are you?

I'm certainly not discussing anything you say in this post, that's for sure.
 
Because if that is how I'm going to operate, if I am going to assume 100% of the decision-making power for pregnancy without accepting any input, then I also assume 100% of the responsibility for my own reproductive choices. The man has zero burden to provide me with anything, ever, under any circumstances.

No... I have to disagree with this on behalf of the children.

A complete upbringing requires a committed father figure. This is especially the case for boys.

When we make a choice, we assume responsibility for that choice. And honestly, I think feminists who believe their choices are someone else's responsibility, even in part, are degrading the compitence of women.

This is nice of you, but nobody is competent to parent a child on one's own.
 
Last edited:
It is as militant as saying that anyone who believes in a religion has a mental disorder.
What exactly are you trying to say?

Why should a woman who is pro choice use the pill?
Why should a woman who is pro choice ask you to wear a condom?
Why should a woman who is pro choice care that you think the fetus is important?
Why should a male who is anti choice expect a pro choice woman to care?
Why can' an anti choice male wear a condom?
Why should this anti choice male think the woman is anti choice as well?
If a male is concerned about abortion and I know there are many who are, why would they risk supporting abortions by not using a condom? Even if they can prevent the possibility of abortion 80% of the time it only makes good sense.
So what are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that all women should agree with you? Are you saying that a pro choice woman should care about what you think, if you didn't why should she?
Tell me what you are trying to say?
 
I'm just relieved to find out that the only reason to wear a condom is whether or not you want a baby popping out 9 months later.

That takes a load off my mind. I could've swore I had heard at some point condoms had some other purpose that was as, if not more, important. Guess I must've been imagining that.

Go ahead ladies...and men too...if you don't want kids and don't care about abortions **** all you want san's condoms. That's the smart thing to do.
 
A lot of this isn't worth addressing since you're ignoring most of what I actually said. I'll point out a few of the more eggregious errors.

actually, it does. I'm not saying there is no difference between third trimester abortions and first trimester abortions. I know there's a difference. My whole post was a counterargument to your claim that there is no difference between giving birth to a fetus and terminating a fetus. Which is flat out false. As illustrated by my 9-month old fetus example.

I didn't say there was no difference between birth and termination. Where did you get this from? What I said is that there is no consequence in preventing a life which doesn't exist, from existing. And since we are talking about elective abortions, a 9-month-old fetus does not enter into the equation anywhere.

:roll: who do you think i am rick santorum? of course there's a difference. you seem to be assuming an awful lot about my position on abortion. i'll give you a hint: i'm not prolife (or antichoice or whatever disingenuous sensational term you like to use).

Then I don't understand why you're conflating embryos and 9-month-old fetuses.
 
Is it? Why should someone beyond me have a say over my reproductive system? Who do you think you are that you should have a say in that? The issue has never been about the unborn child or every male in the world would wear a condom every time they have sex. The abortion rate would have been at least 75% less if males were half as concerned as they pretend to be. A condom is far better than 75% by the way. But I am giving you the benefit of a lower number. So to not wear a condom is to support pro choice. At least half of the women are pro choice. You are banking when you have sex without a condom that the woman cares one way or the other.
So the issue is absolutely about the woman. Men prove by their not using a condom that they don't really care either. It is not a pro choice women's responsibility to see your feelings aren't hurt. That is what you are saying. How arrogant is that?

Well, we can play your game if you wish. Who exactly are you to vote on anything that affects men? :roll:

But I understand. You're a partisan, and I can accept that.

What you need to understand is that not everyone shares your beliefs. Not every woman views the unborn child as a lump of cells. Not every person lacks a conscience regarding the importance of life.

Not everyone believes that the life developing inside of you has absolutely no right and can be ripped apart at any given moment. The issue is indeed about the unborn child; you cannot ignore reality and continue going about, sitting on your biscuit, assuming to be taken seriously. You must acknowledge that there is discussion on the existence of a seperate life that has the right to live. To ignore that reality is to ignore the fact that many other people have totally different perspectives. Imo, both man and woman should use birth control. Actually, I'd rather people had the responsibility and maturity to not have sex without the means to pay for the consequences. It takes two to make a baby, and just because the baby develops in her body, that doesn't erase the fact that the man was also a part of its creation. Both should take precautions, instead of placing all of the responsibility on just one sex.



You're also saying that not wearing a condom makes you pro-choice. Wow. I suppose liking the rainbow makes one gay. :roll:
 
When the situation involves another body created by both man and woman, it's most definitely the man's business too.
The male made his choice when he didn't use a condom. Why should a pro choice woman give a damn what some anti abortionist thinks. If he were so concerned he would use a condom. She can always have an abortion because she has the choice and will use it. Half the women and half the men disagree with you on whether that is life or not so
what makes you think your opinion is more important than yours.
 
Why should a woman who is pro choice use the pill?

So she doesn't make a baby. Derp.

Why should a woman who is pro choice ask you to wear a condom?

So you don't make a baby.

Why should a woman who is pro choice care that you think the fetus is important?

Because when you choose to have sex with someone unprotected, then you're choosing to possibly make a baby together. That baby will belong to you and him. It's his decision too what happens when his baby.

Why can' an anti choice male wear a condom?

Who says they don't?

Why should this anti choice male think the woman is anti choice as well?
If a male is concerned about abortion and I know there are many who are, why would they risk supporting abortions by not using a condom? Even if they can prevent the possibility of abortion 80% of the time it only makes good sense.
So what are you trying to say? Are you trying to say that all women should agree with you? Are you saying that a pro choice woman should care about what you think, if you didn't why should she?
Tell me what you are trying to say?

Okay, I'm tired of answering these stupid questions. All of them are common sense answers to any clear-thinking, caring human.
 
Back
Top Bottom