• 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
Henrin said:
Nope. Protection of the rights and liberties of the people as a whole and to pay for what you need or to provide you what you want in the case of abortion, is not at all the same.
Click to expand...

Ah, huh? Did that make sense when it was still in your brain?
 
Removable Mind said:
Nice to see who the men are who feel threatened by the prospect of women controlling their own health issues and reproductive systems...
Click to expand...

Let's talk about what hasn't been discussed, and that's the financial liability placed upon men. A man isn't allowed to choose to have the baby aborted, but he also can't relief from financial liability for a baby he doesn't want. If women want full control over the physical aspects of reproduction, then men should have the freedom to walk away from a birth they don't want. If a woman wants an abortion, she can get one and there's nothing a man can do about it. If a man wants an abortion, he can't require one but is still liable financially.

That's not a level playing field.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Why wouldn't she be justified? Whether it is or not is subject to her opinion, and hers alone. No one can present her with an argument for why she's wrong.
Click to expand...

Because justification is always a matter of opinion. Others may disagree.


Usually their environment. But the result is that it's a bad time for young. Thus, the pregnancy is bad.
Click to expand...

You're conflating pregnancy -- the condition going on inside the mother -- and having born offspring. One is objecting to a process going on inside your body; the other is killing living, breathing "children." They're not the same thing. Terminating a pregnancy in human terms is "justified" only because it's happening in a woman's body; you don't get to kill offspring already born, no matter how inconvenient you think they are. If they're the same thing, then you could.

Put in other terms, if children developed outside of the mother, then most likely, there would be no legal termination of that development. The ONLY argument which supports abortion is that it happens inside a woman's body. If it doesn't, it's just killing a developing child. There's no support for that. And even if there were, it certainly would not be the mother's choice alone, because it would not be a choice about her body.

So no, pregnancy and having offspring are not the same thing.



You mean as in the case of myself? Yes, granted. But plenty of non-aberrant people and animals may view pregnancy as bad under certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

There are always exceptions. But they're just that, exceptions, not the rule.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Let's talk about what hasn't been discussed, and that's the financial liability placed upon men. A man isn't allowed to choose to have the baby aborted, but he also can't relief from financial liability for a baby he doesn't want. If women want full control over the physical aspects of reproduction, then men should have the freedom to walk away from a birth they don't want. If a woman wants an abortion, she can get one and there's nothing a man can do about it. If a man wants an abortion, he can't require one but is still liable financially.

That's not a level playing field.
Click to expand...
The playing field is perfectly level. A man can wear a condom which will prevent pregnancy 90% or better. That is his opportunity. If a woman has to be afraid a man will not help support that child when born guess what will happen to the abortion rate it will double and with an attitude like yours I hope it goes up by 20 times.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
The playing field is perfectly level. A man can wear a condom which will prevent pregnancy 90% or better. That is his opportunity. If a woman has to be afraid a man will not help support that child when born guess what will happen to the abortion rate it will double and with an attitude like yours I hope it goes up by 20 times.
Click to expand...

If she can't trust the guy, she shouldn't be sleeping with him.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
That is your opinion and you agree with 44% of the population and 50% are pro choice with 6% not having an opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't find "you statements" very convincing.



katiegrrl0 said:
So it's almost an even split why should there be a change in the law as it stands? Did you know that abortion was legal in the early US and was stopped in about 1862 because of the danger to women and the fetus was not even part of that debate. To many women at the time were being damaged by the procedure.
Then all of a sudden in 1973 everyone is concerned about the fetus. Fancy that.
Click to expand...

Did you know that "Roe", of RvW, never had an abortion and became a strong pro-life advocate?
 
Risky Thicket said:
Ah, huh? Did that make sense when it was still in your brain?
Click to expand...

Sorry. Anyway, lets say it again.

Military is for the protection of the rights and liberties of the people as a whole and more to the point the countries survival. What is comparing to is something meant to only pay for what someone wants or needs.

better?
 
Jerry said:
If she can't trust the guy, she shouldn't be sleeping with him.
Click to expand...
Things happen and the rules change. What you can trust today may over a period of several months change. If he was so concerned in the first place he would have protected himself.
 
Jerry said:
I don't find "you statements" very convincing.





Did you know that "Roe", of RvW, never had an abortion and became a strong pro-life advocate?
Click to expand...

I don't find your statements will change my mind and yes I did know that about Roe. See how things can change.
 
Henrin said:
Sorry. Anyway, lets say it again.

Military is for the protection of the rights and liberties of the people as a whole and more to the point the countries survival. What is comparing to is something meant to only pay for what someone wants or needs.

better?
Click to expand...
You are still on that soap box. It is a comparison of paying for something you don't want to. For Christ's sake what don't you understand about that. Is it that hard. It has nothing to do with either it is about paying for things you don't want to. If you want to fight about why I don't like military start a thread and I will be more than happy to tell you.
 
Harshaw said:
You're conflating pregnancy -- the condition going on inside the mother -- and having born offspring. One is objecting to a process going on inside your body; the other is killing living, breathing "children." They're not the same thing. Terminating a pregnancy in human terms is "justified" only because it's happening in a woman's body; you don't get to kill offspring already born, no matter how inconvenient you think they are. If they're the same thing, then you could.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that the reason animals "abort" is exactly the same reason they kill their offspring, in most cases (except the aberrations who would always kill them). If all of them could abort at will, they probably would under some circumstances, like some animals already do.

I am making the case that reproduction is not universally good. Survival is the biological imperitive, and if reproducing conflicts with survival, most animals will choose not to reproduce. It is not "aberrant." It's something most perfectly typical organisms can and will do in bad situations.

Put in other terms, if children developed outside of the mother, then most likely, there would be no legal termination of that development. The ONLY argument which supports abortion is that it happens inside a woman's body. If it doesn't, it's just killing a developing child. There's no support for that. And even if there were, it certainly would not be the mother's choice alone, because it would not be a choice about her body.

So no, pregnancy and having offspring are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's pretty much what it's about.

There are always exceptions. But they're just that, exceptions, not the rule.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Convincing a mare to abort is super-easy. All you have to do is not let her screw a bunch of other stallions after she concieves.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
You are still on that soap box. It is a comparison of paying for something you don't want to. For Christ's sake what don't you understand about that. Is it that hard. It has nothing to do with either it is about paying for things you don't want to. If you want to fight about why I don't like military start a thread and I will be more than happy to tell you.
Click to expand...


well, actually, you had better not tell anyone why you don't like the military.... you have stated numerous times in this thread that you don't whine about the military....
 
Thrilla said:
I once thought like this too... and even voiced that opinion to my wife.
it didn't go over very well at all... she chewed my ass.
Click to expand...

Just go with the flow man. I've learned that arguing with women over **** like this is normally a bad idea and always ends up like alien vs predator. Which ever one wins we still lose.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
You are still on that soap box. It is a comparison of paying for something you don't want to. For Christ's sake what don't you understand about that. Is it that hard. It has nothing to do with either it is about paying for things you don't want to. If you want to fight about why I don't like military start a thread and I will be more than happy to tell you.
Click to expand...

The talk you were having is about something greater. What is the purpose of taxes? How is it supposed to be used to represent the people? Why is it that the military actually does this, but welfare does not? You can ignore it if you want, but its there all the same and it's the point that is worth more than you realize.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
Things happen and the rules change. What you can trust today may over a period of several months change. If he was so concerned in the first place he would have protected himself.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I just gave up sex altogether.
 
Thrilla said:
well, actually, you had better not tell anyone why you don't like the military.... you have stated numerous times in this thread that you don't whine about the military....
Click to expand...
I don't whine about paying for it no. Why waste the time.
 
Thrilla said:
wierd.. i love women too... especially my wife and daughters.... and they love me back.
they love me so much that they don't tell me things like " you're a man, you have no say in our health choices"... and we talk and talk and talk and we make decisions together.
I love them so much i offer advice and support to them in their health decisions without saying " hey you're a woman, don't talk to me about your health issues, I don't care what you do"

there is no gender war in my house.. we don't disallow anyone from having a say based on gender.

I guess i live in a really weird household.
Click to expand...

Unless you're in favor of having all your neighbors vote on what your wife and daughters can and cannot do about their women's health care issues, then the personal medical issues you decide upon as a family, for the family, are not relevant to this discussion. ;)
 
Henrin said:
The talk you were having is about something greater. What is the purpose of taxes? How is it supposed to be used to represent the people? Why is it that the military actually does this, but welfare does not? You can ignore it if you want, but its there all the same and it's the point that is worth more than you realize.
Click to expand...

It is not there. What the hell is your problem. It is about paying for things we don't want to. Why is that so ****ing hard for you to understand?

It has nothing to do with welfare anyway.
 
JohnWOlin said:
Just go with the flow man. I've learned that arguing with women over **** like this is normally a bad idea and always ends up like alien vs predator. Which ever one wins we still lose.
Click to expand...

i'm well past the age of needing to have conversations with my wife about birth control and "womens reproductive health" or whatever the hell we are calling it today.

i've been married a looong time... and i've had my say in all those conversations.
I tried to shy away from those talks at one point, but as i said, my wife was having none of it... it's a partnership, a marriage... not a solo act.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
It is not there. What the hell is your problem. It is about paying for things we don't want to. Why is that so ****ing hard for you to understand?

It has nothing to do with welfare anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but the talk you were having was about welfare.
 
Henrin said:
I'm sorry but the talk you were having was about welfare.
Click to expand...
It was not. It was about taxes paying for things we don't like. You should learn to read or take a course on reading with comprehension.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
It was not. It was about taxes paying for things we don't like. You should learn to read or take a course on reading with comprehension.
Click to expand...

It was actually about both, but you can ignore it if you want.

You aggressive enough there?
 
DiAnna said:
Unless you're in favor of having all your neighbors vote on what your wife and daughters can and cannot do about their women's health care issues, then the personal medical issues you decide upon as a family, for the family, are not relevant to this discussion. ;)
Click to expand...
my neighbors have a say in public policy too.... I might not like it, I might not have consented to it, but that doesn't change facts.

as long as government is in the healthcare business.. and as long as our right to petition is intact.. men will have a say in women's health care as a public policy matter.
it doesn't matter that women want to be treated special and not questioned on the public benefits they lay claim to... the facts remain the same.
you can only hope that public policy favors you at the end of the day ( so far , it absolutely does), but you cannot bar other people from having a say.
 
Thrilla said:
i'm well past the age of needing to have conversations with my wife about birth control and "womens reproductive health" or whatever the hell we are calling it today.

i've been married a looong time... and i've had my say in all those conversations.
I tried to shy away from those talks at one point, but as i said, my wife was having none of it... it's a partnership, a marriage... not a solo act.
Click to expand...

True enough but sometimes you got to learn when to hold them and fold them. I fold on this one. Anyways, this entire issue always gets jumbled up. Does anyone here bitching about the cost of birth control realize, that a woman on a medical card actually doesn't get it totally for free, they have to pay something and normally even without a medical card it only cost about as much as a thing of Aleve?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom