Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
it's simply that you feel your voice must be heard.
Woe is me, for I feel the wish to express my opinion in a forum expressly designed for that purpose, occasionally with the use of logic and example to back up my points! Excuse me while I go reign in my roaring ego.
Look, if you're going to troll, it's much more fun for everyone if some logic is involved in your arguments. Otherwise, fish, barrel, wasted afternoon, pick your metaphor.
-
Currently men's control over the future ends at sex, women have other options after that. Which, when birth control has failed, no doubt feels a little disempowering.
I actually do think there's some slim argument for men being able to veto a pregnancy going ahead. Clearly the problems are insurmountable in real life - forced abortions, no thanks - but I can understand why a man might be very angry at being expected to pay child support for a kid he did his best to not have. I know guys who've been caught by both sides of that; those who had fathers run off and never pay a cent, and men who couldn't afford the paternity test to prove the kid wasn't theirs, and had to shell out.
OTOH, there are many more avenues for men to escape that particular trap than there are for women - fleeing to Australia being only one of them - so I think that it's one of those things where, while the current situation is imperfect, any "solution" would probably be worse.
-
I mean seriously the arguments being made about men who would veto an abortion and then leave the women to suffer simply higlhlights a single obvious fact that both stephen and lucy you have a strong idea that the NZ female is a complete retard when it comes to choosing a sexual partner.
No, I just think that shit happens, and people are often assholes. Call me a cynic, but I'd rather not legislate with only the best of circumstances in mind.
-
We have been trolled, very effectively. I sucked into taking you seriously up until there, mark, but if you want to provoke successfully you're going to have to refrain from the obviously ludicrous.
I was thinking of calling troll a few posts ago, but it's study break and I don't have much to do. In retrospect, it would have been the wiser decision.
-
well lucy, using a woman as his baby incubator is no different from using a man as a lifelike dildo imho.
...because consensual sexual activity is the same as being forced to endure nearly a year of physical discomfort, a pronounced risk to one's health and life, not to mention time off work and the emotional problem of giving up your child to a misogynistic asshole?
Seriously, dude - you either on drugs or actually think women are there to carry people's babies. I know which I'm hoping for.
-
I'm arguing if a man vetos an abortion he should be forced to take complete financial and fiscal responsibility for that decision
Financial = fiscal, just to clear that up, but that still doesn't change the fact that he would be using another human being as his own personal baby incubator, which is what I would call possibly the largest violoation of bodily autonomy possible. What on earth makes you think any man has the right to force any woman to risk her life and health because he wants a kid, when she doesn't? Just because they had sex? Last I looked, sex stopped implying ownership sometime last millenium.
Now, if a man came to an agreement with a woman that she would have the kid and he would then take full legal and financial responsibility for it, that's another story, but that's more akin to surrogacy. If I'm not mistaken you're talking about a situation where the woman wants to have an abortion and the father (potential father?) is permitted to forbid that, which, see violation of bodily autonomy above.
-
lucy, if you want to do it with an actual man, without taking the necessary precautions to get the desired result, and involve that man's DNA in your own uterus, then turn around and moan about risk and strain, of achieving the standard result of a well known bilogical reaction, and expect taxes to pay for what you do with the man's DNA, then you probably should have had a little foresight.
I'm sorry, are you arguing that men should be able to veto abortions, or that they shouldn't have to pay child support? Because I was under the impression you were supporting the former, in which case I think it is perfectly reasonable to moan about the risk and strain of a pregnancy being imposed on you by someone else, no? If it's my life and health on the line (not to mention, you know, career, freedom for the next eighteen years, etcetera) then I feel perfectly justified telling the father to fuck off.
But, of course, all women who have unplanned pregnancies are stupid sluts who must be shamed and forced to carry the burden of their wanton ways. Silly me, forgetting that.
-
There's a lot of focus made by pro-lifers on the harmful effects of abortion, but they pale in comparison to the risks involved in pregnancy and illegal abortion.
I suggest anyone who thinks criminalising abortion makes things better go read this article by a gynaecologist who did his training in fifties America. That's what happens to women when abortion is illegal.
(Note: the NY Times site does require registration, but it's free.)
-
Lucy: unfortunately, our local fundies don't like that either, on the grounds that it is either abortion (yes, really), or encourages people to have sex (something which, like abortion, only they seem to have a problem with).
Oh, I know. But given that the only way to keep the fundies happy is for women to be barefoot and pregnant (either in a nice Christian marriage, or as payment for their heinous sins) or virginally chaste, I'm not inclined to give a damn about what they think.
The father should have the right to veto abortion. except in cases of rape, proven prophylactic failure or molestation, if an agreement can't be reached then the state should provide mediation and counselling to any of the casualties.
Uh, no. Absolutely not. Because at the end of the day, who has to go through the physical and emotional strain (and risk) of having the kid and then raising it, as well as bearing the brunt of the financial and societal burden? Not the father. If someone wants kids that badly, they can go and find a woman who is happy to have their kid, rather than treating an unwilling woman as their own personal baby incubator.
-
I suspect it would pass, but I can't imagine it would be 'grown-up'. If it was I'd feel more comfortable saying 'yeah, have that debate'.
No, it wouldn't be a grown-up debate. But I think it's one that needs to be had. What are we going to do otherwise - avoid it for the next thirty years? Leaving the door wide open for a conservative government to crack down on enforcing the letter of the current law?