• 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
I replied yes (an apparently unpopular stance, probably by accident), considering we entrust in our government, who have both historically and in the future, been either dominated by or have been participated by men, to legislate protections and limitations on such matters. Women are not given sole judgment in the matters, and for good reason.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
So you weren't supportive of government mandating health care coverage or even potentially moving to a single payer health care system?
Click to expand...

Is that about your personal issues? That is a national debate about all Americans and health coverage. It has nothing to do with what is going on between you and your doctor. Health care should be covered for everyone as a healthy nation is more productive. But as far as what a male has done or not done it does not matter. You should care about coverage but if a woman seeks an abortion you should not be concerned as that is not your business.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
I am definitely not telling men what to do. I have said that if they have a view that is anti choice he should use a condom. That is my opinion. I frankly don't care if the abortion rate is a hundred times higher than it is today.
Click to expand...
yes, yes you are telling men what to do.. you have done it repeatedly.... you have expressed you views about what a man should or should not be doing.
yet you say that men should have no say in what women do.

yours is a blatant double standard based on nothing more than gender... it's a misandrists viewpoint.

you don't care if the abortion rate is a hundred times higher?...that's an.. umm.. err... interesting viewpoint.... i'm glad it's a militant fringe minority opinion though.
 
DiAnna said:
I say this respectfully, I know y'all were trying to be cute by equating those laws with legislation about what women can and cannot do with their bodies. The laws you cite are the forerunners of government legislating what consenting adults can and cannot do by making it illegal for them to take certain risks.

Decades back, when government started controlling smokers by law, I said it was just a matter of time before government would be regulating the amount of fat people were allowed to consume, the amount of sugar they were allowed, making laws forcing food manufacturers and restaurants to serve only what the government wanted them to serve... and that has happened.

Seat belt laws, helmet laws, all those "safety" laws which are fine for children have been imposed on adults. Government has legislated that a grown-up is not allowed to take risks with their own body unless government says they can. Notice that these laws have nothing to do with the safety of others; only for the safety of the people who are forced to use them.

So yeah, now government is telling me what medical procedures and medications I am and am not allowed to use because I am a woman. Your damned right I'm still singing the same tune... get the **** away from my body. It's none of the government's damned business.
Click to expand...

I'm not even slightly trying to be "cute." I meant it.
 
Josie said:
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:
Click to expand...

You are expecting everyone to see it your way. That isn't going to happen. I think people should be responsible. I think condoms make sense for many reasons. I don't think any woman should use abortion as birth control. I think people even in one night stands should talk. But reality says this everyone does use nor require the wearing of a condom. Some women do use abortion as birth control and not everyone is going to discuss sex before they have it.
Abortion has been around for thousands of years. It will be around for thousands more. Men who are anti choice should wear condoms. It makes real sense.

But the things that we would like to see are not always reality. We have to adapt to understand that humans do silly unsafe things. Each person will not protect them self or think of others.
 
Daktoria said:
ROFLMAO...



Are you saying we should be ageists?



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



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



Actually, aborting fetuses destroys epistemic closure.



Why is a pro-choice woman entitled to ignore our mutual participation with the rule of law?
Click to expand...

If you are a male which i am guessing you are, and you are anti choice, you should wear a condom. If you do not and a woman has an abortion because of that failure on your part you are responsible because you did not do all you could to prevent it. That's what I have said throughout this thread in a nutshell.
A pro choice woman or any women for that matter may not be using any form of birth control. You can not take her word for it. Wearing a condom would make sense because of your views. If you think that is wrong headed of me to think it foolish for a man not to wear one please tell me where you think that's wrong.
 
Josie said:
Just curious, katie....are you also an advocate of after-birth abortions?
Click to expand...
I am pro choice. From statistics most abortions happen early on. Laws have protected against late term and partial birth abortions. There may be a reason for a late term abortion and there should be room to find out what that reason may be. Who knows what may have changed in that woman's situation over the term. There may be a valid reason why she would request an abortion late term. For myself I think a woman wanting an abortion would have it as soon as possible. I think a woman should do all she can to prevent unwanted pregnancy. If she doesn't that is her choice. I'm all for eliminating the need there is today.

If everyone were taught responsible sex there would be few abortions. Trying to teach abstinence only is a joke. It doesn't work. Humans are sexual. Teaching abstinence only is supporting the abortion doctors.
 
Thrilla said:
why should the man care?.. he isn't allowed a say in what a woman does anyways.. amirite?

the dude won't be getting an abortion no matter how many times the woman gets pregnant.. so dudes, don't sweat it.. be as irresponsible as you want to be ... because at the end of the day, you are not responsible for a woman's "health issues".. go ahead and knock her up, it's her problem... you got your piece of ass, the rest is her responsibility.


that's the mentality you are selling here.. it's the mentality that is becoming more and more prevalent in society ( a society full of baby mamas , dead beat dads, and absentee dads.)
Click to expand...

If a man is anti choice and against abortions your question makes no sense. He already said he cares.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
I am pro choice. From statistics most abortions happen early on. Laws have protected against late term and partial birth abortions. There may be a reason for a late term abortion and there should be room to find out what that reason may be. Who knows what may have changed in that woman's situation over the term. There may be a valid reason why she would request an abortion late term. For myself I think a woman wanting an abortion would have it as soon as possible. I think a woman should do all she can to prevent unwanted pregnancy. If she doesn't that is her choice. I'm all for eliminating the need there is today.

If everyone were taught responsible sex there would be few abortions. Trying to teach abstinence only is a joke. It doesn't work. Humans are sexual. Teaching abstinence only is supporting the abortion doctors.
Click to expand...

abstinence doesn't work?...

ya mean women nowadays can get pregnant even when they don't have sex?....

well hell, i guess men are useless creatures after all.
 
Thrilla said:
yes, yes you are telling men what to do.. you have done it repeatedly.... you have expressed you views about what a man should or should not be doing.
yet you say that men should have no say in what women do.

yours is a blatant double standard based on nothing more than gender... it's a misandrists viewpoint.

you don't care if the abortion rate is a hundred times higher?...that's an.. umm.. err... interesting viewpoint.... i'm glad it's a militant fringe minority opinion though.
Click to expand...

No I am not. i have said over and over if you are anti choice you should use a condom. I am making a common sense statement. If he doesn't use a condom how can he be anti choice?
 
Thrilla said:
abstinence doesn't work?...

ya mean women nowadays can get pregnant even when they don't have sex?....

well hell, i guess men are useless creatures after all.
Click to expand...
Teaching abstinence only does not work. People still have sex no matter what you tell them about abstinence. You really are reaching for things to be snotty about.
 
ChuckBerry said:
Yes. Barefoot, pregnant and ignorant are the only things any woman should strive for.
Click to expand...
Surprising from a conservative.
This is how many nations (China, America., others) grew, in the long dark, ugly past.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes, perhaps so. It may even survive in the long run, though it's unlikely.

When discussing an individual 7-month-old fetus, if it survives, it's a life. If it doesn't, it never was because it never possessed the ability to survive. That is fairly simple. But the journey from A to B has many shades of gray when you're talking about the larger concept of "all 7-month-old fetuses." Each individual 7-month-old fetus will be somewhere slightly different on that continuum.

I'm not devaluing it. Again, I have not argued in favor of abortion at this stage, except in medical cases.



Terri Shaivo could move. She was in no way interested in her survival. She was simply reflexive, because some of her brain stem was still somewhat intact. Nerve ticks do not equal life. A severed tail can have nerve ticks.

Brain development indicitive of some sort of awareness and life develops somewhere around 25 weeks, as I understand it.



Yes. But what they were isn't terribly important. What they are now is what matters.



Perhaps. I'm certainly not dispassionate, but I share this degree of passion with most other issues of personal agency. Neutral? Maybe not. I obviously have a vested interest in being pro-choice. But I also have absolutely no valid reason to oppose it objectively.

If I did, I am the sort of person who is willing to make my life very difficult for the sake of my ethics, and I would probably choose celibacy over risk of having to have an abortion. But as it stands, I see no reason to.
Click to expand...

You argue well and don't let emotion get the better of you, which puts you in the upper crust of debate, so I appreciate that. It looks like we've arrived at point where you have one view, I have another, we've both made our cases, and that's that.

I would suggest, though, that you consider the idea that you have the right to decide what to do with your body (which I agree with, so don't read this incorrectly) isn't based in science, but is a value judgment.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not my entitlement.
My position is just as valid for any other entitlement.

If someone else is required to pay for something, for you, they're entitled to a say.
Click to expand...

I can name so many reasons that's not true.

Ever consider the following:

The concept of creating a large pool of participants is central to any insurance plan, private or public. The cost is spread way out and the risk is spread way out. It's kinda like the federal government, you don't get to decide if your tax dollar is buying a missile or a highway, it's all a part of the general welfare, or some such Constitutional frivolity.
 
katiegrrl0 said:
If a man is anti choice and against abortions your question makes no sense. He already said he cares.
Click to expand...

but you say he shouldn't care... you are the one selling to us that a man has absolutely no say or responsibility.
so which is it, should the man care and listen to your advise, or does he listen to your advise and not care?


if you are actually interested in a dialogue here... you would call your opposition "pro-lifers"...
 
Daktoria said:
You said, "...you can't force ideal circumstances..."

No relationship is ideal, so we have to create an organic system which assimilates imperfections. This means we have to hold people responsible so they try wholeheartedly in deciding whether or not to commit.
Click to expand...

So I'm telling you that you can't force something, and you conclude that I believe in forcing something? Your brain works in mysterious ways.

Hold them responsible for what? What place do you have in someone else's relationship?

I agree. People should see if they're on the same wavelength so they change together.
Click to expand...

That isn't always possible. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not all conflicts are preventable or salvagable. That's reality. No matter how much you may want it, sometimes it just isn't going to work. That has always been the case. It's not as though unhappy couples and divorce is some sort of new-fangled 20th century invention.

Sure, but abortion can't be used to preempt undesirable personalities.

Furthermore, a child being undesirable doesn't mean a child doesn't deserve respect. Are you saying children even today born from unappreciative parents should have been aborted?

Adoption is possible, but guardians need to be committed in advance to make sure that's not a gamble either.
Click to expand...

Personalities of whom, the parents? Sure it can. Aborting because the woman is for some reason emotionally incapable of raising a child is a perfectly good reason (not that she needs a reason, but just sayin').

You're right, the child still deserves respect. But abortion prevents a child from ever existing.

I would never say anyone should have been aborted at the ZEF stage. It is not my place to decide what was best for that woman at that point in time, just like it isn't anyone else's place to say that about my choices. And now that a person actually exists, it is not my place to tell them how they should feel about their own lives.

...and people shouldn't have intercourse before marriage.
Click to expand...

What is so special about marriage? It doesn't prevent people from lying or cheating or abusing their partner, and it doesn't guarantee they'll be together forever. Hell, a coin toss has better odds.

Marriage is a dated social contract which has no actual objective meaning. For this reason, I have also chosen never to get married. What on earth is the point?

You don't get to decide when people are allowed to have sex. Whatever arbitrary social contracts you happen to care about are not necessarily meaningful or important just because you care about them. And there are plenty of people in long-term cohabitating relationships that are much happier than most married people. There are also plenty of avowed bachelor/ettes who are likewise. And every other combination of relationship status you can think of.

What we see reflected in reality rejects the idea that marriage is the one way to having a fulfilling intimate life.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
I can name so many reasons that's not true.

Ever consider the following:

The concept of creating a large pool of participants is central to any insurance plan, private or public. The cost is spread way out and the risk is spread way out. It's kinda like the federal government, you don't get to decide if your tax dollar is buying a missile or a highway, it's all a part of the general welfare, or some such Constitutional frivolity.
Click to expand...

Insurance covering things like BC, etc, should never really be a part of insurance.
I mean these things aren't insurable events, in the first place.

Morally, it should be true.
I mean, I'd love to take a portion of your paycheck and you have no say in how I spend it.
 
Removable Mind said:
I can name so many reasons that's not true.

Ever consider the following:

The concept of creating a large pool of participants is central to any insurance plan, private or public. The cost is spread way out and the risk is spread way out. It's kinda like the federal government, you don't get to decide if your tax dollar is buying a missile or a highway, it's all a part of the general welfare, or some such Constitutional frivolity.
Click to expand...

umm.. we have a say in our federal government....in fact, this issue surrounds that very notion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom