fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2822 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2822 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Psycho-Pass]

__________________________________________________

03.

[LoadingReadyRun]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Ella Masar and Erin McLeod (NWSL)]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Hadaka Shitsuji]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Richard Armitage]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Arrow]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Stargate SG-1]

__________________________________________________

09.

[Outlander]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 027 secrets from Secret Submission Post #403.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

If they have to bear the consequences of whatever decision the woman makes (beyond child support) then they should have a say in the decision. I absolutely, absolutely, absolutely cannot see any way in which you can justly give the woman free choice in what to do with the baby (which, for reference, I believe women should have) and at the same time demand that the man help raise the kid if she does keep it.

The thing is, the man is not powerless here. It's just that he already made his decision. Once he lets the boys out of the tube, he KNOWS the woman could get pregnant. The time for him to stop the pregnancy is before having sex. The woman can stop the pregnancy for a longer period of time than he can, but he had his chance.

She had* precisely the same chance in that regard, though, so it's hard to say that the ability to make choices disappears after that

I mean, the logic of that argument is pretty much the same as the argument that a woman had a chance to not get pregnant by not having sex in the first place* and therefore shouldn't have the right to an abortion

* assuming they were having consensual sex and mutually chose not to use protection, or protection failed unbeknownst to both of them

I mean, the logic of that argument is pretty much the same as the argument that a woman had a chance to not get pregnant by not having sex in the first place* and therefore shouldn't have the right to an abortion

Nope. That would only remotely make sense if we lived in a world where a woman was 100% guaranteed that the man who got her pregnant would stick around, have some kind of physical disability during the term of her pregnancy, financially support her and the child 50%, and physically take on 50% of the work involved. A man's right to an abortion is absolutely not the same.

To be clear here, I'm not defending a man having any kind of right to an abortion! I'm saying that he does not have to be committed to helping to raise the kid if the woman decides to keep it. If you're going to allow free choice on the one hand because having sex should not doom one to consequences that could hugely affect someone's life going down the road, you should allow free choice on the other hand.

DA

Yes, exactly - she (if consensual) chose to have unprotected sex (or sex at all) just as much as he did. In my opinion, BOTH parties should have come to an agreement about "woops pregnancy" BEFORE they had sex. None of this "Well, YOU had your one chance already, but fortunately I get all this time to decide if I've changed my mind!"

In my opinion, BOTH parties should have come to an agreement about "woops pregnancy" BEFORE they had sex.

Well, yes, that would be ideal.

[ SECRET POST #2822 ]

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread: