• 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
Nice to see who the men are who feel threatened by the prospect of women controlling their own health issues and reproductive systems...

Nice to see who the dishonest baiters are who post troll polls.
 
Yes women are in charge of our own health concerns. Why should males control our health matters? What would give you that right? What concern is it of yours?

KG...did you vote? Looks like your answer would be reflected in one of the poll options.
 
No. But what does this have to do with the statement you quoted? Are you denying my statement is true? How do you get consent from something that can't think?

The question isn't whether or not someone can think. The question is how we judge whether or not someone can think.

Other people aren't obligated to express themselves to our satisfaction to deserve respect.

Not really. It's fairly easy to figure out that someone has no brain activity, or in some cases no brain at all. The fact that you think so means you don't know much about the subject.

What I know is surprises exist. There have been cases of people presumed to be vegetative who later were found out to really haven't been.

Who knows how many "vegetative state" people were accidentally turned off. Are you familiar with Terri Schiavo?

Yes, that's true. But only when the person having risk assumed for them is actually a person.

...which has to be assumed by default. Otherwise, we're gambling with personhood.
 
It doesn't violate any rules.

I think the poll is biased based on the wording of the questions asked and the poll choices. And I cannot vote, because my view isn't to "control women's health issues and reproductive systems." My view is that reproductive "rights" and choice end at pregnancy because at that point two lives are in play and the option at that point is to kill another human in the pursuit of "reproductive rights." I support the rights of the unborn to live, be born, and have their lives without someone else terminating them in their early stages.It misrepresents my viewpoint. You might believe that my viewpoint is essentially controlling women's health issues and reproductive rights, and that's your opinion from your viewpoint. From my viewpoint it's about protecting innocent unborn life and not giving someone the power to terminate the life of another human and have that right encompassed under the umbrella of bodily sovereignty and reproductive choice.

If you are so worried about reproduction all men should wear condoms every time they have sex. If they had been doing that since Roe Wade 90% of the abortions that happened would not have happened. You are not concerned at all as a gender or this would happen. So do not bitch after the house has escaped from the barn. Women can use abortion as birth control. If you want to stop abortion or even care men would wear condoms. It's as simple as that.
 
Thanks...by that answer then I assume that you are suggesting that ONLY WOMEN have the right to control their own health issues and reproductive system?
No. Control implies that an external force is applied to a entity to get it to behave in the way that is intended by the external force. I thought it was clear that I meant no external force. I too don't want external forces controlling my health issues and reproductive system.
 
No. Control implies that an external force is applied to a entity to get it to behave in the way that is intended by the external force. I thought it was clear that I meant no external force. I too don't want external forces controlling my health issues and reproductive system.

How about legislatively...or via religious doctrine? No?
 
If you are so worried about reproduction all men should wear condoms every time they have sex. If they had been doing that since Roe Wade 90% of the abortions that happened would not have happened. You are not concerned at all as a gender or this would happen. So do not bitch after the house has escaped from the barn. Women can use abortion as birth control. If you want to stop abortion or even care men would wear condoms. It's as simple as that.

Why not have all women make their men wear condoms? Why not have consenting adults agree to safe sexual terms before engaging in the act? You argue as if women have no consensual ability when it comes to sex. It takes 2 to make a baby and both must consent to the sex or it's rape.
 
Stop trying to push your illogical ranting that men who are pro-life are scared of empowered women or are sexists and the blatantly sexist viewpoint that men should have no vote or say in the abortion debate.

:shrug: There are some who, for one reason or another, can't bring themselves to discuss the matter honestly and rationally.
 
Yes women are in charge of our own health concerns. Why should males control our health matters? What would give you that right? What concern is it of yours?

It's our rule of law, and we have all been children.
 
The question isn't whether or not someone can think. The question is how we judge whether or not someone can think.

Other people aren't obligated to express themselves to our satisfaction to deserve respect.

So, you can't give me any concrete reason to believe an embryo can express any form of consent? Including the consent to be born?

What I know is surprises exist. There have been cases of people presumed to be vegetative who later were found out to really haven't been.

Who knows how many "vegetative state" people were accidentally turned off. Are you familiar with Terri Schiavo?

Terri Schiavo's brain has essentially liquified. If you believe she wasn't truly in a vegatative state, I'm sorry, but there's no help for you.

...which has to be assumed by default. Otherwise, we're gambling with personhood.

Why? There's no gamble whatsoever; again, just your misunderstandings about biology.
 
It can't consent to being born either. What's the difference?

Dogs can't consent either. Would you say there's no difference between taking a dog for a walk and burning the dog alive?
 
5. Does a male dominated religion have the right, through its teachings and doctrine, to have to control over women's health issues and reproduction ?

I'm sorry, I missed #5. Yes, but only "through its teachings and doctrine". For example, as soon a husband uses physical force over a wife to have her follow its teachings and doctrine it's assault.
 
Do MEN have a Right to CONTROL Women's Health and Reproductive Systems?

1. Yes?

2. No?

3. Under Certain Circumstances (Briefly list what circumstance(s))

4. Does a male dominated government have the right to legislate controls over women's health issues and reproduction?

5. Does a male dominated religion have the right, through its teachings and doctrine, to have to control over women's health issues and reproduction ?

It's not really an issue of men controlling women, seeing that there are many women as well that share the povs of those same men. Men are a part of the voting block so, as it goes, men do have a right to vote based on their beliefs. Is it controlling to vote based on your beliefs? Imo, no. I am sure there are women who have voted on issues that have affected men; is that controlling as well? And besides that, your poll options do seem rather biased. Perhaps your questin should have been phrased a little better to acknowledge that men have the right to vote on what they believe. As Goshin stated, many women are pro-life; my mother, aunts, sister, etc are all a part of that group.

For one the notion that most women are pro-choice needs to end. It's dishonest to ignore the many women who are pro-life, and even more dishonest to claim those women are brainwashed.
 
Dogs can't consent either. Would you say there's no difference between taking a dog for a walk and burning the dog alive?

Please tell me how this pertains to something with no awareness whatsoever, and no interest in the continuity of its own existence? A dog at least has that. They feel pain, which is why we protect them from harm. They desire to continue living. A ZEF can't do that any more than my kidney can.

Again, how is it more justifiable to force life on something than it is to not grant life? Why is everyone ignoring this point?
 
Why not have all women make their men wear condoms? Why not have consenting adults agree to safe sexual terms before engaging in the act? You argue as if women have no consensual ability when it comes to sex. It takes 2 to make a baby and both must consent to the sex or it's rape.

If a woman is so concerned about the abortion issue she will be on the pill and ask a man to wear a condom. If she doesn't care why should she do anything about it. This should tell you that women don't look at the issue as men do. She can have an abortion and if that happens so be it. But you in express a selfish attitude that says let her do it. If she doesn't give a rats ass why should she care about your sensibilities. That would be really stupid on her part. If males care do something about it and wear a condom. It takes two to have sex and to procreate but if the woman doesn't care about abortions as an issue and you do and you don't wear a condom and she has one you added to the number.

Do you understand that more than half the women don't care if they have an abortion so why should that be responsible for your attitude? That's really arrogant of you to want her to protect you.
 
There would be absolutely no difference between having one's health care controlled by anti-choice men and having one's health care controlled by anti-choice women. There would be a big difference between having one's health care controlled by anti-choice people and having it controlled by pro-choice people. This is only apparently a gender issue because the most visible leaders of the anti-choice movement and their representatives in government are usually men. But anti-choice women were instrumental in the introduction of the anti-choice bills in both Virginia and either Pennsylvania or Ohio (I forget which).
 
So, you can't give me any concrete reason to believe an embryo can express any form of consent? Including the consent to be born?

No. People are abstract subjects, not just concrete objects.

Whether we're satisfactorily impressed or not does not determine whether someone else deserves respect.

Terri Schiavo's brain has essentially liquified. If you believe she wasn't truly in a vegatative state, I'm sorry, but there's no help for you.

Why? There's no gamble whatsoever; again, just your misunderstandings about biology.

If biology is all we are, what's the ethical difference between people and computers?
 
Again, how is it more justifiable to force life on something than it is to not grant life? Why is everyone ignoring this point?

It's a faulty comparison.

The one thing all life has in common is its directive to live. Even the smallest, one-celled life takes steps to survive.
 
It's our rule of law, and we have all been children.
Yeah and if you have a concern about abortion wear a condom and don't be stupid about it. More than 50% of the women out there don't care about abortions and don't see the fetus as you pretend to. So if you aren't protected and she has an abortion it's your fault and you by your negligence have added to the stats. Thank you for supporting pro choice by not wearing a condom.
 
No. People are abstract subjects, not just concrete objects.

Whether we're satisfactorily impressed or not does not determine whether someone else deserves respect.

Not really. We can predict your decisions neurologically 7 seconds before you become aware of having made them. Consciousness and humanity is increasingly concrete.

If biology is all we are, what's the ethical difference between people and computers?

At the moment, the difference is that the computer performs functions without presenting its own will. But when we reach such a point that a computer can express its own will? To me, there is no difference, and they should be granted the same rights that other sentient beings have. How they become sentient is irrelevant.
 
If a woman is so concerned about the abortion issue she will be on the pill and ask a man to wear a condom. If she doesn't care why should she do anything about it. This should tell you that women don't look at the issue as men do. She can have an abortion and if that happens so be it. But you in express a selfish attitude that says let her do it. If she doesn't give a rats ass why should she care about your sensibilities. That would be really stupid on her part. If males care do something about it and wear a condom. It takes two to have sex and to procreate but if the woman doesn't care about abortions as an issue and you do and you don't wear a condom and she has one you added to the number.

Is contraception perfect?

Do you understand that more than half the women don't care if they have an abortion so why should that be responsible for your attitude? That's really arrogant of you to want her to protect you.

What's "really arrogant" is tolerating moral hazard in the pursuit of emotional relief for social competition and assimilation.
 
Dogs can't consent either. Would you say there's no difference between taking a dog for a walk and burning the dog alive?
Wear a condom if you're so concerned there is about a 60% chance the women you sleep with may not care about the fetus as you do so she won't and doesn't take birth control pills.
 
Back
Top Bottom