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

You would think the point in your argument where you're adopting pro-life arguments wholesale is the point where you might stop and reconsider

How is "don't have sex with a woman unless you're prepared for the fact she might get pregnant" equate to a pro-life argument?

Because a pro-choice person would say, "Yes! Exactly! That's totally right, I agree with you, and in just the same way, a woman shouldn't have sex unless she's prepared for the fact that she might get pregnant, and therefore abortion is unnecessary."

Of course they would have to make an exception for rape and non-consensual sex. Then again, if you were thinking of non-consensual sex exclusively, you should probably have made that clear when you made your first post in a thread that's mostly been focused on consensual sex.

I'm not making a pro-life argument, though, whether or not a pro-lifer would agree with me and then draw an erroneous conclusion. I'm making an argument that sex is an adult act and it has adult consequences that come with it. Therefore, adult decision-making needs to be involved on everyone's part. A guy who gets a girl pregnant should have already had the conversation, at the very least with himself, of "Do I really want to get this girl pregnant? Is she a reasonable human being? What if I do get her pregnant? Will she involve me in choices regarding the child?"

And a girl who gets pregnant should have had the same conversation, at the very least with herself, but in reverse. "If I were to get pregnant, would this guy disappear on me? Am I ready to be a mother? Is he ready to be a father?" Ideally, these people would have actually had these conversations with each other, or at the VERY LEAST only have protected sex. Actions have consequences, yo. And unfortunately, once the guy lets the cat out of the bag, so to speak, all he can really do here in the real world is sit back and wait for his potential consequences to unfold.

the logical rubric we use to think about abortion in regards to questions like these, as I understand that, is that even if your answers to those questions aren't carefully considered, or you change your mind, that shouldn't matter - you're still free to make a decision and control your own life and your own destiny. i agree that adult decision making has to take place on all levels. but sometimes it doesn't, and you still have to make a decision. and sometimes your mind changes unexpectedly. and you can't control that. it's an adult decision, yes, and everyone has to live with those consequences, but there is a decision available to men and it's to not be involved with the child.

i don't think anyone would say that any of the conversations you're describing here - their outcome or whether they take place at all - should impinge in any way on a woman's right to have an abortion, nor should they. so i don't understand why they should define a man's role and attitude towards a potential child. i don't understand why you would obligate a man to play a certain role in regards to an unborn child using the same logic that pro-life people use to restrict women and obligate them into a certain role, and use language about 'having to bear the consequences of having sex' that would fit perfectly well in with the rhetoric of a pro-choice person, and not see that as contradictory.

i do think, personally, all things being equal, the man should try to play a role in the child's life, but i don't see any reason to mandate that or even to demand it. i honestly, legitimately don't see any reason at all.

but there is a decision available to men and it's to not be involved with the child

And that's what ends up happening. So I guess at the end of the day, my thought on the entire matter is, think more than 5 minutes ahead in time and everything will work out all right.

That's not the same thing. A woman's choice of what to do with her own body has nothing to do with what happens what a child is born. Once a child is born, both parents are equally responsible. While it is still inside her body, she gets to choose whether or not her body hosts it. Bodily autonomy and money are not remotely the same thing.

That's why I think pro-life arguments are crap. Even if they were right that a fetus is a human being (I go back and forth on that), no one should be forced to host it any more than people are forced to donate organs or give blood. Your body is your own. Period.

So your body is your own, but your life isn't? It's wrong to force women to bear a pregnancy to term, but it's right to force men to spend their lives raising a child that they've decided that they don't want?

Forced to raise, no. Forced to pay, absolutely. And pay reasonably, which, frankly, is not what is the reality considering how low child support payments often are.

Honestly, if a man helps create a human being, I do think he should have to change a few diapers and help with some term papers, but that's evidently out of the question.

See, that's where you get into a slippery slope. Now, if you agree that the man created a human being, a life, then you are opening a hole in which someone can argue than there should be no choice for the woman on whether or not she should be able to have an abortion. What is growing in her is a "human being" (your own words). That child has rights at conception and that the father should have responsibility in those rights.

Well, no, I just wasn't talking about the pregnancy part. We've already established fairly well in this thread that when the baby is still in utero, the woman (within legal limits) has the right to abort. But once an actual human being comes out, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the father of the child to actually be a father.

So, you're against letting anyone make a decision that will affect 9 months of a woman's life, but fine with letting somebody make a decision that will affect the lifetime of a man. Because that's what the words you have put here mean.

[ SECRET POST #2822 ]

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread:

Re: Rant Thread: