• 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
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.

Yes, you're right if the man chose to not wear a condom. However, the woman also chose when she didn't insist on a condom. If you make a baby, it's up to BOTH of you to make the decision what you want to do. You BOTH chose to not put the condom on.
 
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.

Really? Anyone who would choose not to abort their own child is an "anti-abortionist"?
 
Why should a woman who is pro choice use the pill?

I'd suggest asking Middleground, she's stated a bunch in the Rush thread how there's reasons to take birth control other than to protect from pregnancy.

Perhaps the pro-choice woman has bad acne?

Perhaps the pro-choice women is personally against abortion but feels that the government should not be mandating it?

Perhaps the pro-choice women would rather be on the pill and avoid pregnancy because she believes the entire abortive process could potentially be somewhat disturbing mentally.

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

She's cautious about STD's?

The various reasons I just stated above?

She's allergic to semen?

She doesn't like the feeling of it inside her and dripping after the fact?

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

Because she perhaps actually has emotional feelings towards the individual she's having sex with and thus cares about their thoughts and views as well?

Because perhaps she believes that while its a woman's body and ultimately her choice, the fetus growing inside of her is made of two peoples DNA...not just hers...and she recognizes the other individual may like some input?

Why should a male who is anti choice expect a pro choice woman to care?

He believes the woman who is having sex with him actually has an emotional attachment to him and cares what he says?

He believes that the woman who he is having sex with actually holds respect for him and his opinions even when they're separate than her own?

Why can' an anti choice male wear a condom?

I don't know pro-fetus killer (if we're going to use asinine arrogant based militant terminology rather than intellectually honest and fair ones, may as well be consistent no? You pick the game you want to play), perhaps a situation occurred where he stupidly just didn't think of it, or made an extremely poor decision due to a variety of factors from his own inability to control his lustful emotions to seduction on the part of the female?

But yes, a pro-life person absolutely could wear a condom. However this is irrelevant to the argument of many pro-life people as it assumes they only want unborn children to be protected when conceived from couplings of at least one pro-life person.

Why should this anti choice male think the woman is anti choice as well?

Perhaps she told him she was?

Perhaps various things she stated made him believe that?

Perhaps he ignorantly just assumed?

Its funny...in a few seconds I was able to think of multiple answers to every one of your questions but you seemed to ask them as if you had this strong belief there was no, or only one, correct answer. It couldn't possibly be that you are so arrogantly sure of your position on this being absolute gospel that no one could dare possibly think opposite of your without being of inferior intelligence, bigoted, or just plain wrong.
 
Last edited:
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.

Well, I would stay it still exists on a continuum. What we consider to be "viable" is only "viable" because of heavy medical interference. In reality, an infant born before 7 months is very unlikely to survive without heavy medical intervention.

But I'm not arguing in favor of elective late-term abortion. I'm just pointing out that there IS a difference between the two, and even post-viability the difference a couple months makes is dramatic. The difference that 5 or 6 months makes is even more dramatic.

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?

A late term fetus does display these qualities. An embryo or early fetus certainly doesn't.

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

No it isn't. The ZEF has nothing to do with the creation of its life. That life is forced into the world by the woman's body.

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.

So? Does that release you from addressing it?

It may very well be at play - I wouldn't deny that for a minute. But, does the possibility exist that this makes me slightly more objective on the matter?

I have never argued against the welfare of children, have I? Clearly I am capable of recognizing children as people, even though I can't stand them. And in many of my positions, completely apart from the abortion debate, I look to science to help me understand an issue, just like I do in the abortion debate.

I would argue that my lack of maternal drive allows me to treat the abortion debate more fairly and similarly to how I treat other debates.
 
Last edited:
I have no say in your health issues no. None and why would I think I should?

I said that because you spend a lot of time telling men what they should and shouldn't do.. all while saying that men shouldn't have a say in what women do.

I don't believe you shouldn't have a say, i'm just borrowing your argument and using it against you.

i'm in a rather wonderful marriage where our reproductive health concerns have been addressed together...to think, a man and a woman being able to discuss and address health concerns together.. why it's magic!...it helps neither one of us are militant sexists.
 
I have no say in your health issues no. None and why would I think I should?

So you weren't supportive of government mandating health care coverage or even potentially moving to a single payer health care system?
 
WOW....

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


We have all been fetuses.
So?



You're saying I have the right to control women?
Absolutely not. i am saying that if you are concerned about abortion you should use a condom don't expect her to care about you.



Why is the duty of care on me?
The duty is on you if you are anti choice. If you are pro choice than it's no ones duty. If she aborts the fetus it's obviously no sweat to you as you prove by all your responses you are pro choice or just don't care.


No, that would make me a victim of negligence.
Why is a woman who is pro choice obligated to protect you. That's as arrogant as I have heard.
 
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.

I like to keep things simple. Both man and woman have exactly equal responsibility in having a child and caring for it. I would love to see further measures to ensure that deadbeat men or women take responsibility for the life the are bringing into this world.

Ansd I agree with that 100% Furthermore, condoms can break. If all of the responsibility is put on the man and his condom breaks, well, oh snap. My sister uses this certain kind of birth control where they place some sort of thing into her arm. The name eludes me but it's effective birth control and she never has to worry. My utter dislike of abortion makes me a firm believer of easily accessible birth control; in a perfect world I'd like to see men and women who are responsible enough to abstain from sex before marriage, and use birth control effectively during marriage, as they wish.

I think the man, if he gets the woman pregnant, must assume/be forced to have the burden of caring for the child, whether it be child support, etc.
 
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.

No it doesn't. Lesbian couples are quite capable of raising well-adjusted children. A single parent isn't ideal, but mine (my father) was extremely capable. But also, what about adoption and abortion? You're assuming the only choice is to have a child and keep it.

This is nice of you, but nobody is competent to parent a child on one's own.

It's irrelevant to my position. Because my position is that I will never bear a child. In essence, what I am assuming responsibility for is 100% of the cost of an abortion, in addition to all measures I use to prevent needing to have an abortion.
 
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.

Well, it's certainly more immediate.
 
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?

You take it to far as is usually the case when debating pretenders to the anti choice movement. If you are in a relationship and you both want children of course you wouldn't use a condom. If you are not in that sort of relationship you should always use one. If you really do care about abortions. Why should a woman who is PRO CHOICE take precautions? She will just have an abortion. I am pretty sure most women who are anti choice do something to prevent pregnancy.
 
Remember when some of the most fanatic pro-life people go on and on about how pro-choicers use abortion as birth control and how some women just want abortions to be common place and as standard as going on the pill?

Remember when a lot of pro-choicers say that no one thinks that way and they feel a woman's body is her own and the government shouldn't restrict it but people don't want women to be using it like birth control or that they're in favor of it just being an every day type of thing?

The majority of pro-lifer's on this forum show why the over generalization of the first paragraph is ridiculous.

Katiegrrl sadly however is a primary example of why the over generalization of the second paragraph is as well.
 
I'm taking the poll on face value. Men have a right to opinion about women's issues, just as women have a right to an opinion about male issues. Nobody has the right to enforce their beliefs on another person's body. No government, no religion, nobody.

Religions have the right to preach their beliefs about women's reproductive health, but it has no right to try to codify those beliefs into law and force them on an unwilling populace. Religion does not have the right to single women out by insisting that health insurance not cover needed hormonal therapies while needed male hormonal therapies are covered.

Government does not have the right to implement laws that force unwanted, unneeded medical procedures on unwilling women who are choosing a legal, constitutionally-protected procedure. Government does not have the right to implement laws that affect women's reproductive health and freedoms.

As for the idea that having women's reproductive health covered by health insurance is a "taxpayer subsidy", that's rubbish, just as it's rubbish to say that men's reproductive heath being covered by health insurance (hormonal therapies, prostate medication, testicular issues) is a "taxpayer subsidy." Health care is meant for the care of people's health, the health of their entire bodies whether that body is male or female. To separate the genders and single out females for reduction in their health care insurance is by definition misogynistic discrimination, pure and simple.
 
Last edited:
Why should a woman who is PRO CHOICE take precautions?

So she won't have to go to all the trouble of going to the doctor and getting her baby sucked out of her womb? So she won't get into a legal mess when the father of the baby wants to keep the child? Because she might be a good person that doesn't want to cause pain to her partner by killing his child when she knows he wouldn't want that? :shrug:
 

ROFLMAO...


Are you saying we should be ageists?

Absolutely not. i am saying that if you are concerned about abortion you should use a condom don't expect her to care about you.

...but you said I don't have to be concerned about a pro-choice woman's feelings. What's the problem with control?

The duty is on you if you are anti choice.

Ought implies can. How can I have a duty without rights?

If you are pro choice than it's no ones duty. If she aborts the fetus it's obviously no sweat to you as you prove by all your responses you are pro choice or just don't care.

Actually, aborting fetuses destroys epistemic closure.

Why is a woman who is pro choice obligated to protect you. That's as arrogant as I have heard.

Why is a pro-choice woman entitled to ignore our mutual participation with the rule of law?
 
I like to keep things simple. Both man and woman have exactly equal responsibility in having a child and caring for it. I would love to see further measures to ensure that deadbeat men or women take responsibility for the life the are bringing into this world.

Ansd I agree with that 100% Furthermore, condoms can break. If all of the responsibility is put on the man and his condom breaks, well, oh snap. My sister uses this certain kind of birth control where they place some sort of thing into her arm. The name eludes me but it's effective birth control and she never has to worry. My utter dislike of abortion makes me a firm believer of easily accessible birth control; in a perfect world I'd like to see men and women who are responsible enough to abstain from sex before marriage, and use birth control effectively during marriage, as they wish.

I think the man, if he gets the woman pregnant, must assume/be forced to have the burden of caring for the child, whether it be child support, etc.

But that isn't simple at all. What's more, it's impractical and doesn't work. And what's more, you're assuming the only choice is having and keeping a child.
 
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.

I agree that maybe half of the people take an anti choice point of view. Let me ask you this if a man were anti choice and thought that fetus were something special why would he risk getting someone who may well believe that her means of birth control is abortion? Why would any male who is concerned about abortion and fetus viability chance sex where the woman may well be pro choice? If I were male and were as concerned as you seem to be I would never have sex without a condom. EVER. Expecting that a woman should give her reproductive rights because you believe differently than she does is arrogant and militant as you want to take over someone else s body. She may not think that fetus means anything. You want to enforce your belief on her. You have a lot of gall telling me I'm militant. I am not telling you not to have sex I am not trying to control and anti choicer's mind. I am trying to say that if you are against abortion don't have unprotected sex. Have sex with women that believe as you do. Don't try and control the planet because you have an opinion. That is militant and a takeover of all women's rights because you don't like what they do.
 
No it doesn't. Lesbian couples are quite capable of raising well-adjusted children.

I've seen the Zach Wahls vid, but he was an Eagle Scout.

A single parent isn't ideal, but mine (my father) was extremely capable.

OK, but why do children have to endure nonideal circumstances?

(I really don't see why divorce should be legal either.)

But also, what about adoption and abortion? You're assuming the only choice is to have a child and keep it.

It's irrelevant to my position. Because my position is that I will never bear a child. In essence, what I am assuming responsibility for is 100% of the cost of an abortion, in addition to all measures I use to prevent needing to have an abortion.

Adoption isn't guaranteed, and abortion is what we're discussing.
 
Well, I would stay it still exists on a continuum. What we consider to be "viable" is only "viable" because of heavy medical interference. In reality, an infant born before 7 months is very unlikely to survive without heavy medical intervention.

Yet it will survive for at least a time, so it does have an existence apart from the woman's body is not a mere clump of cells. It's an "existing life." It seems to me a "continuum" is just a way to dehumanize it -- it's a life or it isn't; there aren't degrees.

If you want to put those kinds of degrees in, then how is someone who has very little awareness a "life"? Or anyone else who can't survive without intervention, such as any newborn?


But I'm not arguing in favor of elective late-term abortion. I'm just pointing out that there IS a difference between the two, and even post-viability the difference a couple months makes is dramatic. The difference that 5 or 6 months makes is even more dramatic.

Not in any sense which makes it an "existing life."



A late term fetus does display these qualities. An embryo or early fetus certainly doesn't.

A fetus starts moving and interacting with its environment within three months, usually less. How "late" did you have in mind?



No it isn't. The ZEF has nothing to do with the creation of its life. That life is forced into the world by the woman's body.

Insofar as it's true (the "woman's body" can't spontaneously do it, of course) that's true of any born person.



So? Does that release you from addressing it?

It may very well be at play - I wouldn't deny that for a minute. But, does the possibility exist that this makes me slightly more objective on the matter?

I have never argued against the welfare of children, have I? Clearly I am capable of recognizing children as people, even though I can't stand them. And in many of my positions, completely apart from the abortion debate, I look to science to help me understand an issue, just like I do in the abortion debate.

I would argue that my lack of maternal drive allows me to treat the abortion debate more fairly and similarly to how I treat other debates.

No, I don't think it makes you more neutral or dispassionate; it's just a different point of view from most.
 
1. Women vote and have a say in government. There are slightly more women than men. Therefore to call the gov male dominated is questionable.

There are more women than men in government? Since when?

It's not about numbers, but patriarchy embedded in the culture. In the coming years, "minorities" will become the majority in America and whites will become the minority. Whites will still hold the social power though. The same is currently true of men. Men still hold the privilege even though women have more rights today than they did in the past.

2. Not all women are pro-choice on abortion. Many are pro-life.

The majority of pro-lifers actively involved in the political movement, and the most vocal, are men. Full stop.

3. Not all men are against abortion.

Men are the majority of those against abortion.

To frame this question in this manner is to ignore many facts, most important among them that this is not a male dominating female issue, but an issue with proponents on both sides in fairly similar gender distributions.

I can't tell whether you are being intentionally obtuse or you genuinely believe what you are saying.

This thread was created to ask if men should have a say in women's health, especially when it comes to legislature that affects bodily sovereignty of women. My answer to that is NO. I appreciate the input of men and the support of male feminists, but they will never fully understand what it means to be a woman in this political climate. You will never know the gift/burden of carrying a child, or of having your body fought over by the patriarchy.

The sovereignty of mens' bodies is never in question. Men have that right. It's not only enshrined in law but in culture. It's always women who have to fight for the right to control their own independent being, and it's always a fight against MEN.
 
Nobody has the right to enforce their beliefs on another person's body.

Then I want the transfats back in my KFC. And I want my fries cooked in beef tallow.
 
Then I want the transfats back in my KFC. And I want my fries cooked in beef tallow.

I also want the right to not wear my seat belt.
 
But that isn't simple at all. What's more, it's impractical and doesn't work. And what's more, you're assuming the only choice is having and keeping a child.

I'm not sure exactly which segments you're challenging, tbh.
 
OK, but why do children have to endure nonideal circumstances?

(I really don't see why divorce should be legal either.)

Because you can't force ideal circumstances. Forcing a dysfunctional couple to stay together is not going to result in a happy family. Sometimes single parenthood is a better option. It certainly was in my case. My life improved dramatically after my parents split up.

Adoption isn't guaranteed, and abortion is what we're discussing.

True. But my point was, that you only mentioned the option of having and keeping a child. There are other options. And the point I was making is that if I am going to tell a man that he has no input at all in my choice, right from the get-go of the relationship, then I assume responsibility for my choice. He can do as he will.

It doesn't HAVE to be that way. I think every couple should have this conversation. Maybe she IS willing to accept input. Maybe she isn't, but expects the man to help her. The man, at that point, can choose whether or not that is something he can accept. This is something every couple should discuss before they ever have sex.

No man I have ever been with can ever tell me he didn't know my position. He can never complain that he didn't know I didn't want children, or that I would abort. He can also be safe in the knowledge I will never expect a dime from him. And I can be safe in the knowledge that he accepts my positions, respects my humanity, and won't try to coerce me. Because I will never date a man who doesn't support my choice. That conversation is as much for my benefit as it is for his.

With some other woman, maybe he can be safe in the knowledge that she won't abort, and that she would want him as part of a child's life. And she can be safe in the knowledge that he will never try to coerce her to abort, and that he will take an interest in a child's life. Again, it benefits both of them.

Whatever that conversation consists of, it should be had before anyone every puts their Tab A in anyone's Slot B.
 
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 it is not up to them together to decide anything and they rarely do. In LTR's they may but for the most part that is not true. IF a male is anti choice he should find out if the woman is pro choice. If he is anti choice he should be aware that at least half of the women support choice. Both are not responsible at all.
Look at it this way. If I were a heterosexual anti choice woman, I would be on birth control and demand the male wear a condom. If I were that same woman but pro choice why do I care? I can always have an abortion so would you not say an anti choice male should wear a condom in that case. If he did he would have a 90% or better chance of preventing pregnancy. That just makes sense.
Half or better in the US are pro choice. So why should the other half simply bend to the whim of the anti choice people?
 
Back
Top Bottom