Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Needing to get consent from father to get an abortion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Needing to get consent from father to get an abortion

    I read on several websites how Arizona is going to pass a law which obliges women who want to have an abortion to have the consent of the father of the child. In the case of a girl who isn't yet off age, the parents would have to give consent. One could argue this is only fair: after all it takes two people to make a baby. On the other, having a baby probably has greater impact on women as they are the ones getting pregnant, giving birth, nursing the child etc. So it would be fair she has a greater say in the matter. Also, this would theorically mean that if a man rapes a woman and she gets pregnant as a result, she would have to ask her rapist if he could give consent to have an abortion, which of course would be really traumatizing.

    So what do you think, a good idea or not?
    La tête en bas et les pieds en l'air ! Oh lÃ* lÃ* !

  • #2
    This idea is complete shit. Individual has right to manage their body in any way, and a fetus is also part of the body, in fact. (at least several monthes). One person is obliged nothing to others just because they had sex.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
      Also, this would theorically mean that if a man rapes a woman and she gets pregnant as a result, she would have to ask her rapist if he could give consent to have an abortion, which of course would be really traumatizing.
      for all I know, the rapist can get the woman's consent of dipping in a magical water of piranhas and getting his act-tough limited edition "listen to daddy, bitch" sorry-ass dick sliced. Anyway, I doubt rapists get much say unless the woman keeps her mouth shut.

      And that is a shitty law, yes.

      Comment


      • #4
        It seems to me to be very controvercial subject. On the one hand it would be fair for father to have a say in the matter of parenthood. But on the other hand it does not influence him as much as woman.
        I think at the case with crimes. criminals should have no right to speak at all - and at the case women should have all rights for abortion.
        At the case with "normal" relationships.... I have a feeling it would give more space for revenges and manipulations and would do more harm than good - many men would use it for revenge or blackmail and not because they would want this child. On the other hand it wont stop adortion - it will just encourige illegal market.
        And even if so if mother does not want the kid, but father insists, at least he should take all responsibility for growing up the kid - from the beggining to the end. Equally with woman - if man does not want this kid no one should force him to take part in growing him up, it should be completely voluntary.
        People who hate cats, will come back as mice in their next life.

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh boy... This is tricky.

          As others have already pointed out, even though it takes two people too make a baby its the mother who carry the heavy work. Also if she wants to abort then she probably didnt want to have the baby in the first place. Cases of rape also exists.

          Let her abort, she wont be a good mother anyways and bad mothers raise bad children who grow into bad adults.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well abortion is murder, so it's irrelevant who gives consent, it's still murder and wrong.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
              On the other, having a baby probably has greater impact on women as they are the ones getting pregnant, giving birth, nursing the child etc.
              Raising a kid is the job of the parentS, except if it's a single mom... So it has a great impact on both parents and please, many women use the cesarean section, giving birth isn't a problem anymore for many of them, plus nursing a child is only matter of choice.

              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
              So it would be fair she has a greater say in the matter.
              To get a baby, in 2017, is a choice. The woman can use condom (same for the man), take pill and so on. Why would it be more legitimate to put the woman first than the two parents?

              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
              Also, this would theorically mean that if a man rapes a woman and she gets pregnant as a result, she would have to ask her rapist if he could give consent to have an abortion, which of course would be really traumatizing.
              There can be some exceptions like :
              - No right for the father if he is a rapist
              - Create a special agreement in case one of the parent wants to keep the baby and the other don't. A father or a mother could keep the baby though the father refuse and raise the kid alone under some conditions.
              - Parents of the pregnant woman could be forced to provide a decent education to the future kid in case they don't give their consent for abortion.

              Also, there is no necessity for a victim to ask her rapist to give his consent... Justice can easily ask him directly... lol.


              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
              So what do you think, a good idea or not?
              Actually a good idea. A little bit less good if the parents of the pregnant woman have to make the choice for her... I think it should be anonymous for the minors and they shouldn't need any consent of their bf (which must be minor too)
              Last edited by Sancta_Lux; 07-17-2017, 07:35 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Woman's body, woman's choice.

                In the case that the potential father wants her to have an abortion and the woman refuses, the father should lose all his responsibilities regarding the child.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post
                  Raising a kid is the job of the parentS, except if it's a single mom... So it has a great impact on both parents and please, many women use the cesarean section, giving birth isn't a problem anymore for many of them, plus nursing a child is only matter of choice.


                  To get a baby, in 2017, is a choice. The woman can use condom (same for the man), take pill and so on. Why would it be more legitimate to put the woman first than the two parents?


                  There can be some exceptions like :
                  - No right for the father if he is a rapist
                  - Create a special agreement in case one of the parent wants to keep the baby and the other don't. A father or a mother could keep the baby though the father refuse and raise the kid alone under some conditions.
                  - Parents of the pregnant woman could be forced to provide a decent education to the future kid in case they don't give their consent for abortion.

                  Also, there is no necessity for a victim to ask her rapist to give his consent... Justice can easily ask him directly... lol.



                  Actually a good idea. A little bit less good if the parents of the pregnant woman have to make the choice for her... I think it should be anonymous for the minors and they shouldn't need any consent of their bf (which must be minor too)
                  Well, it seems ceasarean section can have a greater impact than giving birth naturally. Even so, you never know... Chances are things go smoothly, but I know examples also that didn't go so smoothly (in developed countries nowadays even). My cousin spent most of her two pregnancies in bed or in hospital because if not, she would lose her babies prematurally. Some women suffer from extreme nausea all throughout the pregnancy, or complications afterwards or post birth depression etc. But that is not really what I meant. What I mean is that even the easiest delivery will get you out of the running for some time: you'll have to take pregnancy leave, etc. You may have had other plans. A man in that sense won't be affected.

                  And sure, there is birth control. But no birth control is 100% effective. People make mistakes: forgetting a pill, getting stomach flu or taking antibiotics which lower the efficiency of the pill, etc. And even if you do everything right there is always a (very small) chance something goes wrong. My mum got me despite having an IUD.

                  The thing with rape is also tricky... Obviously you could say you make an exception in the case of rape. But the thing is, sexual assault is very hard to prove. Unless you immediately go to a doctor to get an examination and to the police to report the guy. But experiencing rape is often confusing and victims often are left wondering if this was a real rape. We often have the idea of a rape happening by a creepy stranger in some equally creepy alley, but the reality is more nuanced. Oftenly it is someone you know and it happens at home, which may make you hesitate whether it was a "real" rape. There is also a fear for what will happen if you report the guy (he will probably be mad). And victims often accidently destroy evidence (for example by feeling dirty and washing their clothes or themselves). So what is seen oftenly is that victims, if they report the rape at all, only do so much later, when little can be proved. So how can a pregnant woman than claim an abortion on that basis if she cannot prove it? I think such a thing would lead to 1. her being denied the abortion because there is no proof. 2. her being believed on her word without proof (but in that case, such a rule has no raison d'être in the first place, as anyone can then just claim being a rape victim). Both situations don't appear to be very good ideas, imo.

                  I think that in any "normal" relationship where an unexpected pregnancy happens, the two people involved decide together what to do and listen to each other's wishes, in which case such a written consent by the man shouldn't be necessary. Now, there are always situations where the two cannot come to a mutual decision and it is in this case that such a law would potentially be of any use. In most countries where abortion is legal, it is the woman who has the final decision. If you have such a law, it will be the man, because if he doesn't give her his consent it is not going to happen. You cannot create a situation where, in case both parents don't come to an agreement they will both be ok with the final decision, so in ANY CASE there will be one person who is not happy. So the basic question is: is it more important that the woman is happy with the decision, or the man?

                  Personally, I think the woman should have the final decision. Not because I think that is a great idea or that I don't think that will kind of suck for the man. But as said, she has to be pregnant, give birth and probably make bigger sacrifices. It is her body and she should have the right not to want to be pregnant. So yeah, for these reasons I think a woman has a few more valid reasons additionally to "you need two people to make a baby". I recognize it is not an ideal solution and that it may leave men unsatisified, but it is still a better solution than any other I could think of.
                  Last edited by LadyJosh; 07-18-2017, 08:10 AM.
                  La tête en bas et les pieds en l'air ! Oh lÃ* lÃ* !

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post

                    Well, it seems ceasarean section can have a greater impact than giving birth naturally. Even so, you never know... Chances are things go smoothly, but I know examples also that didn't go so smoothly (in developed countries nowadays even). My cousin spent most of her two pregnancies in bed or in hospital because if not, she would lose her babies prematurally. Some women suffer from extreme nausea all throughout the pregnancy, or complications afterwards or post birth depression etc. But that is not really what I meant. What I mean is that even the easiest delivery will get you out of the running for some time: you'll have to take pregnancy leave, etc. You may have had other plans. A man in that sense won't be affected.
                    You take a case which isn't a generality at all with your cousin, and you can't always say you will have this kind of complication before getting pregnant. Also, there are treatment, for depression included.
                    Pregnancy will make you out for a while, not definitively, and as I said, there can be some rules around this law. As for the pregnancy leave, a man is also able to take one.

                    Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                    And sure, there is birth control. But no birth control is 100% effective. People make mistakes: forgetting a pill, getting stomach flu or taking antibiotics which lower the efficiency of the pill, etc. And even if you do everything right there is always a (very small) chance something goes wrong. My mum got me despite having an IUD.
                    For those people, no doubt that both parents will agree because they were already very careful, and I would support their decision since abortion would be their ultimate choice (and it should be only an ultimate choice).


                    Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                    The thing with rape is also tricky... Obviously you could say you make an exception in the case of rape. But the thing is, sexual assault is very hard to prove.
                    Justice tend to believe women (except when it's a rich arab who "fall" on a girl and rape her "accidentally"), there was a case of a british girl who said she had been rape many time by many different guys, justice realized she lied only after some years and some lifes broken.

                    Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                    We often have the idea of a rape happening by a creepy stranger in some equally creepy alley, but the reality is more nuanced. Oftenly it is someone you know and it happens at home, which may make you hesitate whether it was a "real" rape. There is also a fear for what will happen if you report the guy (he will probably be mad). And victims often accidently destroy evidence (for example by feeling dirty and washing their clothes or themselves). So what is seen oftenly is that victims, if they report the rape at all, only do so much later, when little can be proved.
                    I'm already conscient of rape statistics and how a rape happens, but if a woman destroy evidences, it's her fault and not the fault of the justice. Also, if she is not able to determine if she has been raped... Poor her, because it's not difficult to know such things, as for keeping the evidences, maybe people also need lessons on the subject... ._.

                    Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                    So how can a pregnant woman than claim an abortion on that basis if she cannot prove it? I think such a thing would lead to 1. her being denied the abortion because there is no proof. 2. her being believed on her word without proof (but in that case, such a rule has no raison d'être in the first place, as anyone can then just claim being a rape victim). Both situations don't appear to be very good ideas, imo.
                    As I said, we can imagine some exceptions and rules around this law.

                    Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                    Now, there are always situations where the two cannot come to a mutual decision and it is in this case that such a law would potentially be of any use.
                    Finally, thank you.

                    Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                    If you have such a law, it will be the man, because if he doesn't give her his consent it is not going to happen. You cannot create a situation where, in case both parents don't come to an agreement they will both be ok with the final decision, so in ANY CASE there will be one person who is not happy. So the basic question is: is it more important that the woman is happy with the decision, or the man?
                    Very manichean view. As you said, actually the woman has the final decision, so in "any case there will be one person who is not happy". Also, why would a man have the final decision if we have such law ? Once again, there can be somes rules to makes it more fair.

                    As for your question : No one, it's stupid to put a man or a woman above the other. I guess that's where we see the difference between feminism and humanism.

                    Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                    Personally, I think the woman should have the final decision. Not because I think that is a great idea or that I don't think that will kind of suck for the man. But as said, she has to be pregnant, give birth and probably make bigger sacrifices. It is her body and she should have the right not to want to be pregnant. So yeah, for these reasons I think a woman has a few more valid reasons additionally to "you need two people to make a baby". I recognize it is not an ideal solution and that it may leave men unsatisified, but it is still a better solution than any other I could think of.
                    The cell growing in her isn't her body, half of the baby is her, the other is the father. Her body is only a 'host'.
                    I personally prefer to get such law but, again, with rules because it should be very controlled to get something as fair as possible. Else, if it's not controlled at all, if we just ask for a paper from the supposed father (btw, there is always a way to lie on this part for a woman I guess...) and nothing else... So yes I agree, the woman should probably get the final decision because she would have no protection from the justice in case of disagreement.







                    Last edited by Sancta_Lux; 07-18-2017, 11:54 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11


                      Friends,

                      This sounds like "bible thumpers" and Conservative Republicans trying to nibble around the edges of "abortion".

                      I really thing abortion is very sad, and traumatic. How many of you had to have one???? or caused one?? Very few here giving their opinions.

                      I might have caused 3, 2 that I know of.

                      But, at the end of the day, its inside of a person body. When we start making rules on that.. then whats next.. lungs.. livers... You can not drink because you might Damage your liver, that liver COULD be use in a liver transplant to save another persons live, so you are causing death by drinking to much alcohol??

                      I also do not want to bring up a child in a house hold that is not ready for him. I have 3 kids so I also feel qualified to talk on this topic. You need a license to drive a car, a license for your dog, But anyone drunk in a bad seat of a car can make a baby!!!!!

                      Woman's rights have been moving in the wrong direction with the USA government. I hope everyone here gets involved, and sends them a message. you think their polices SUCK!!!

                      Thank you.

                      dr. Darrell of Michigan.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post
                        You take a case which isn't a generality at all with your cousin, and you can't always say you will have this kind of complication before getting pregnant. Also, there are treatment, for depression included.
                        Pregnancy will make you out for a while, not definitively, and as I said, there can be some rules around this law. As for the pregnancy leave, a man is also able to take one.


                        For those people, no doubt that both parents will agree because they were already very careful, and I would support their decision since abortion would be their ultimate choice (and it should be only an ultimate choice).



                        Justice tend to believe women (except when it's a rich arab who "fall" on a girl and rape her "accidentally"), there was a case of a british girl who said she had been rape many time by many different guys, justice realized she lied only after some years and some lifes broken.


                        I'm already conscient of rape statistics and how a rape happens, but if a woman destroy evidences, it's her fault and not the fault of the justice. Also, if she is not able to determine if she has been raped... Poor her, because it's not difficult to know such things, as for keeping the evidences, maybe people also need lessons on the subject... ._.


                        As I said, we can imagine some exceptions and rules around this law.


                        Finally, thank you.


                        Very manichean view. As you said, actually the woman has the final decision, so in "any case there will be one person who is not happy". Also, why would a man have the final decision if we have such law ? Once again, there can be somes rules to makes it more fair.

                        As for your question : No one, it's stupid to put a man or a woman above the other. I guess that's where we see the difference between feminism and humanism.


                        The cell growing in her isn't her body, half of the baby is her, the other is the father. Her body is only a 'host'.
                        I personally prefer to get such law but, again, with rules because it should be very controlled to get something as fair as possible. Else, if it's not controlled at all, if we just ask for a paper from the supposed father (btw, there is always a way to lie on this part for a woman I guess...) and nothing else... So yes I agree, the woman should probably get the final decision because she would have no protection from the justice in case of disagreement.
                        Exactly, you don't know if there will be complications. That is my whole point. My cousin is just an example. I didn't say "complications happen often" or anything like that. In that case, my cousin wouldn't be enough to prove that point. I said, "it happens", giving the example of my cousin and other people. If it can happen to my cousin, then why not to anyone else? But again, complications were not my main point. If you actually want a baby, pregnancy leave isn't so bad, it is for a good cause. Even complications are more bearable then. My point was about people who do NOT want a child (and I guess that is the case when you want an abortion). In that case, pregnancy leave or complications can be complicated. I mean, what if there are other things happening in your life which make all the things surrounding giving birth and having a small child which needs a lot of care too much to manage? That was my point.

                        As per birth control... I don't see how correct use of birth control has anything to do with whether parents agree or not? Or do you imagine that there are two kinds of people: people in a good, stable relationship who know how to manage their birth control, and people who make a mess of everything?

                        I'd like to read more about this British girl. Because either she didn't lie and it was not that justice stopped believing her but just decided that there was no proof to verify her story. Or indeed she did lie, but in that case, that is just one story. In the same way as my cousin doesn't make up for every pregnant woman. Because in reality, justice does not tend to believe women. I have seen this in my personal life and there are statistics to confirm it. Sexual assault remains the most underreported crime and actually only 1% of all rapists actually end up getting convicted. The reason? Rape culture: the idea that women are lying or did something to cause the rape, which leads to the victim hesitating to talk about what happened and if she does, scepticism from her friends, family and professionals. And in western societies, a judge is not going to convict someone if there is not enough proof. There is (luckily) such a concept as "innocent until proven guilty". But this makes rape cases so difficult to handle: nobody was there to confirm because sex is something people practice in private. I don't think people purposefully will destroy evidence, but when you have just been raped, you may maybe be shocked and do something which later on turns out to have been careless. And even so... DNA samples don't say much because there could have been sperm on you if it was consensual sex right? So very often it becomes the word of the victim against the word of the rapist. So obviously justice will give the accused the benefit of the doubt.

                        And yes, it can be difficult to determine if something has been a rape. I know of an example where a girl was penetrated against her will with the guy's fingers. She didn't know this was rape, but in French law any sort of penetration actually is. Obviously, in this case the girl could never have gotten pregnant, but what about for example this (fictional) example: a guy wants to have sex with a girl. She says no, but he becomes insistent or even quite violent. She is scared and doesn't dare to resist after her initial no. Is it rape if she didn't try to push him away or scream or fight back? Or yet another one: a guy rapes a girl, but these two people are in a relationship and have had (consensual) sex before. Does it then still counts as rape? Obviously, all these examples are rape, but I can understand also that these situations may be confusing for the victim, especially when you know the rapist personally.

                        I will explain (again) why a man will have the final decision with such a law. If the man and the woman can agree, there is no need for such a law. The woman finds out she is pregnant, she will tell the father, they will talk respectfully with each other and come to a mutual decision: either to keep the baby or to have an abortion. In this case, such a law isn't needed. Because if they decide to have an abortion, the man already agrees and doesn't need to give any sort of permission. Such a law only becomes useful for a small percentage of situations when there is a conflict: when the woman wants an abortion and the man wants to keep it. If the man then refuses, she will not be able to do it. So the man got his way. Without such a law, the woman will get her way, because she can get her abortion and the man will not be asked anything. So in situation 1: the woman will not be happy. In situation 2: the man will not be happy. My question was: what counts more?

                        I agree with you that the cell isn't her body. It isn't even not hers only, but not his only. It will (in the end) become a child and a person of its own. But at that stage: it is only a cell, not even a full baby. And till quite some time, it won't be able to take any reasonable decisions of its own. So someone else should do it. Either the father or the mother of the child. When you are saying that the woman is only host is too easy. I have never been pregnant, but I am pretty sure it has a bigger impact on you than only hosting a cell. So again, I'd go for the person most concerned by it, and that would be, considering that this cell cannot make any decision, the mother.
                        Last edited by LadyJosh; Yesterday, 10:18 AM.
                        La tête en bas et les pieds en l'air ! Oh lÃ* lÃ* !

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The woman has the burden of pregnancy as well es the woman is who bears the risks of complications after pregnancy, i find it fair that woman should be able only to decide if she wants the kid or not.
                          If she in a relationship and she wants abort the pregnancy but her man doesn't, should it be her only choice as well when her partner isn't able to convince her. A kid isn't a toy and not everybody is ready being a parent. In case when the father doesn't care about her, is this her decision anyways.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            As for the case of rape, I have not read the law but I would hope it would have an exclusion for this. Rights can be limited or taken away by due process and rape is a crime so that person losing those rights only makes sense here.

                            Society has changed and there are many questions that need to be worked out as to the rights and responsibilities of parents in raising a child. But if a woman has the complete say over her body and life of that baby then a man should at least not be required by law to pay child support.

                            I have seem cases where a woman will threaten an abortion or will use an abortion to get back at a man after a break up before the child is born. If men truly have no rights here then it would be far better to approach sex and reproduction as something contractual and legally binding.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              Exactly, you don't know if there will be complications. That is my whole point. My cousin is just an example. I didn't say "complications happen often" or anything like that. In that case, my cousin wouldn't be enough to prove that point. I said, "it happens", giving the example of my cousin and other people. If it can happen to my cousin, then why not to anyone else?
                              So we should follow the precautionary principle ? Lol. We don't know, if there is no reason to worry (medical reasons), so there is no point to refuse such law just because "it happens".. sometime.

                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              My point was about people who do NOT want a child (and I guess that is the case when you want an abortion). In that case, pregnancy leave or complications can be complicated. I mean, what if there are other things happening in your life which make all the things surrounding giving birth and having a small child which needs a lot of care too much to manage? That was my point.
                              And there was my point : Makes this law "smart" and protect/give garantees to the woman and the man in case of disagreement.


                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              As per birth control... I don't see how correct use of birth control has anything to do with whether parents agree or not? Or do you imagine that there are two kinds of people: people in a good, stable relationship who know how to manage their birth control, and people who make a mess of everything?
                              Abortion is the ultimate birth control, it has everything to do. Too many people use abortion like if it was a simple pill.
                              I find you insulting since you are the most manichean of us... I would never say "there is 2 kinds of people : "


                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              I'd like to read more about this British girl.
                              https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/379306...l-for-7-years/

                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              Because in reality, justice does not tend to believe women
                              Depend on case, but yes, they tend to believe.


                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              Sexual assault remains the most underreported crime and actually only 1% of all rapists actually end up getting convicted. The reason? Rape culture: the idea that women are lying or did something to cause the rape, which leads to the victim hesitating to talk about what happened and if she does, scepticism from her friends, family and professionals.
                              I understood the first time, you don't need to repeat ._.

                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              And in western societies, a judge is not going to convict someone if there is not enough proof. There is (luckily) such a concept as "innocent until proven guilty".
                              It also bring an investigation most of the time.

                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              But this makes rape cases so difficult to handle: nobody was there to confirm because sex is something people practice in private.
                              Basically, all crimes is something you do in "private", or not in front of people and policemen. If rape is difficult to handle, it's only because many women destroy the evidences, as you said.

                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              So obviously justice will give the accused the benefit of the doubt.
                              It's not "obvious", it depends on more factors than just the words, the "story" has to be coherent for both rapist and victims at least, you also could have some stuff going against the victime, or the rapist, like antecedents, or mental issues.

                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              And yes, it can be difficult to determine if something has been a rape. I know of an example where a girl was penetrated against her will with the guy's fingers. She didn't know this was rape, but in French law any sort of penetration actually is.
                              Everybody know that law, except the retarded people who never listened in class... So no, it's not difficult to determine if something is a rape or not. Rationality is the only thing you need.

                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              but what about for example this (fictional) example: a guy wants to have sex with a girl. She says no, but he becomes insistent or even quite violent. She is scared and doesn't dare to resist after her initial no. Is it rape if she didn't try to push him away or scream or fight back?
                              It's a rape because it's against her will, she accepted only under the threat, point. It's the exact same case than for theft and robbery (bon, pas sûr que ce soit exact alors je vais le dire en français : c'est la même chose que pour un vol et un braquage), it only makes the case more serious.

                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              Or yet another one: a guy rapes a girl, but these two people are in a relationship and have had (consensual) sex before. Does it then still counts as rape? Obviously, all these examples are rape, but I can understand also that these situations may be confusing for the victim, especially when you know the rapist personally.
                              once again yes.
                              I don't know what are you trying to prove with your sentence, a basic level of logic is enough to describe them as rape. There is an act of penetration against the will of the woman, so there is a rape, point. Final point.

                              By the way, I find this law kinda sexist, because it means that a woman can't rape a man, which is obviously not the case.

                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              I will explain (again) why a man will have the final decision with such a law. If the man and the woman can agree, there is no need for such a law. The woman finds out she is pregnant, she will tell the father, they will talk respectfully with each other and come to a mutual decision: either to keep the baby or to have an abortion. In this case, such a law isn't needed. Because if they decide to have an abortion, the man already agrees and doesn't need to give any sort of permission. Such a law only becomes useful for a small percentage of situations when there is a conflict: when the woman wants an abortion and the man wants to keep it. If the man then refuses, she will not be able to do it. So the man got his way
                              Again, why the man would have the last word ? Why, if the man say "nope" the woman would lost the last decision ? Again, there can be some rules to make it fair, so the man wouldn't have the last word, justice would.


                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              So in situation 1: the woman will not be happy. In situation 2: the man will not be happy. My question was: what counts more?
                              Originally posted by Sancta_Lux View Post
                              As for your question : No one, it's stupid to put a man or a woman above the other. I guess that's where we see the difference between feminism and humanism.



                              Originally posted by LadyJosh View Post
                              I agree with you that the cell isn't her body. It isn't even not hers only, but not his only. It will (in the end) become a child and a person of its own. But at that stage: it is only a cell, not even a full baby. And till quite some time, it won't be able to take any reasonable decisions of its own. So someone else should do it. Either the father or the mother of the child. When you are saying that the woman is only host is too easy. I have never been pregnant, but I am pretty sure it has a bigger impact on you than only hosting a cell. So again, I'd go for the person most concerned by it, and that would be, considering that this cell cannot make any decision, the mother.
                              Saying it's only a "host" doesn't means "it's almost nothing, don't comlpain about a cell", it only means : it's only a "host". Also, I said it's a cell growing.
                              Yes a baby can'ttake reasonable decisions (the same goes for some adults ), and someone should do it : the parentS.
                              There is no more concerned person, I would be very concerned if my partner would get pregnant and it's the same for every rationnal and loving fathers/future loving fathers, only dumbass and people who don't care at all about their partner and their progeny wouldn't be that concerned.
                              Last edited by Sancta_Lux; Today, 12:33 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X