Fiona
“The trouble is that merely having sex does not make a bloke a father and this "debate" is the wrong place for such men to be venting their rage about no longer having absolute control over siring offspring, which is just a fact of civilised life. The days of the caveman are over, after all.”

You seem to be saying that the woman should attract a male, have sex with the male, and then if she finds herself pregnant, she should dispose of the child, and probably dispose of the male as well and then find another male.

One could judge this type of thinking acceptable, and one could think that it is highly hedonistic, and lacking in almost every human value. It psychologically castrates the male, kills the child (or some prefer to refer to it as “a few cells”), and eventually it mentally kills the mother.

However it is a type of thinking that has been advocated by feminists in the past, and they have lived by what they advocated. See http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3090#3817

Being unintendedly pregnant is not entirely “liberating” for a woman, and it is noticed that in this article, the author never mentions possible reasons why there are so many unwanted pregnancies, or suggests possible ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies, but instead she does tend to point the finger at men, this time male politicians.

So basically, this article does nothing towards reducing unwanted pregnancy, and my statement still stands:- “I think feminists like to try and manipulate and exploit women, and castrate men.”

Often ignored or dismissed out of hand: the father has no rights to a say in whether his child should be aborted.

Before you chastise me with, "Her body, her choice!" let me ask, what of "His body, his choice"?

What of the case where the mother chooses not to abort and raise the child alone?

That man must pay Child Support for the next 18 years. Eg. $120,000 on $30,000pa. She places her body on the line for 9 months, then is pretty much guaranteed the benefits of raising the child. Why would a woman unilaterally choose to have a child, go through the pain of childbirth, and then keep it for herself if there were not compelling benefits to do so? Ethical considerations? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

He is forced to pay large sums of child support or choose poverty on the dole. His body is used to financially support a child that he had no legal say in having.

The father has no legal rights to see the child. This does cause fathers ongoing psychological pain. We grant DVOs for less than "psychological pain"!. Hence earlier death, suicide or illness. His body, his choice?

The Feminist argument will go as follows:

1. He had a say when he had sex with her. (She also had a say... and had access to the numerous types of contraception not available to men. Condoms slip!)
2. Men are bastards and don't care about their children anyhow. (incorrect sexist comment)
3. Fathers don't have as strong emotional ties to children as mothers. (incorrect sexist comment)
4. Women should be the "primary" (Newspeak for "only")caregiver for their children. (assumptive sexist comment, kind of like "Men should be promoted above women at work, because they are men")
5. Who cares about men? (sexist comment)

I speak out for men who are in this situation. I now await the rebuke for daring to do so.

Even if I speak for a minority of men, we speak out for other minorities! Why do we so rarely speak out for men when women are also involved?

Andyman,
more likely that you will be ignored. I am not aware of any post by a "pro-choice" supporter which attempts to address the conflict between a woman's "choice" and a man's "responsibility".

My impression is that there is a determination to focus on the issue of choice and avoid at all costs discussions about the consequences of choice. It is possible that I have missed a brilliant piece outlining a consistent rational for what appears to me to be massive double standards - I look forward to seeing it if that is the case.

>>Questions:

1. Is a Jew a human being?

2. Who decides?

3. And if he is a human being, does he have an inalienable right to life?

Posted by Brazuca, Monday, March 14, 2005 6:10:40 PM

Answers (so far only from Seeker)

1. Yes
2. Other human beings living in a civil society (and their prospective mothers)
3. Yes, unless he/she is proved to be a serial killer in a civil society where there is capital punishment.

But what has that to do with “abortion debate won't result in any change”?<<

So you believe that "Other human beings living in a civil society" determine whether a Jew is a human being? And you believe that said Jew has an inalienable right to life unless he is a serial killer living in a society employing capital punishment?

Now, tell me, are these merely your subjective opinions or is this the objective truth? If the former, then how would one know which one is the right one in a roomful of subjective opinions? And if the latter, what is the source of this objective truth, and what makes it objective?

Men have choice too.

If a man is not comfortable with the fact that their partner may choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy - they can choose not to ejaculate.

Brazuca, I'll take the challenge.

If you are able to define "objective truth" convincingly - and without mentioning religion - then you will deserve an answer.