because I made "x decision" everyone else is wrong

[Rapscallion]

It also depends on the stance taken by the advocate of a position.

I like Biden's approach. I'm against it based on my religious principles, but that's not what's going to force my hand in law. Something like that. Supposed to be working right now...

It's when people try and force religious or personal feelings into law that affects others.

Sure, you follow a religion that says no abortion - then don't have an abortion. Do they really think that denying others that ability is going to convert them to the cause?

Rapscallion

[Lace Neil Singer]

I will also make the point that a man has no right to hold a prolife stance, cuz since he can never become pregnant and be in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy, he has no right to comment.

Yes, it might be his child too, but this can never be an equal debate simply cuz biology makes it always unequal. The woman is always going to be the one who has the final word, cuz it's HER body. Having pregnancy and childbirth forced upon a person to me is similar to rape; it's someone else taking control on your body and making you submit to their will. Especially if a woman is tokophobic.

[Andara Bledin]

I won't say that a man has no rights in this matter; he should have some rights as regards his own part, just as he should have some liability.

However, those rights should almost never be allowed to trump those of the woman personally involved.

The laws regarding reproductive issues are such a mess. They're a broken morass of agendas based around money and religion and need to be overhauled to reflect the fact that not everybody shares the same ideals and that the two parties involved are not equal and should not be seen as such.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

So, is this whole "you can't have an opinion unless it might affect you as much as a pregnancy affects a woman" thing a general principle, or just for this one issue? And either way, why?

[Duelist925]

So, is this whole "you can't have an opinion unless it might affect you as much as a pregnancy affects a woman" thing a general principle, or just for this one issue? And either way, why?

I have a similar belief---mainly that, as a male, I have no right to try to dictate what goes on in a womans body since it doesn't affect me in the slightest. this changes somewhat if its my child as well, but its thorny path there, so another time.

And it is a somewhat general principle with me--not concrete, but I do think that the people most affected by something ought to have the most say in any legislation of that something, be it reproductive rights, lgbt rights, disabled rights, etc.

[Eisa]

Not to mention the fact that some women, including me, are tokophobic and have an actual phobia about pregnancy. -.- I plan to get an implant eventually; basically, it's two phobias battling it out, my needlephobia vs my tokophobia, but hopefully the second one will win as the implant is best for me.

Hey, high-five, I'm tokophobic, too!

To the point I've been perfectly honest, if by some horrible mischance I ever got pregnant, I cannot see any way at all right now I would not get an abortion.

And if abortions were illegal? Welp, I guess two people are about to be dead then.

And around here especially, people are fucking idiots where gawd forbid, you CAN'T get an abortion, but you know, as soon as you have the kid, they're like "fuck off" and you're just supposed to magically make do and if you don't, well you're a slut anyway.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I won't say that a man has no rights in this matter; he should have some rights as regards his own part, just as he should have some liability.

However, those rights should almost never be allowed to trump those of the woman personally involved.

That's pretty much what I meant. Of course the man can give his opinion as regards the child, but in the end, it is always going to be the woman's decision cuz she's the one who's pregnant and she's the one who the decision is going to physically affect. It might not seem fair, for example, to a man who's girlf has an abortion when he wants the child, but biologically, it's not fair and it never will be. The man isn't the one to carry the child for nine months then give birth to it, so his right is necessarily less than hers.

Childbirth is also dangerous with risk of loss of life, something that a lot of prolifers ignore. They're happy enough to say that abortion is risky, but in actual fact, childbirth is more so.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news...h-study-claims

Hey, high-five, I'm tokophobic, too!

To the point I've been perfectly honest, if by some horrible mischance I ever got pregnant, I cannot see any way at all right now I would not get an abortion.

And if abortions were illegal? Welp, I guess two people are about to be dead then.

And around here especially, people are fucking idiots where gawd forbid, you CAN'T get an abortion, but you know, as soon as you have the kid, they're like "fuck off" and you're just supposed to magically make do and if you don't, well you're a slut anyway.

Of course, cuz only sluts enjoy sex, right? I wouldn't much like having an abortion, but if the double contraception did fail (pill and condom) then it would be the only thing I could do, cuz of my tokophobia. I would rather die than have a baby. My fiance is in full agreement and has said that he'd draw out the money right away to get things done quickly. I've only had two scares *touch wood* in the eleven years we've been together, and both times he paid for the morning after pill.

[HYHYBT]

I have a similar belief---mainly that, as a male, I have no right to try to dictate what goes on in a womans body since it doesn't affect me in the slightest. this changes somewhat if its my child as well, but its thorny path there, so another time.

"No right to try to dictate" is not at all the same as "no right to hold and express an opinion."

I do have trouble with one aspect, though. Only the woman decides whether to abort or not, yet if she doesn't, the man has no say in whether to pay child support even if he has nothing else to do with the baby ever. Yes, he chose to have sex, but then so did she.

I believe there is an inherent unfairness there, even though every alternative I can think of would be worse.

[bara]

I believe there is an inherent unfairness there, even though every alternative I can think of would be worse.

Sadly, there are times when there is no right answer, just the best answer we can come up with. That is where abortion falls.

[Lace Neil Singer]

"No right to try to dictate" is not at all the same as "no right to hold and express an opinion."

I do have trouble with one aspect, though. Only the woman decides whether to abort or not, yet if she doesn't, the man has no say in whether to pay child support even if he has nothing else to do with the baby ever. Yes, he chose to have sex, but then so did she.

I believe there is an inherent unfairness there, even though every alternative I can think of would be worse.

In that situation, the thing to remember is that there is always going to be one blameless victim; the child. They don't deserve to lose out. No, it's not fair that a man has to pay out for a child he didn't want, but as you say, there isn't really an alternative.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, I'm honestly curious here.

We keep saying 'the man totally does have rights'

But those rights don't include deciding whether or not an abortion happens, don't include deciding whether or not to take care of the child for the rest of their life, and often don't include deciding whether or not they actually get to play much of a part in raising them.

So what rights do they get? Because I'm honestly confused, and I feel like I must be missing something.

[BlaqueKatt]

We keep saying 'the man totally does have rights'

But those rights don't include deciding whether or not an abortion happens, don't include deciding whether or not to take care of the child for the rest of their life, and often don't include deciding whether or not they actually get to play much of a part in raising them.

So what rights do they get? Because I'm honestly confused, and I feel like I must be missing something.

ask my ex-husband who has full custody of our son after denying me visitation(he got custody because I have autism-I had no rights), and terminating my parental rights because I got remarried.

Rare case, but men can sue for visitation and custody, and win.

[Nekojin]

ask my ex-husband who has full custody of our son after denying me visitation(he got custody because I have autism-I had no rights), and terminating my parental rights because I got remarried.

Rare case, but men can sue for visitation and custody, and win.

A lot of this depends greatly on where you are, and what judge you get. In California, while there's a definite pro-mom bias in family law, it's nowhere near as severe as it was even 20 years ago, much less 40 years ago. But even then, one bad judge can bollix the works for everyone.

In your case, BK, your remarrying shouldn't be a cause for your losing all rights - it should have been a mitigating factor for your autism, since your new husband can, in theory, cover for any supposed failings that you may have due to your autism. I have never seen a case where remarrying meant the removal of parental rights - only the termination of spousal support.

[Lace Neil Singer]

A friend of me and Fiance got full custody of his kids, cuz his ex-wife is a total psycho. The courts recognised that letting that bitch have contact with the kids was a bad idea; she was being physically abusive towards them, as well as disowning her autistic son. So basically, it can happen; it just depends on where you are and which judge is in charge of your case.

[Andara Bledin]

It also depends greatly upon how good your lawyer is.

Having listened to some of the batshit things that Nekojin's mother has dealt with in her time as a family law practitioner, there are things that the lawyer is capable of doing (even just legwork and investigation) that can have a major impact on the final decision.

There are likely a disheartening number of lawyers that figure that the mother will get custody no matter what and don't put in the effort that could change that decision. Nekojin's mom had one case that she had kept when she closed her practice that she'd been fighting on behalf of the father for over 15 years. The child in that case has recently turned 18, so the custody issue has become moot, but if not for her efforts, it's highly likely that the father, her client, would have been unable to have been with his son for most of his childhood due to the mother's desire to use the custody battle to punish him.

^-.-^