do the math, fuckers.

[jellyfish_lace]

There's been some debate regarding whether men should have a say in their partners' abortions. Proponents of the idea that since the fetus is half his and half hers genetically, it should be a mutual agreement

Comments

[anonymous]

i understand you're argument...however i'm saying that you can't quantify a person's 'issues' in any numerical terms

...i'm not trying to sound like a condescending douchebag...so if i do, i apologize...

you can't say that a woman has a greater right/responsibility/stake/whatever in having/aborting a fetus merely because she carries the child (i know legally this is true, but i'm arguing in terms of morality and rationality)...

i mean, if you were to carry your argument further, every aspect of a child's life ought to be tyrannically controlled by the mother alone because she carried the child...the father should have no say in his own son/daughter's life just because he didn't house that child in HIS uterus for 9 months

i agree that a woman has the right to choose because it's her body...but i'm saying that any woman with any ounce of human decency would at least converse with the father...with power comes great responsibility ( 0_0 )

i hope i'm making my argument clearer, and not just retyping the same rhetoric still void of coherency

[jellyfish_lace]

"i agree that a woman has the right to choose because it's her body...but i'm saying that any woman with any ounce of human decency would at least converse with the father...with power comes great responsibility ( 0_0 )"

I'm arguing that legally, the father's signature should not be needed. I would hope that in a relationship, the mother WOULD discuss it with the father. But that's not relevant, because pregnancies happen outside of relationships. It's stupid to sit around and banter about people's personal lives.

"you can't say that a woman has a greater right/responsibility/stake/whatever in having/aborting a fetus merely because she carries the child [...] i agree that a woman has the right to choose because it's her body"

I can, and you completely contradicted yourself. It's her body, and no one should be forced to deal with a pregnancy they don't want.

[anonymous]

first, i don't want you to think i'm trying to have some immature argument with you, this is just an interesting topic and is currently keeping my mind off of finals week...

second...i didn't contradict myself...i believe that a woman has a right to do with her body what she wishes, however to completely ignore the opinion/personal beliefs/emotions of the man is both illogical and unjust (in much the same way i agree with freedom of expression...until that expression encroaches upon the rights of another...one's rights end where another's begin)

i'm not saying that we mandate the father's signature...i'm merely saying that the law totally ignores the mental/emotional/moral distress that a father may go through...and just because he's not the person going through the pregnancy, doesn't mean that his needs shouldn't be addressed

now, i know of no way to do this...which is why i've offerend no counter, however that doesn't mean the discrepancy doesn't exist...just another shade of gra

[jellyfish_lace]

How exactly could the law address the father?? How can the law serve such an incredibly complicated and personal experience? It's unfortunate that a man loses a child, but the law doesn't exist to make sure that no one ever has anything unfortunate happen to him or her.

It sucks, it really does, but I can't possibly think that the law ought to heed to men who want to keep the baby when the pregnant woman does not. That's the bigger injustice, IMO, since he doesn't really have to deal with a parasite on him for 9 months.