Fox Doc Argues Men Should Have 'Veto' Power Over Women's Abortions

[Capt. Obvious]

Dr. Keith Ablow may already hold the title of Fox News' biggest race-hustler, but he's also a strong contender for the distinction of being the network's premier men's rights activist.

Ablow, a psychiatrist, declared Tuesday on "Outnumbered" that a man should have the right to compel his female partner to take a pregnancy to term if he's willing to take full responsibility for their child after he or she is born.

....

"I've been outspoken on this," he added later. "I think men should be able to veto women's abortions if they're willing to care for the child after it's born."

....

But Ablow's tour de force was a 2011 FoxNews.com op-ed that argued a woman who seeks an abortion over a man's objections should be civilly and criminally liable for both wrongful death and her partner's "psychological suffering." The op-ed contained such feats of logic as arguing men's lack of veto power over their female partner's abortions correlates with America's "epidemic of absentee fathers," and the assertion that no women who took "full responsibility for their sexual activity and their bodies" would run any risk of becoming pregnant and then having to take their pregnancies to term.

....

Blind link for purposes of deception

He also believes that men should be able to harvest their breast milk.

[jmowreader]

1. So what happens...

...when the man vetoes the woman's abortion then quits his job, moves to another state and starts working under the table?

[vankuria]

260. One of so many scenarios where this could go wrong!

Especially where the guy involved is quite young and has no clue what's involved in caring for a child. Many think it's gonna be all fun and games until they actually have to do it!

[jmowreader]

288. You know what would happen next

Parents of males under the age of majority would demand the right to veto abortions their irresponsible sons made necessary, then when the kid was born they'd be all "honey, if you would have just kept your legs together you wouldn't be in this situation, so raising it is YOUR responsibility!"

[riderinthestorm]

2. When men face the possibility of death for childbirth, then they get a say

When it's their lives on the line then we'll talk.

[calimary]

248. Yep! Totally. When men can get pregnant, they can tell me ALL about it.

Otherwise, not on your life, pal.

A WOMAN'S RIGHT to choose is an absolute. It is NON-NEGOTIABLE. OUR bodies - OUR choice.

[hamsterjill]

254. +1

Absolutamente!

That's why I don't like the abortion argument taken in the direction of "oh, it was such a difficult decision to have to make". Certainly, there are times when the decision to have an abortion is a very hard decision. But women don't need to have to make excuses - ANY excuses - nor should they have to give an explanation for having an abortion.

A woman's body. HER choice. End of story!

[Gothmog]

3. Ablow is a nut case and should have his license pulled

[PeaceNikki]

4. That guy needs to get fucked sideways with a chainsaw.

[newmexicodem]

5. I agree and disagree

I don't think men should have veto power over the child birth/abortion but I also don't think women should have 100% free reign choice either.

A child is 50% sperm and 50% egg. That means male and female and mom and dad should have equal choice in the matter until the child reaches 18yrs old. Only thing that should alter the 50/50 is extenutating circumstances where one parental figure is obviously unfit to make rational decisions or unfit to be a parent(father in prison, mother on drugs, or other circumstance)

In the event the choices conflict such as mother wants abortion but father wants his kid to live or vice versa situation when mother wants the child but father feels it was a mistake......then a judge should decide the best interest of the child via guardian ad litem.

Sounds harsh but when it comes to child support the father often gets the short-end of the stick and is legally bound to be financially responsible. So why shouldn't he have equal choice and equal voice in the matter too?

[treestar]

7. Men can't get pregnant so it's fair enough to them

That it is lopsided on this one issue. It's the woman's body that gets pregnant, so it is not unfair to men that she gets 100% of the decision on this. Men who don't want children have the obligation to use condoms or confirm the woman is using some birth control.

[mythology]

8. But the risks associated with pregnancy are 100% women's

As a guy who doesn't want kids, I'm happy to take the necessary precautions to greatly lower the odds of pregnancy.

[riderinthestorm]

9. Women can die in childbirth. That means they get to decide 100%

nobody else gets to put their life on the line for them.

[CharlotteVale]

10. Then the father can find a woman who WANTS to have a kid

with him and have one with her.

Your stance is chilling. A judge forcing a woman to give birth because some man wants a kid - WTF?!?

[leftynyc]

12. Uh - no

Since only one of us faces complications from pregnancy which include dying - then no, we are not in this 50-50. If he doesn't want to be responsible for a child, he can get a vasectomy or wear a condom. You probably wouldn't want to hear that I consider even the opinion on abortion useless when it comes from someone with a penis - I simply don't care what any man has to say on the issue. I do realize that's a militant position and I couldn't possibly care less.

[crazylikafox]

83. agree 100%

[Jamastiene]

88. I don't see that as a militant position at all.

Men don't have to do anything but the fun part. Women carry the entire burden of the pregnancy and raising the child when the men don't want the kid. Men can just get their jollies and walk away. Women should have the absolute choice over what happens to our own bodies. Men who want to take that right away are overstepping their bounds. I don't think that is a militant position to take at all.

[AgingAmerican]

241. "Men don't have to do anything but the fun part"

Uh, not true. My son just turned 28 and I am still paying for his college. I changed literally thousands of diapers, and got puked on dozens of times.

Which of those qualify as, "Fun Part?"

[Jamastiene]

242. Men can choose whether to take part in raising the kid.

Women don't have that choice. Even less if a woman is forced to have the kid like many seem to want to do with the anti-choice talk going on here. The fun part is making the kid, not any of the stuff that comes afterward, lol.

[AgingAmerican]

246. If a man 'chooses' not to take part

Then he isn't a man, IMHO.

[vankuria]

262. Yea and there's alot of them out there

who aren't a man!

[Jamastiene]

280. There are an awful lot of them who do just that.

I got no complaints with guys who take part in raising their kids and taking care of them. More power to you. It's the right thing to do.

[AgingAmerican]

281. It's the NATURAL thing to do

That's why I don't understand it.

[nruthie]

199. AMEN!

I totally agree with you.

[smirkymonkey]

201. +1000

[geek tragedy]

15. So you think a judge should have the power to control a woman's body, including

forced abortions as well as forced birtherism?

And yes you do want to give the man veto power over what a woman does with her body.

We can see you for what you are.

Enjoy your BRIEF stay at DU.

[Hekate]

149. He's been here since 2009...

Resting comfortably in a drawer someplace, no doubt.

[geek tragedy]

152. What's scary is that this isn't the most repulsive piece of MRA dog feces

someone dropped on the floor.

Scroll down, if you dare. . . .

[demmiblue]

18. I think you made a wrong turn.

[gollygee]

19. It's 100% in a woman's body

Until the man can transfer it to his body, he has no say.

[geek tragedy]

22. Jury results (verdict: perfectly fine to advocate treating women's bodies as property of men)

Forced-birther, Men's Rights Activists trolling, and trolling hard.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue May 5, 2015, 01:56 PM, and voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you cannot handle dissenting opinions get off the discussion boards and go back to your basement.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Not this again
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter might be over reacting, and it looks like a rather thoughtful post, even though the opinion might be wrong.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Merely because this person fails to recognize that a woman must have ultimate and absolute control over her own body, and offers an opinion based on that failure, and that the alerter disagrees with that opinion, as do I, does not render this post hide-worthy
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I say leave it because it is quite obvious the alertist has a biased and hateful agenda.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yeah, well thanks for your concern. But it seems like you merely disagree with the poster.

Looks like a disturbingly large number of DUers do not think advocating male supremacy is a big deal.

[demmiblue]

24. Wow... that is just jaw dropping.

Do you have the comments?

edit: I see you edited. Thanks!

[geek tragedy]

25. edited to add. Several MRAs on the jury. nt

[demmiblue]

27. Yes, indeed there were.

Makes me sick to my stomach...

I wonder if my alert on the other post will produce the same results.

[CharlotteVale]

26. That's disturbing. If this post isn't considered hideworthy -

WTF is?!?

[gollygee]

29. Alerter has a biased and hateful agenda?

WTF? Women's autonomy is not hateful, and I'd hope everyone here would be biased toward women's reproductive rights.

[geek tragedy]

34. The MRAs view everything upside down. nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

184. that one really blew me away too.

Creep likes his anonymity.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. More likely they wanted everyone to have a turn tearing him a new one.

[geek tragedy]

38. At least two indicated agreement. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. Which two comments are you seeing that?

[geek tragedy]

47. the anger and hostility towards someone objecting to male supremacism was startling

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you cannot handle dissenting opinions get off the discussion boards and go back to your basement

..

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I say leave it because it is quite obvious the alertist has a biased and hateful agenda.

..

Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yeah, well thanks for your concern. But it seems like you merely disagree with the poster.

Keep in mind this person was stating that a man should be able to get a court order to force a woman to get an abortion, or force her to carry a fetus to term. Because of his rights to control her uterus.

"Her body, his choice" is trolling on a progressive, 21st century message board.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

51. They say the alerter overreacted. That's not agreeing.

[geek tragedy]

56. They did not say overreact, they said stuff like it was "biased and hateful" to

alert on the post.

And that people who object to misogyny being peddled should move into their parents' basement.

But, hey, just 'social issues' right, women's human rights should be considered freely negotiable and debatable at DU. Because civil rights aren't a core issue here.

Heck, maybe we should start a discussion as to when it's okay for men to beat their wives. I'm sure that jury would have upheld it as well.

Far too typical at DU.

That's the reason misogynists, racists and homophobes feel too comfortable here. Their views are accepted as legitimate.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

80. LOL! No, the one said the alerter should grow a spine....

I suppose if they said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" you would claim they want to set fire to people or put women in the kitchen.

[geek tragedy]

84. I get it. Some people think that misogyny and arguing against women's civil rights

are perfectly appropriate arguments to make on a progressive message board.

Which is why misogynists and sexists feel perfectly at home here. Why wouldn't they, when they're told that there's nothing objectionable to arguing that a man acquires property interests in a woman's uterus when he gets her pregnant?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

89. Do you believe this place should be an oasis?

[geek tragedy]

90. Yes. There should be at least one progressive discussion board on the internet

where we don't get bombarded with the same rightwing shit that gets peddled at Fox News, st0rmfr0nt, Free Republic, Drudge, A Voice for Men, the Family Research Council, and Discussionist.

This place is worthless if the bigots and the wingnuts are allowed to parade through her excreting their filth.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

104. Some of these people aren't "bigots and wingnuts"...

Not EVERY Liberal who came here during the Bush Years was for the idea of gay marriage when they arrived and have since changed their views. There are Liberals on here that need the same in their views on women.

A few are guys that went through a messy divorce.

[seabeyond]

106. yes. our MRA dems. we recognize them. nt

[geek tragedy]

110. Misogyny is bigotry, and advocating sexism makes a person a sexist.

Men go through messy divorces? Well, so do an equal number of women.

That's not an excuse for bigotry or sexism.

Maybe we should have some folks who support Scott Walker's union-busting and see how many people make excuses for them.

"Oh, he had a bad experience with a union plumber."

Horse puckey.

[seabeyond]

116. kinda like, a gay once patted me on the ass, so homophobia is ok. or a black person

wasnt nice to me so i am free to be a racist.

dontcha know.

[geek tragedy]

120. no one's immune from having racist/misogynist etc thoughts

Impossible to grow up in this culture and not absorb some of that.

But, that doesn't mean people should be saying that shit.

Excusing expressions of bigotry is condoning bigotry.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

167. Attacking someone is not the best way to get them to take up the cause....

BTW: Just so you know, the ERA was one of the first campaigns where I stuffed envelopes and made phone calls to state legislatures.

[seabeyond]

168. not "nice enough" to be rewarded with pro choice support? nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

174. Probably because I didn't look for problems that aren't there.

[geek tragedy]

171. Men who think women's bodies are their property are not persuadeables

They're just assholes.

This is all I have to say to them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026625712

[Spitfire of ATJ]

175. Which is why many of them vote Republican.

[geek tragedy]

176. They vote Republican because they're sexist assholes who fit in with that

party's sexist, asshole identity and agenda.

They are not persuadeable. They are just assholes.

It is not the fault of liberals that sexist assholes vote their beliefs.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

177. Nobody said it was.

[Arugula Latte]

258. Anyone who says gay marriage should be illegal gets the boot here.

Yet anti-choice, misogynistic assholes are allowed to stay.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

259. IF that's what they are.

[brooklynite]

39. I have to stand by the Jury...

...I give full decision making power to the woman in a pregnancy case. HOWEVER, with respect to the alert, I have to concur. There is nothing offensive or over the top in the post. Alerts don't exist to protect you from ideas you disagree with.

[geek tragedy]

40. So, stating that men have a property interest in a woman's body is not offensive?

Opposing women's right to make their own medical decisions is not offensive?

Stating that a man should be able to get a court order to force a woman to get an abortion if he doesn't want to pay child support is not offensive?

Up next: why telling black people that cops should be able to shoot them on sight is not offensive or over the top.

[brooklynite]

42. Offensive? Perhaps. Who said you had the right not to be offended?

I might suggest that availing oneself of the Courts doesn't quite equal shooting someone, but perhaps you see things differently.

[geek tragedy]

43. So, Holocaust denial should be ok here?

Birtherism as well, presumably.

Why not recruitment posters for the KKK?

Keep in mind that this wasn't a "pro-life" argument.

It was an argument based explicitly on the man's right to control the woman's uterus, not in protecting 'life' of an 'unborn child.'

It was naked male supremacism.

If we're going to allow rightwing horseshit here, why not just go to Discussionist?

[brooklynite]

48. Swinging for the fences, I see...

...if you review the jury results, every comment was limited to "this is a reasonably presented argument".

[geek tragedy]

50. Point 1: You're stating a falsehood, several of the comments were outraged

that such a post would ever be alerted on.

Point 2: So, if a person "reasonably presents" an argument for reintroducing slavery in America's inner cities, that should be allowed.

David Irving's work is often superficially "reasonably presented."

I guess the question is whether some views are so abhorrent and inconsistent with being a civilized, non-cave-dwelling person of the modern world that they are per se trolling.

Also, note that the person's later deleted post confirmed that it was driven by seething misogyny--as those who read the first post could see was obviously the case.

[niyad]

105. there is absolutely NOTHING "reasonable" about proudly proclaiming that MEN have a right to

control WOMEN'S bodies, period.

[brooklynite]

121. Could you point out the words that "proudly" proclaim that?

[geek tragedy]

127. so it's okay to advocate male supremacism so long as it's done humbly?

Or are you just engaging in semantic quibbles to make DU a safe place for raging misogynists?

[LanternWaste]

129. How precisely do you measure a valid analogy as "swinging at the fences?"

How precisely do you measure a valid analogy as "swinging at the fences?" Or (and I find this more likely) is it simply a bumper-sticker to cover up a lack of any real relevance?

[treestar]

165. It wasn't rude

and that could be what some of the jurors thought.

But some views are bright lines. We can disagree on some things, but there are some positions on issues that just don't fly. We could argue about the TPP. Not sure about being anti-choice. I think that may be permitted here, not sure. But then there is a difference between "pro life" and "men should have a say." That seems extreme.

[PeaceNikki]

169. A woman's right to choose is clearly defined in our Democratic Party Platform and objections to it

ought to be banworthy. They just should be. Objections to gay marriage and choice should be uncompromising positions of any Democrat.

[geek tragedy]

179. this is way, way worse than the normal anti-choice stuff.

At least that is grounded in some alleged concern for another 'human life' in the form of the fetus.

This one is exclusively based in male supremacism.

To the point they think a man should be able to go to court to force a woman to not only carry a child to term, but also to abort the fetus if that's what the man wants.

It's pure sexism and misogyny.

[PeaceNikki]

180. Solid point.

No, it wasn't "rude", it was viscerally offensive.

[etherealtruth]

182. No shit ... this is SICK!

[seabeyond]

53. anti choice on a democractic progressive board should be TOS.

[geek tragedy]

57. advocating both forced birth and forced abortion.

Based solely on the man's property rights over a woman's uterus if he impregnates her.

[PeaceNikki]

61. yes. it's in the Democratic Platform.

[brooklynite]

62. That would be Skinner's decision, rather than yours or mine...

[geek tragedy]

70. but, your opinion is that sexism, misogyny, racism, homophobia, transphobia

should all be freely allowed at DU, so long as it's "reasonably presented"

What do you think merits exclusion from the discourse here--promoting NAMBLA? Doing fundraising for Ted Cruz?

What's your standard?

[DURHAM D]

82. To be fair -

the admin have stated zero tolerance for racism, homophobia and transphobia but not for the other two.

[geek tragedy]

85. Well, that's been honored in the breach.

Juries ignore the TOS anyways.

[DURHAM D]

91. The TOS does not clearly cover sexism.

The admin have been asked to fix it several times but have never responded except to say it is up to the jury (good ole community standards) and the jury instructions (TOS language) is muddled. The language of DU2 was better and more easily understood but not DU3.

As you know, when minority and women's rights are left to a jury the minorities and women always lose. No surprise there.

But putting that aside, the admin have taken the additional step of stating zero tolerance for the other isms on your list, just not for the women who make up 52 to 56% of those who vote Democrats into office.

[geek tragedy]

93. I'm aware of that failing, but seeing as how the TOS has been effectively revoked

when it comes to jury decisions, I guess I don't pay it as much heed.

The site's content policies come down to lowest common denominator with a few admin bans for particularly egregious offenders.

On the plus side, though, I have seen several pigs getting banned as 'misogynists'

[one_voice]

102. Yes it does...

No bigoted hate speech.

Do not post bigotry based on someone's race or ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or lack thereof, disability, or other comparable personal characteristic. To be clear: This includes any post which states opposition to full equal rights for gays and lesbians; it also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood. In determining what constitutes bigotry, please be aware that we cannot know what is in anyone's heart, and we will give members the benefit of the doubt, when — and only when — such doubt exists.

It doesn't specifically say racism, homophobia, etc either...it's covered above.

[DURHAM D]

115. Perhaps you missed my other commentss.

Because the TOS is not very clear the admin have stated "zero tolerance" for racism, trans and homophobia. They do not leave it up to juries. They remove posters in violation of their stated zero tolerance policy.

They have made no such statement for zero tolerance as regards sexism. Occasionally they remove a particularly awful poster but look around, DU is full of MRAers. They are what they are and they are here. They are in this thread.

[one_voice]

125. Ah, no I saw them, I misunderstood...

I read them differently. I understand what you're saying now.

[Humanist_Activist]

240. I wasn't aware of this, zero tolerance for racism, transphobia and homphobia? That doesn't...

appear to be true, especially since, well, ever. It'd be nice if they treated members as a community to be fostered, at this point, I think we are just considered a cash cow to be milked for ad or donation revenue. They leave everything up to Juries unless MIRT is involved, but only with newbies.

[CharlotteVale]

64. Why isn't it? Is this a Democratic party affiliated board or not?

[DURHAM D]

73. Ask the guys who own the place. nt

[seabeyond]

63. hosts are constantly locking what they deem meta, with women issues. i would like a list of hosts.

that are making these decisions.

too obvious and in the face, whereas any other issue stands.

[SidDithers]

66. That was a bad, bad lock...nt

Sid

[seabeyond]

67. i have seen it too many times not to be obvious and hosts names are connected

to the locks. not that we have a clue how much discussion, or who are in these discussions, for us to blindly trust and not see patterns.

[seabeyond]

69. MRA talking points claim a win. nt

[Laffy Kat]

143. Yep.

Cannot eff-ing believe it.

[PeaceNikki]

101. Yes it was.

[DURHAM D]

76. Yep. nt

[one_voice]

107. i would like a list of hosts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1002

Just click on 'about this forum' and the lists of host will be there---same hosts for all the forums.

[seabeyond]

114. "maintain a 100% chance of serving on a jury." star, no hides, no posting on OPs. no blocking people

one loses the 100% chance of serving on a jury if they block or post in a thread with an alert.

he means, must have star and no hides, correct?

thank you for providing the list.

[one_voice]

118. Yes...no hides...

and you have to have a star.

We've lost hosts that have gotten a hide while hosting. We have to behave.

We can post OPs and post in threads. I'm not sure about blocking people--you mean ignore right? I never put anyone on ignore so I don't know.

[gollygee]

124. What?

You don't go below 100% for posting in a thread where someone else has had an alert. I don't know what you mean by "blocking" but it isn't ignoring because I've had people on my ignore list, and I think have someone now, and I'm at 100%.

[seabeyond]

130. it stated you had to be at a 100% to serve jury. at zero of serving

if in the OP or have the person on ignore.

i guess it is the number 100%, not that one has 100% chance of serving.

[enlightenment]

131. Had I been on that jury,

I wouldn't have voted to hide - and I disagree with the poster 110%.

Argue it, refute it, ridicule it, ignore it - but hide it? No. We can't sterilize our lives, so why try to sterilize the board? Hiding posts like this is the equivalent of sticking fingers in ears and singing "lalala, I can't hear you." What was written was ridiculous and backward, but it wasn't hate speech. Trying to disappear opinions we don't like isn't the way to combat them.

Just my opinion, of course.

[geek tragedy]

133. I guess the question is where does the line get drawn, where advocacy is per se trolling

no matter how purportedly politely or 'reasonably' the argument gets made?

[enlightenment]

142. That's a good question.

I'm not a huge fan of the broad use of "trolling" - any behavior definition that becomes too broad decreases the usefulness of the term, and "to troll" used to have a much more specific meaning. Nor am I big on drawing too many lines in the sand, especially since they tend to encourage people to cross them. When it comes to hot-button issues, I prefer the case-by-case approach, rather than one-size-fits-all/my country, love it or leave it/if you ain't wi' us, yer agin' us response.

That's a general concern; in this specific case, I suppose it comes down to how outrage and offense are viewed. The older I get, the harder it is to push my buttons, so when I read things like that tripe, I'm more inclined to inwardly sigh and perhaps mutter "idiot" than find myself firing off an impassioned rebuttal.

It's not that I don't care. I do. I just don't get as heated as I used to get and that changes my perception of what equals "offensive". On a fundamental level, the concepts the poster stated (not to mention the pathetically poor grasp of human reproduction) are very irritating in their ignorance and positioning . . . but they are also just one person's opinion. (Now, in that poster's case, it is probably also one more nail in the coffin of their registration on this site - but for the moment, it's just a fringe minority opinion.)

If the OP was an article talking about pending legislation, I'd be much more concerned - what it is, though, is just another of the loony-right taking the opportunity of the current climate of repressiveness to display just how ridiculous they are. Given that it is just another loony-tunes moment, it is unsurprising that there are people out there who agree - and equally unsurprising that one shows up on DU.

Given that, I would, as a juror, be left with not a lot more than the TOS (vague on this issue) - and it would remain.

I do understand why you alerted, though.

[geek tragedy]

144. Thanks for the very thoughtful reply.

Cheers.

[enlightenment]

148. Thank you for the brief conversation!

Ta.

[geek tragedy]

150. I've been anything but brief in this thread.

[enlightenment]

153. True . . .

but our conversation was brief.
It's fun to get engaged full-out sometimes - enjoy!

[seabeyond]

161. except you are saying MRA talking points fine on du. is KKK talking points? rw talking points? nt

[enlightenment]

188. No, seabeyond,

that isn't what I'm saying - and you know that. Carry on with the hyperbole without me, okay? I've got to go find my kitty with the draining abscess - he needs his hot compress . . .

and on edit: figure out why the "t" on my keyboard is acting up.

[seabeyond]

189. what a cop out. that is pure MRA talking point. why are they allowed on du for discussion, not KKK

or Rw talking points.

simple enough question. i do nto get it. other women do not get why MRA talking points get a pass.

[enlightenment]

192. Okay (the cat is where I thought he was

and the compress is heating . . .)

Read - actually read - what I said. In no way did I suggest that MRA talking points get a pass. I said they should be addressed, not hidden because you don't like to look at them. That is juvenile - seriously. It's what little kids do.

It didn't get hidden and surprise - people dealt with it. People including you, so I don't know why you insist on setting your hair on fire and driving away others who actually agree with you on the principle idea that the things the poster said are inane, illogical, and counter to progressive ideology.

We're not going to agree on whether or not it's hate speech (see my response to niyad), either, but we do agree on the principle, so I am puzzled why you think I'm carrying water for the MRA. I didn't say what you seem to think I said, which means one of three things:
- that you didn't actually read it
- that you only accept lock-step agreement with your personal position
- that you are incapable of reasoned discussion and only seek to slam your big stick around regardless of what was said

I don't really care which one it is at this point. If you want to get into a pissing match, find someone else.

[seabeyond]

198. a pass. not hidden. so we allow KKK and rw talking points get a pass. not hidden, too?

[kcr]

213. Respectfully, that is giving them a pass.

There are plenty of places on the internet to address MRA talking points if one wishes to do so. It would be nice to have a place to not have to deal with them. Democratic Underground used to be such a place.

[bettyellen]

265. That is giving them a pass. And yes- his opinions are equally sick and disturbing as anything the KK

KKK have to say.
It makes me sick to think its okay here. Many seems to be able to even imagine how horrid those ideas are, likely because they will never have to cope with people trying to control their penises. Thanks to all the thoughtless members for allowing DU to be a hostile environment for women.

[boston bean]

185. When will people get that it is never polite or reasonable

to advocate for men, judges, politicians to control womens bodies.

End of fucking argument!

Really, this needs to be said???? I applaud your responses in the thread and just am adding my two cents.

[geek tragedy]

186. as long as it needs to be said, we'll have to be here saying it.

even though it feels like a zombie movie at some points.

[niyad]

141. sorry, but it was, in fact, hate speech--hatred against women's autonomy and control

over their own bodies.

but the responders did a fine job of dealing with that particular poster.

[enlightenment]

147. I don't agree

but I also don't use the currently very broad definition of "hate speech" that is popular on discussion boards because I think it muddies the water. I prefer the legal definition.
People say hateful things all the time - but they don't always reach the bar for hate speech. The poster was offering their opinion, which, however backward and warped, was not advocating or inciting violence.

I do agree - and support - the responses that particular poster received. Those responders did do a fine job.

[bettyellen]

273. Fuck having to "do a fine job"'responding to the idea women are chattel.

[Hekate]

146. Who the hell ARE these people? I hope they're proud enough to tell us who they are.

Forcibly stopping myself from saying what I really think of their comments.

[niyad]

166. I would imagine we have a pretty good idea who at least some of them are.

[etherealtruth]

155. astounding and sickening

[uppityperson]

191. why do jurors write insulting remarks? Shame on those who do.

[awoke_in_2003]

194. another example

why the jury system blows.

[bettyellen]

200. Please alert on that jurist. Sick stuff!

[seabeyond]

49. this means, you are anti choice. on du.

[geek tragedy]

52. Her body, his choice. But that is not offensive or over the top.

Because we can all agree to disagree on whether women are human beings with human rights.

Because, freedom.

[DURHAM D]

68. As you know that is no big deal here.

The admin have never announced zero tolerance for sexism like they have for racism and homophobia and skinner has said that it is okay to be anti-choice.

[DURHAM D]

54. Here is my answer -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6625457

[Starry Messenger]

65. "A child is 50% sperm and 50% egg."

Uh--what stuff do you think goes into the actual growth of a fetus while it develops for 9 mos? Hint: it isn't sperm.

[KMOD]

81. I really hope this gets answered by the OP

fascinating.

[Liberal_in_LA]

94. no way. it is her body

[Kelvin Mace]

96. Barring abuse

if the woman is in an ongoing relationship, then I feel she has a moral obligation to discuss her decision. But the decision is ultimately 100% her's and her's alone, since it is HER body and HER risk.

[PeaceNikki]

135. And we do. The title in your reply is specifically why we should never ever be compelled to.

I was married to an abuser who did intentionally get me pregnant. If the law required I get his sign off, I'd probably be dead.

[Kelvin Mace]

139. Agreed,

and again, the obligation is merely a moral one and NEVER a legal one. Once a person abuses a woman, ALL obligations are null and void.

[PeaceNikki]

140. Parental notification laws are awful for the same reason.

[REP]

97. Oh that's adorable

I'm not going to pretend your "arguments" have any merit, because they don't.

Don't want the sad boner of an abortion? Don't knock anyone up. You're welcome!

Enjoy your stay.

[niyad]

100. BECAUSE IT IS NOT HIS BODY AT RISK!!! he is not going to risk gestational diabetes, stroke,

or countless other complications, including DEATH. and, since this greatest country in the world ranks about 50th in maternal mortality. . .

so, the short answer is NO, he does NOT get a say. if he doesn't want the risk of paying child support, there is a short, simple answer. get it snipped, or keep it zipped.

[notadmblnd]

123. it's been my experience that men are usually involved in the decision

and that many of them choose to bail. Hence, the epidemic of absentee fathers.

I feel certain that most all women let the sperm donor know that they are pregnant and when they find out, they accuse her of fucking someone else, deny they could possibly be the father and head for the hills.

[ohheckyeah]

151. It may be

50% each sperm and egg but it resides 100% in the woman's body. When men carry the fetus for 4 1/2 months he can have more of a say.

[hifiguy]

170. Are you SURE you're on the right board?

I'd mull that question over if I were you.

[spanone]

183. well i disagree 1000% with you.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[awoke_in_2003]

193. Absolutely, 100%

WRONG. The man doesn't have to carry the thing for 9 months. Just wondering, do you come in pairs?

[uppityperson]

195. you are wrong with a lot of that

A child is nor 50% sperm 50% egg. The genes are but the child is not. One sperm is tiny, nowhere near 1/2 of every a week old embryo.

The female takes all the risks associated with pregnancy, the male gets his 30 second of joy and is done. No 50/50 there.

You say a woman on drugs is unfit to be a parent so should have no say in whether or not to have an abortion or continue being pregnant? Seriously???

As far as child support, you are wrong. BOTH parents are financially responsible, not just the father.

[craigmatic]

205. I agree with you.

[Ilsa]

217. Pregnancy changes a woman's body. Forever.

I'm not talking about shape, either. As Joe woukd say, it's a big fucking deal to be pregnant and give birth. It can also be dangerous.

I think your ideas about judges and men having any say on abortion are fucked up beyond belief.

[nadinbrzezinski]

218. By the time the judge gets to the final decision

the kid will be on his way to kindergarden.

This would be somewhat between family court and civil court, neither of which are known to be speedy.

And I am not going to the rest of your post...

[MH1]

231. 100% dependent on the woman's body, 0% involved with the father's body.

He wants a kid so bad, work something out with a woman who wants to be his incubator. (presumably for a price)

[eridani]

239. Childbirth is 100% labor by the mother

A father gets to override a mother's decision only if the is willing to have the embryo implanted and carry the pregnancy to term themselves.

[Bettie]

249. So, you advocate

women's bodies being under the control of their sexual partners and ultimately a male dominated court system.

Got it.

Her body, her choice.

In a functional relationship, there would probably be a discussion of options, but ultimately, it is a woman's body that bears the weight of pregnancy and birth. The risks are all the woman's because it all happens in her body.

Giving someone else power over her body reduces her to a second class citizen or an incubator.

No, men shouldn't have "equal voice" in the matter.

[Arugula Latte]

255. Yeah, grow a uterus and then get back to us.

Until then, you can shove it.

[vankuria]

261. Judge deciding?

For real? What if one or both of the parties involved have no money to take this to court? Since the woman has to carry the child, go through labor and delivery and what ever risks come with the pregnancy, she decides 100%

[vankuria]

264. A judge should decide?

Seriously? Then that could also mean a woman could be forced to abort if the man is totally against her having his child.

[treestar]

6. Men have breast milk?

He is overlooking the fact that a woman doesn't even have to tell the man she's pregnant. He would have to propose some type of system where the women were forced to name the father and everyone was forced to do dNA tests to prove it - are they even possible that early in the pregnancy?

[one_voice]

46. Couldn't help but think of this...

[treestar]

136. LOL

[KamaAina]

11. Ex-DUer bicentennial_baby used to have to serve him

at a restaurant in his home town in Mass.

[MineralMan]

13. Dude should wear a sign around his neck, reading:

MRA Asshole

That should cut down on unwanted pregnancies where he was the male involved.

[geek tragedy]

30. So should at least one participant in this discussion. See above, and below nt

[Hekate]

154. Works for me

[Trillo]

14. Actually, men already have that power, in most cases

Don't inseminate women: You just vetoed the possibility of an abortion.

[Hekate]

157. Vasectomy is favorite for me. Then the guy with the attitude can keep all his little swimmers...

...to himself.

[frylock]

17. go back to your MRA cave

[LanternWaste]

20. If you'd rather not donate sperm, simply ensure it by avoiding sex.

If you'd rather not donate sperm, simply ensure it by avoiding sex.

Al else is rationalizing the irrational.

[gollygee]

21. A woman gets 100% choice over the pregnancy because she's the one who is pregnant

But if there's a kid, both parents have a responsibility.

[MadrasT]

23. If you are unwilling to be a father...

Keep your sperm away from impregnating anyone. Problem solved.

[geek tragedy]

28. Your misogyny is showing, and it is as ugly as it is hateful and irrational.

Proof that some so-called liberals are horrible on the issue of gender equality.

P.S. Child support is for the benefit of the child, whose welfare you clearly do not care about, as you view custody and upbringing as just an opportunity to wallow in self-pitying anger at the women you so clearly hate.

[demmiblue]

36. I'll just stick this here, if anyone is curious:

newmexicodem (25 posts)
16. Goose and gander

If we want to go with the child is an organ of the mother fine. I support giving the mother 100% choice and free will. Don't include the father in the birth certificate or as a legal responsible party

9 months later I don't want a bill or be given Order to Show Causes because my input in the child upbringing is ignored. I'm not compensated for my sperm donation so why should she be compensated for full custodial rights and my monthly check that Human Services levies on my bank account when I know that it isn't spent on the child but her own personal spending habits.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It isn't fair that I only get to see my kid every other weekend and that if I want to take them on a summer vacation I need to get the permission of the court. BS!

If the mother is given 100% free will choice and society trusts that it is her choice to make, then she should be in a position to make sure she choose the responsible sperm donor as well without running to a court to make him pay bills

[geek tragedy]

41. gotta love the men who think they deserve to be paid for ejaculating.

I'm not compensated for my sperm donation

Note that if a man doesn't want to support his child, well that's actually the woman's fault too.

[seabeyond]

58. textbook MRA argement. no control over woman, dont have to pay child support. nt

[Trillo]

145. Polyandry?

I saw that post earlier, and was thinking about it instead of some gut level response. I came back after I wondered if he might prefer a different family structure entirely. Bolding added by me.

Polyandry (/ˈpɒliˌændri, ˌpɒliˈæn-/; from Greek: πολυ- poly-, "many" and ἀνήρ anēr, "man&quot is a form of polygamy whereby a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time. Polyandry is contrasted with polygyny, involving one male and two or more females. Polyandry is also distinct from group marriages that involve a plural number of participants of each gender. In its broadest use, polyandry refers to sexual relations with multiple males within or without marriage.

Of the 1,231 societies listed in the 1980 Ethnographic Atlas, 186 were found to be monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.[1] Polyandry is less rare than this figure which listed only those examples found in the Himalayan mountains (28 societies). More recent studies have found more than 50 other societies practicing polyandry.[2]

Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced among Tibetans in Nepal, parts of China and part of northern India, in which two or more brothers are married to the same wife, with the wife having equal "sexual access" to them. It is most common in egalitarian societies marked by high male mortality or male absenteeism. It is associated with partible paternity, the cultural belief that a child can have more than one father.[2]

Polyandry is believed to be more likely in societies with scarce environmental resources, as it is believed to limit human population growth and enhance child survival.[3] It is a rare form of marriage that exists not only among poor families, but also the elite.[4] For example, polyandry in the Himalayan mountains is related to the scarcity of land; the marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and undivided. If every brother married separately and had children, family land would be split into unsustainable small plots. In Europe, this was prevented through the social practice of impartible inheritance (i.e. disinheriting most siblings, many of whom then became celibate monks and priests).[5]

more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo_women

[treestar]

187. accusing mothers of spending child support money on themselves

that's a classic. Always the sign of MRA.

[unblock]

32. if i understand your post properly, you admit being an irresponsible sperm donor.

who wouldn't pay bills regarding your own child were it not for a court order.

i appreciate for your candor, it's refreshing.

[Initech]

33. So how is this guy still a doctor?

[3catwoman3]

37. Dr. "I-blow" may...

...be a psychiatrist, but it seems he also needs one.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. "If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament" - Bumper sticker I saw.

[niyad]

112. from the incredible, amazing, florynce kennedy.

[one_voice]

113. And available 24 hrs a day on...

any corner and the kiosks at the malls.

[hifiguy]

173. And right next to the drive-thru ammo shop/liquor store.

[MADem]

55. If he wants that men be able to make reproductive choices for women, then he'd better agree

that women be permitted to make reproductive choices for males.

I wonder which ladies would like to join the committee to decide which men will have to get their mandatory vasectomies and geldings?

Is this guy on that list, I wonder?

[craigmatic]

59. There's no good answers on the issue.

It's not right for a woman to have an abortion when a guy really wants the child and is ready to take care of it. On the other hand it's also not right to have a baby and the guy flat out tells you he's not going to be there for it even if he used protection and you think it's going to make him stay. It's not right to have a bunch of kids you can't afford to game the system. It's not right to have a series of abortions. I'm pro-choice generally but if you're part of a couple you need to make good co-decisions when it comes to this stuff.

[CharlotteVale]

71. There most certainly is a good answer.

Woman's body.

Woman's choice.

[MineralMan]

72. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It's the woman's choice.

If the man want to get pregnant and carry a child to term, then he can try that. My suggestion is that he attempt to impregnate himself as often as he wishes.

[craigmatic]

203. So 1 person should have 100% sole decision making authority over whether 2 people have a child?

Maybe you and the rest of the posters below don't get that I didn't say anything about force. I meant after much discussion between the two people involved in said hypothetical relationships in my comments above. I'm for equality yes women generally have the right to do what they want with their own bodies true enough but it is still not fair for the man to not have at least a little input into a decision that would affect his future too.

[PeaceNikki]

207. Yes.

Oh, it's "not fair"?

Too fucking bad. It's "not fair" that we are the ones who would have to risk or life and health to carry to term and deliver

[polly7]

210. Women don't just 'generally' have the right to do what they want with their own bodies ...

they have the sole right.

[craigmatic]

212. If what you were saying was 100% true then they wouldn't have drug possession laws.

[polly7]

214. Pardon?

Sorry, I'm not following you.

[PeaceNikki]

216. I think we've got ourselves a libertarian.

[polly7]

219. I think if he wants a child so bad that he would force a woman to carry one to term

he should probably look into adopting, because I don't see many women wanting to be with anyone who believes women only generally have a right to their own decisions.

[PeaceNikki]

220. I have no doubt that is only one of many "red flags" about that dude.

I'm sure he's a real dudebro though.

[polly7]

221. Probably true! I'm very glad most men don't believe the same things. nt.

[craigmatic]

233. Wow strawman much?

[polly7]

235. No, not at all. nt.

[craigmatic]

229. I don't belive in the free market enough to be libertarian and on this issue the

average libertarian would agree more with you than me.

[PeaceNikki]

230. Not true. Libraterians are total misogynists.

[craigmatic]

224. My point was that there is no such thing as total freedom. There are laws and limits on things you

can do.

[polly7]

226. A woman is breaking no law by controlling what happens with her own body.

Of course she has that 'total freedom' the same way you do not to have someone use you as a kidney/bone marrow/blood donor, etc. against your wishes. Sounds stupid, expecting any sane person to willingly give up that right, doesn't it? Pregnancy is a medical issue between a woman and her physician.

[PeaceNikki]

227. But, but, but HIS SPERM IS IN THERE!!!!!111!

[polly7]

228. LOL. That is what it seems to be what it's all about. nt.

[MineralMan]

243. Not "generally." Always.

There are no exceptions to the right to control their own reproductive decisions.

[PassingFair]

247. How about she has an abortion and sends you the tissue in a box?

Fair?

Guess what. Her body, her choice.

[craigmatic]

251. cool we can make soup. I'm glad you know your slogans that helps

[bettyellen]

266. It's not fair a woman risks her life to bear the baby....

But that's exactly why it is not fair to consider anyone but her own judgement on the matter.

[ScreamingMeemie]

268. He does. At that moment when he decides to take off his pants. There's his shot at making

a decision right there.

[seabeyond]

74. so you are anti choice, also? you cannot say you are pro choice, when your words say anti choice.

[craigmatic]

250. Sure you can you can e pro-choice and still go back and re-examine the issue. That's all I'm doing

we need to keep questioning what we believe or else it gets boring and we become just like the republicans.

[seabeyond]

252. no. not true. nt

[etherealtruth]

263. You are re-examining whether women are autonomous beings with equal rights ....?

Seriously?

[bettyellen]

267. It's "boring" to decisively conclude women should control their own bodies?? WTF dude? Shitty

Regressive bullshit, just WOW.

[99Forever]

270. Alert results:

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This guy is beyond offensive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed May 6, 2015, 03:29 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see what is offensive in the post you alerted on. Maybe the alert is on the wrong post?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: pffftt
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post stupid as hell? Yes. Should it be removed? No. It's not attacking anyone. It's an opinion I happen to disagree with, but it's still just an opinion. We should fire all of our ammunition (words) back at the poster.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a valid point,not mine , but isn't rude or over the top .
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why was this even alerted upon? Because the poster had the audacity to disagree with you? The alerter should be given a hide for trying to misuse the jury system.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[gollygee]

75. It's perfect right for a woman to have an abortion

any time she wants an abortion. Only she has the choice whether or not to take on the risks of pregnancy and childbirth.

[PeaceNikki]

77. Oh, ffs.... Your post is filled with RW and MRA rhetoric. Are you on the correct site?

[geek tragedy]

86. Jury kept this one too. 3-4.

Sadly, the truth of the matter is that misogyny is not considered objectionable by a very large number of people here.

[geek tragedy]

79. Could you be any more rightwing and misogynist?

It's not right for a woman to have an abortion when a guy really wants the child and is ready to take care of it.

Her body, HER choice. Not her body, his choice. If you disagree, you belong at Free Republic, not DU.

On the other hand it's also not right to have a baby and the guy flat out tells you he's not going to be there for it even if he used protection and you think it's going to make him stay.

Her body, HER choice. Not her body, his choice. If you disagree, you belong at Free Republic, not DU.

It's not right to have a bunch of kids you can't afford to game the system.

Take your Ronald Reagan-inspired "welfare queen" idiocy and shove it. Disgusting.

It's not right to have a series of abortions.

Her body, HER choice. Not her body, your choice. No one gives a f@ck what you think.

I'm pro-choice generally but if you're part of a couple you need to make good co-decisions when it comes to this stuff.

You are not pro-choice. You are a male-supremacist who thinks the man's wants and wishes trump a woman's basic human rights. And you peddle rightwing misogynist garbage.

[alphafemale]

196. Yeah. He did actually seem to imply that a woman should be forced to abort.

If the MAN does not want the baby.

Misogyny big time.

[craigmatic]

202. Actually I meant the man would get to sign away his rights and not have to support it.

[alphafemale]

204. How about you only have sex with people with your 1959 mindset?

okay?

[craigmatic]

206. Really 1959 mindset just because I don't automatically assume one person should make life choices

for 3 people without at least a little discussion first? A real 1959 mindset would say that there should never be legal abortion ever.

[PeaceNikki]

208. Women generally do discuss with their partners, they just shouldn't be legally compelled to.

Women aren't monsters. We're people.

[craigmatic]

211. I never called anybody a monster. I just said more conversation was needed.

The gist of my argument is this- if 2 people made it then both should make a decision.

[PeaceNikki]

215. Women generally do discuss with their partners, they just shouldn't be legally compelled to.

If they don't involve their partners, it's usually for good reason. If you have a relationship with someone and you don't think she would involve you in a discussion about pregnancy and that's important to you, don't stick your dick there.

The end.

[craigmatic]

222. If they don't involve their partners, it's usually for good reason. You don't think there's anything

wrong with that statement? If the government doesn't tell people it did something it's probably for a good reason. No conversation, openness, and discussion is a good thing. Sorry you don't agree.

[polly7]

223. The only 'reason' needs to be, the woman does not choose to carry a child to term. Period.

What injustices (and yes, forced pregnancy is an injustice) would you allow to be forced upon your body specifically against your wishes? Can you name one?

[PeaceNikki]

225. No, I don't. And it's sick that you do.

For the third fucking time: women generally do discuss it with their partners and if they don't it's for good reason.

Don't fuck people you don't trust to have such discussions with you if that is something you value.

How hard is that to understand?

[craigmatic]

232. Ok don't fuck people you don't trust good advice.

Yes most would discuss it and that's good too but people don't always do things in secret for a good reason.

[PeaceNikki]

234. Then I revert back to: tough shit.

The very few possibly "nefarious" cases to which you refer should not put abused women at risk.

So.. TOUGH SHIT, CHIEF. Your need for control will harm women and you don't give a fuck.

I do.

[craigmatic]

236. I care about EVERYBODY concerned and you refuse to accept nuance.

Debating with you is pointless therefore I bid you good evening.

[PeaceNikki]

237. No, you really don't. I think you think you so, but you don't.

You seem to think it's a huge percentage of women who would hide it from their partner just to be an asshole. I think it's a very very VERY small amount.

That's what I meant by "women are not monsters".

Did some woman hurt your feelings and get an abortion without getting your seal of approval? Guess what, it was probably because you're an asshole and she didn't want to be tied to you for eternity. That's a good reason. Or she felt incredibly strongly about not being ready to be a parent. Also a good reason. Or your relationship was in a really bad place. Good reason. Or maybe she was just an asshole. Whatever it was, move on because ...

The most common reason a woman wouldn't discuss with their partner is abuse. I know. I was there. You've never ever been there: 22 years old with a 5 year-old in a horribly above abusive marriage. Broke as fuck, just getting started in trying to get a career. Trying desperately to figure out how you're going to get the fuck out of this. And pregnant again. Because he poked holes in the condom thinking it would keep you around. He knew you were trying to make yourself better and was flailing.

My story isn't rare.

Yeah... Fuck your need to legally compel us to involve real fucking monsters in that decision. Just fuck it.

[PeaceNikki]

238. In case you need evidence:

Main Findings: The overwhelming majority of women reported that the men with whom they
got pregnant knew about the abortion, and most perceived these men to be supportive.
Cohabiting and, to a lesser extent, married women as well as those in longer relationships were
more likely to report both of these outcomes, even after controlling for demographic
characteristics. Exposure to intimate partner violence by the man involved in the pregnancy,
reported by 7% of abortion patients, substantially reduced the likelihood that women perceived
the men to know about or to be supportive of the abortion.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that most women obtaining abortions are able to rely on male
partners for social support. Education and counseling efforts that incorporate or reach out to male
partners may increase support for women obtaining abortions. However, this strategy may not be
appropriate for all women, especially those exposed to intimate partner violence.

From: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/02/01/&sa=U&ei=-X9JVbqlKuSwsATOzIDgAw&ved=0CAUQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFWTpawz0H0XjcDqhNSEnT7jl8ezw

[geek tragedy]

245. You don't care about the kid. You flat out don't, since your position is that men should

be able to disown the kid and not provide for its needs if it suits their fancy.

You want women to bear ALL of the burden and risks of childraising.

That makes you nothing more than a typical woman-hating MRA.

[Mariana]

253. Both should make a decision?

That sounds wonderful, but what about when that doesn't work? If the two people don't agree, and just can't come to an agreement, then ONE person has to have the final say. And, that's what we have now. One person, the pregnant woman, has the final say.

[craigmatic]

257. I think there some form of mediation for it not necessarily a lawsuit or a law but something.

In practice though I doubt anybody would really care except the woman involved and if they want an abortion nothing can stop them but I still find talking about this and questioning accepted dogmas about this on DU stimulating even if it ruffles people's feathers.

[Mariana]

274. So you think a third party should have the final say?

Do you feel the same way if the situation is that she doesn't want to have an abortion, but he wants her to have one? In that case, are you in favor of "some form of mediation for it not necessarily a lawsuit or a law but something"?

[craigmatic]

275. yes what I said goes for both scenarios.

But only if there's 2 people who've been together for some time (maybe 6 months to a year) would be eligible for this mediation but not rape victims, people who just had a one night stand or weren't in some kind of relationship then a woman's right to choose would be absolute.

[Mariana]

276. I have a better idea.

There is only one person in each these scenarios whose life and health are put at greater risk if the pregnancy is continued than if it is terminated. I think that person should decide.

[PeaceNikki]

282. Women DO overwhelmingly do this already. Women are not monsters.

You are trying to solve a problem that simply DOES NOT EXIST.

I have explained this and given you data.

[Mariana]

286. He wants to make it mandatory.

And then, if the pregnant woman wants to have an abortion - or not have an abortion - and the man doesn't agree then a third party should decide what the woman is going to do.

[PeaceNikki]

287. I know. It's fucking horrifying.

I asked him this with no reply to date:

"Did some woman hurt your feelings and get an abortion without getting your seal of approval? Guess what, it was probably because you're an asshole and she didn't want to be tied to you for eternity. That's a good reason. Or she felt incredibly strongly about not being ready to be a parent. Also a good reason. Or your relationship was in a really bad place. Good reason. Or maybe she was just an asshole. Whatever it was, move on. "

[alphafemale]

209. Your squirt of giz is not equal to a body

Do. You. Comprehend?

[NickB79]

271. Then discuss it before you jump in bed with someone and have unprotected sex

Is someone putting a gun to your head, forcing you to have sex with a woman sans protection?

Don't want to be on the hook for child support? Then take reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy, like any adult should. But once the woman becomes pregnant, your input on the matter drops precipitously, as it should.

[geek tragedy]

244. So the born child's welfare is less important to you than allowing men to be free

from the consequences of their own behavior.

This is typical male supremacist horseshit that you MRAs peddle. It's sickening and has no place here.

[craigmatic]

277. I'm no MRA. They blame feminism and the matriarchy. I realize all of the laws were written by men.

Nobody says what you just said about men about women because they get to choose to be parents or not. It's her body her choice right? I just feel like there should be some type of opt out option because if they're not going to be good fathers then why have them around or pay if they made their intentions clear in the first place? I know there's some shitty people out there but it cuts both ways like that guy who has been locked up and had his wages taken to pay for a child that's not even his after he proved it with a blood test.

[geek tragedy]

278. You are still thinking of the man's interests as

trumping the child's need for clothes, shelter, and food.

Child support is the right of the child.

[craigmatic]

279. the system sucks- there's kids in abusive situations that don't get taken out.

There's people paying for kids that aren't theirs. There's people of both sexes having keep the relationship going babies to trap people. There's people who have kids by celebrities or wealthy people as a way to get their meal ticket. If somebody can stand back from the situation and realize that they're too shitty to be a parent and the other parent still wants the baby let them have it and get some type of government subsidy to take care of it. I'm not saying this should go for all cases but just specific cases where both parents can't agree. Most people probably won't even have need for this but I'm saying if the situation arises some mechanism should be in place.

[LeftOfWest]

283. Yes you are MRA.

you are having it handed to you and you keep digging deeper.

MRA shit.

[craigmatic]

285. I'm not backing away from my own opinions just because they're unpopular here.

[Lars39]

87. A woman is not an interchangeable Lego part for your dick...she could die in childbirth.

[demmiblue]

92. That is quite a turn of phrase! +1

[PeaceNikki]

95. OMG, love it: "A woman is not an interchangeable Lego part for your dick"

[arcane1]

99. Clearly you don't understand what "pro-choice" means.

[REP]

103. Sure there is.

You got them all wrong, though.

When you're pregnant, you get to decide if you stay pregnant or not.

There is no correct number of abortions.

You don't get to choose how many children someone else has.

No one cares about your boner.

[Starry Messenger]

108. You left one out--

What if he is with you and impregnates you as part of his ongoing cycle of domestic abuse, to force you to stay? Because he really wants it, a woman has to endure his beatings throughout her pregnancy, so he can have another chip to use against her?

No good answers there?

[KMOD]

111. ok craig, try this out next time you're in a relationship

that is sexual. Tell the woman you are with that should she get pregnant, you would like to force her to keep the child.

Or tell her that should she get pregnant, you want nothing to do with it.

Good luck and happy dating.

[niyad]

117. HER BODY, HER CHOICE, PERIOD.

I see that all the usual woman-hating, pro-forced birth, gestational slaver talking points were included.

[seabeyond]

122. not all. he may have had a messy divorce or two. so allowed to be misogynist. (another poster

stated that one up above)

[niyad]

126. oh dear goddess, I missed that one!!

[Warren DeMontague]

119. The "good answer" is for people to worry about the one body attached to their neck

and let other people be in charge of the decisions pertaining to theirs, instead of second-guessing and sitting in judgment.

[MADem]

181. Oh yes there is--and it's a simple one. Not YOUR uterus? Not YOUR business.

Not your genetic material? Then you have no "right" to it. If you don't want your genetic material to be used to create a baby, then don't deposit it where it might meet an egg and attach to a uterus, because at that point, the horse has left the barn and the uterus owner is the controlling authority.

The minute you start messing around with the reproductive bits of another, you open the door to committees that decide that asshole deadbeat dads need to be given vasectomies "for their own good" or fellas who always spread sexually transmitted diseases need to be gelded to stop them from that kind of behavior.

If it's not your 'stuff,' it is not your concern.

If a guy really wants a child, he can do what other guys do--HIRE A SURROGATE who will willingly provide EGGS and WOMB.

It's perfectly legal for people to do whatever they want with their reproductive systems. If you think "It's not right" that's just YOUR opinion. And we know what opinions are like.

[hifiguy]

60. This kind of imbecility makes one ponder deeply

how he ever got through medical school AND psychiatric training.

[Feron]

78. The solution is simple:

1. Bank some of your sperm.

2. Get a vasectomy.

3. When you find a woman you want to have kids with, draw up a mutually agreed upon contract for what to do with any unused embryos and draw up terms for pregnancy.

It's all about bodily autonomy. The person who holds the uterus gets to make the rules. That's biology and it's unfair. Deal with it or remain celibate.

If a man wants to be a father that badly, there are plenty of kids out there to foster and/or adopt. DNA isn't a requirement for parenthood.

Anyhow this is probably about the bullshit from Sofia Vergara's ex. It's about control rather than any regard for life.

[LittleBlue]

98. Would be nice if everyone stopped watching Faux News

I'm convinced they've gone to full-on trolling for ratings, bringing on the most whacky quacky doctors and scientists to spout ludicrous opinions.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. The decision-making power over the pregnancy belongs with the person whose body is pregnant

Period, full stop.

If the unfortunately-named Ablow or some other dude figures out a way that they themselves can be the one carrying the pregnancy, in that case it becomes their call. Otherwise tough shit.

[geek tragedy]

128. +1 nt

[restorefreedom]

132. what warren said

my body my fortress my choice.

when men can get complications and die from pregnancy, they can choose. till then, no dice.

[hifiguy]

134. rAmen to that, Warren.

[PeaceNikki]

137. Exactly, Warren!!

Oh, it's "not fair"? Tough shit.

[spanone]

138. so keith, if dad decides he doesn't want the kid, he can veto bringing the pregnancy to term

Last edited Tue May 5, 2015, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

this clown is typical of the assholes who inhabit faux nooze

[One_Life_To_Give]

156. When a woman can force any man to be snipped.

Seems only fair

[PeaceNikki]

160. I don't want that control over men and I don't want them to have control over me.

Not even in trade in the interest of fairness.

I know you were kidding but I think it's important to say that.

[seabeyond]

164. more MRA? are you talking a baby, not a man, with circumcision? what women are

forcing me to get snipped, and what land is this being done in?

[uppityperson]

197. the risks associated with pregnancy hugely outweigh the risks associated with a vasectomy

Not to mention the time involved, or the energy, or the street on your body.


Poor comparison.

[etherealtruth]

158. Imagine that ... right wing nut job doesn't view women as EQUAL autonomous beings

[geek tragedy]

159. Sadly, that rightwing nutjob has people agreeing with him in this thread. nt

[etherealtruth]

162. I saw that

It is sickening to sift through the garbage

[Manifestor_of_Light]

163. Yeah Keith, what if the woman wants the baby and the man doesn't because he's a cheap bastard?

They're married, he has a good job and good insurance but wants to control the woman and tell her to have an abortion, because he doesn't want kids? He was too good to wear a condom and birth control was never discussed?? He assumed it was her problem.

Then she has the baby because they are married and there is no real reason not to have it except the father's selfishness? And he turns into a real bastard because having a beautiful, healthy, happy baby is a BAD THING? It's about control. It's not always about the father wanting it and the mother not wanting it. What then, Keith???

Scenario in the hospital room after she's had a C-section which is a major operation: Mom is happy, grandparents are happy, grumpy bastard father is sitting by the window as far away as possible from the mother, and glaring at the new mother telling her "You're lazy" and needs to get out of bed, when she just had major abdominal surgery and is FORBIDDEN from getting up for two days for a number of reasons, like spinal anesthesia.

How is that healthy? That is abusive to the mother.



Oh and women pay child support too, you idiot. At least in Texas we don't have alimony, we have separate maintenance. The woman is presumed to be just as capable of working and paying for the child as the man. So we don't need any whining about child support. The men just don't want the responsibility.

[JaneyVee]

172. This thread is infested with newbie trolls.

[LeftOfWest]

284. Creepy assholes hate abortion.

Abortion is a medical procedure that keeps Women SAFE AND HEALTHY.

Nothing CREEPY about it.

[HereSince1628]

178. Self-defense doesn't require approval from a sexually intimate partner.

It just doesn't.

Yes, there are two parents...but only one bears the brunt of the burden of pregnancy on their self.

[m-lekktor]

190. pure evil!

[Arugula Latte]

256. I should have veto power over whether this guy gets to keep his genitals.

I vote "no."

[ScreamingMeemie]

269. I'm all for this...

...as long as the man and HIS doctor can figure out a way to transplant the fetus into HIS body after the woman exercises her right to have HER doctor remove it.

[bobjacksonk2832]

272. What a sexist pig.

People like him are the reason why our country is so backwards in regards to the abortion issue. So infuriating. That's why we have to work hard to prevent the GOP from taking over the White House in 2016.