Feminism

[Tomwa]

Having been the one who initiated the semantics-off (Without even making an argument in the process, I was basically being a word choice nazi) and being thoroughly beaten (I have bruises) I acknowledge my mistake and accept my punishment willingly.

 

 

I think an interesting topic on feminism would be the aforementioned father-vs-mother rights issue of abortion. What if the father wants the child and the mother doesn't? What if the mother wants the child and father doesn't? Surely the father gets some rights?

 

Example:
I have a degenerative, hereditary condition (I really do) and I wish to hold off on having children until appropriate treatment is created. However, my partner, who wants childen now and is insensitive to my concerns, simply stops taking her pill and as an effect becomes pregnant without my consent. What rights do I have to stop my child from suffering the same pain I've suffered?

[Pixel Bombs]

Having been the one who initiated the semantics-off (Without even making an argument in the process, I was basically being a word choice nazi) and being thoroughly beaten (I have bruises) I acknowledge my mistake and accept my punishment willingly.

 

 

I think an interesting topic on feminism would be the aforementioned father-vs-mother rights issue of abortion. What if the father wants the child and the mother doesn't? What if the mother wants the child and father doesn't? Surely the father gets some rights?

 

Example:

I have a degenerative, hereditary condition (I really do) and I wish to hold off on having children until appropriate treatment is created. However, my partner, who wants childen now and is insensitive to my concerns, simply stops taking her pill and as an effect becomes pregnant without my consent. What rights do I have to stop my child from suffering the same pain I've suffered?

Depends if she told you or not. If she told you she was going off birth control and gets pregnant then you should hold some form of responsibility. But if she didn't tell you, you shouldn't have any obligation to care for the child

[Tomwa]

 

Having been the one who initiated the semantics-off (Without even making an argument in the process, I was basically being a word choice nazi) and being thoroughly beaten (I have bruises) I acknowledge my mistake and accept my punishment willingly.

 

 

I think an interesting topic on feminism would be the aforementioned father-vs-mother rights issue of abortion. What if the father wants the child and the mother doesn't? What if the mother wants the child and father doesn't? Surely the father gets some rights?

 

Example:

I have a degenerative, hereditary condition (I really do) and I wish to hold off on having children until appropriate treatment is created. However, my partner, who wants childen now and is insensitive to my concerns, simply stops taking her pill and as an effect becomes pregnant without my consent. What rights do I have to stop my child from suffering the same pain I've suffered?

Depends if she told you or not. If she told you she was going off birth control and gets pregnant then you should hold some form of responsibility. But if she didn't tell you, you shouldn't have any obligation to care for the child

 

We're assuming I was not told until after the incident (if she told me before I'd simply not have sex with her) and it's not a matter of "Taking care of the child" but protecting the child from the same suffering that I endured. In short do I have any right to stop the birth process?

[Rathlord]

 

We're assuming I was not told until after the incident (if she told me before I'd simply not have sex with her) and it's not a matter of "Taking care of the child" but protecting the child from the same suffering that I endured. In short do I have any right to stop the birth process?

 

 

I still think the much better question is "if said person thought your degenerative condition wasn't worth living with, why are you still on God's green earth?" I'm never one to suggest or in any way condone suicide, but if life wasn't worth living you'd have killed yourself and you wouldn't be propagating anyways. If you haven't killed yourself, whether it be through the love of others or your own love of life, then you should think maybe your child would feel the same way. I fail to see how that argument has any kind of validity in any circumstance, unless maybe you're on suicide watch in a ward somewhere, in which case you shouldn't be propagating anyways.

[Tomwa]

 

 

We're assuming I was not told until after the incident (if she told me before I'd simply not have sex with her) and it's not a matter of "Taking care of the child" but protecting the child from the same suffering that I endured. In short do I have any right to stop the birth process?

 

 

I still think the much better question is "if said person thought your degenerative condition wasn't worth living with, why are you still on God's green earth?" I'm never one to suggest or in any way condone suicide, but if life wasn't worth living you'd have killed yourself and you wouldn't be propagating anyways. If you haven't killed yourself, whether it be through the love of others or your own love of life, then you should think maybe your child would feel the same way. I fail to see how that argument has any kind of validity in any circumstance, unless maybe you're on suicide watch in a ward somewhere, in which case you shouldn't be propagating anyways.

 

The fact that I endured the suffering does not mean that I want my child to do the same. If you endured a decade of nearly starving to death would you wish the same on your child? Or would you wait until the time of danger had passed? Does the fact that you survived without offing yourself undo the trauma?

[Rathlord]

 

The fact that I endured the suffering does not mean that I want my child to do the same. If you endured a decade of nearly starving to death would you wish the same on your child? Or would you wait until the time of danger had passed? Does the fact that you survived without offing yourself undo the trauma?

 

 

It doesn't negate the suffering at all. Suffering is part of life, though, and everyone endures it at some point. But like I said before, at which point do you decide for someone if some amount of suffering is too much? Assuming, of course, that conception has occurred. And like I said before, does that mean we should walk around killing homeless people because they sleep in the cold?

[Tomwa]

 

 

The fact that I endured the suffering does not mean that I want my child to do the same. If you endured a decade of nearly starving to death would you wish the same on your child? Or would you wait until the time of danger had passed? Does the fact that you survived without offing yourself undo the trauma?

 

 

It doesn't negate the suffering at all. Suffering is part of life, though, and everyone endures it at some point. But like I said before, at which point do you decide for someone if some amount of suffering is too much? Assuming, of course, that conception has occurred. And like I said before, does that mean we should walk around killing homeless people because they sleep in the cold?

 

Suffering happens but suffering of terrible magnitudes should not, the topic here is less about "How much suffering is necessary for abortion to be acceptable" but "What rights does the father have in regards to an abortion of a child he thinks would be in danger".

 

I need to come up with a better hypothetical.

 

Edit: New hypothetical!

 

Let's say that after a large amount of tragic births it becomes clear that my side of the family is at extremely high risk for producing children with various birth defects leaving them entirely unable to live for themselves and putting them in unbearable pain. I however, having been a recessive carrier have been spared the defects. The mother does the aforementioned what rights do I have as the father?

 

Fight that one Rathlord.

[EnigmaGrey]

Like that muscular dystrophy that I mentioned in my family, Rathlord. Remember, right before the "arbitrary" comment? /grudge

[Rathlord]

I would take a life of suffering over being killed any day. Who are we to say that that person wouldn't chose life?

Also you should prolly dump the bitch women who are trying to trick you into conceiving a birth defective child. I'm not sure who would do that, but it's prolly sound advice to say "don't fuck them in the first place."

I believe you should take a little bit of responsibility for who you have sex with, but maybe I'm just old fashioned.

[EnigmaGrey]

I would take a life of suffering over being killed any day. Who are we to say that that person wouldn't chose life?

Also you should prolly dump the bitch women who are trying to trick you into conceiving a birth defective child. I'm not sure who would do that, but it's prolly sound advice to say "don't fuck them in the first place."

I believe you should take a little bit of responsibility for who you have sex with, but maybe I'm just old fashioned.

You're a being capable of empathy, that's who.

[Brandon354]

Suffering happens but suffering of terrible magnitudes should not, the topic here is less about "How much suffering is necessary for abortion to be acceptable" but "What rights does the father have in regards to an abortion of a child he thinks would be in danger".

 

I need to come up with a better hypothetical.

 

Edit: New hypothetical!

 

Let's say that after a large amount of tragic births it becomes clear that my side of the family is at extremely high risk for producing children with various birth defects leaving them entirely unable to live for themselves and putting them in unbearable pain. I however, having been a recessive carrier have been spared the defects. The mother does the aforementioned what rights do I have as the father?

 

Fight that one Rathlord.

 

Many diseases, syndromes, etc. have some way of treatment or medication to be cured, lessened or making life a bit better and scientists are constantly doing research to help with these sort of things, not to mention you said you were a recessive carrier so unless your partner is a carrier also and even then only if the child is unlucky then  will he/she develop it.

[Rathlord]

You're a being capable of empathy, that's who.

 

 

But if you indeed feel so strongly that a life just like your own would be not worth living, then logically you should have committed suicide years ago and should not be walking and talking. Empathy or not, if you think that living the same life you have is only not worth living for your child, that's hypocrisy.

 

Disclaimer: I am still in no way, shape, or form condoning suicide.

[Brandon354]

On the note of suicide I think it is odd how it is commonly associated with cowardice but if you even try to punch yourself chances are you won't be able to go anywhere near full force, so think about trying to kill yourself.

[DrummerKidJack]

I think it's generally called cowardice so that people don't do it.

[EnigmaGrey]

 

You're a being capable of empathy, that's who.

 

 

But if you indeed feel so strongly that a life just like your own would be not worth living, then logically you should have committed suicide years ago and should not be walking and talking. Empathy or not, if you think that living the same life you have is only not worth living for your child, that's hypocrisy.

 

Disclaimer: I am still in no way, shape, or form condoning suicide.

 

Dude, if I had the type of muscular dystrophy I mentioned, I wouldn't have made it into puberty in any way or form, medical advances over the past couple of years or not. I wouldn't be alive long enough to "feel strongly" one way or the other, having experienced only one extreme in the spectrum in life (terminal illness). How could I, at those ages, have enough experience in life to know the alternative, beyond a shallow observation of how others aren't afflicted?

I don't understand the suicide argument, though: most people, regardless of their medical condition, moral stance .etc seem to have an innate desire to survive whatever shit gets shoved down their throat, regardless of how it affects themselves and other people. Saying "If life is so bad, you'd kill yourself" just seems so . . . flawed as an argument. Once you exist, you usually carry on until you're forcefully removed from that state.

My only defect is congenital night blindness due to an X-chromosone defect in the males of my family. Something that's "easy" to negotiate.

[MashPotato]

 

Let's say that after a large amount of tragic births it becomes clear that my side of the family is at extremely high risk for producing children with various birth defects leaving them entirely unable to live for themselves and putting them in unbearable pain. I however, having been a recessive carrier have been spared the defects. The mother does the aforementioned what rights do I have as the father?

 

I'm not getting into this abortion debate, but I just want to say that if the man is a carrier for something that he does not want passed down to any children, why is it solely the woman's responsibility to avoid pregnancy? It is HIS. He should get a vasectomy or use some other form of male birth control IN ADDITION to the Pill (which is not 100% effective when used as the sole method).

[Brandon354]

 

 

Let's say that after a large amount of tragic births it becomes clear that my side of the family is at extremely high risk for producing children with various birth defects leaving them entirely unable to live for themselves and putting them in unbearable pain. I however, having been a recessive carrier have been spared the defects. The mother does the aforementioned what rights do I have as the father?

 

I'm not getting into this abortion debate, but I just want to say that if the man is a carrier for something that he does not want passed down to any children, why is it solely the woman's responsibility to avoid pregnancy? It is HIS. He should get a vasectomy or use some other form of male birth control IN ADDITION to the Pill (which is not 100% effective when used as the sole method).

 

I don't think that is what they meant. I think what they were saying is that if the woman does things to try to become pregnant without informing the man (such as having fertility treatment or tampering with the condoms)knowing he is against the idea of having a child and he was wearing protection should the man be held responsible for care of the child and payment also, I don't think him being a carrier for something was important but rather an example of why he wouldn't want a baby. If she informs him (before of course) then it is his responsibility also as he chose to have sex knowing she was trying to get pregnant. I do agree though that he could just get a vasectomy and solve the problem if he plans on never having kids.

 

Is it some secret rule that admins can't debate because i have never seen an admin in on a debate in a forum, maybe they create fake normal profiles and do it...tricky little admins I'm onto your secret ways  .

[Rathlord]

Dude, if I had the type of muscular dystrophy I mentioned, I wouldn't have made it into puberty in any way or form, medical advances over the past couple of years or not. I wouldn't be alive long enough to "feel strongly" one way or the other, having experienced only one extreme in the spectrum in life (terminal illness). How could I, at those ages, have enough experience in life to know the alternative, beyond a shallow observation of how others aren't afflicted?

I don't understand the suicide argument, though: most people, regardless of their medical condition, moral stance .etc seem to have an innate desire to survive whatever shit gets shoved down their throat, regardless of how it affects themselves and other people. Saying "If life is so bad, you'd kill yourself" just seems so . . . flawed as an argument. Once you exist, you usually carry on until you're forcefully removed from that state.

My only defect is congenital night blindness due to an X-chromosone defect in the males of my family. Something that's "easy" to negotiate.

 

 

But... but... if you didn't make it into puberty, you wouldn't be passing down birth defects because you'd be dead before you'd be propagating. I suppose I just fail to see the validity of arguing way-out-of-nowhere edge cases. It doesn't really present much in the way of intellectual stimulation as there's so many baseless assumptions going in it all becomes kind of silly.

 

As far not understanding my suicide argument... you pretty much nailed it on the head, actually. It's reasonable to assume that said child would have that very same innate desire to live, and by taking that away (or, for sake of argument, just by agreeing that the innate desire to live exists) you instantly invalidate the "I'm doing it for their own good" argument.

 

Yes, I'm sure you can come up with a crazy sideline case where many rational people would agree an abortion might be an option.

[Rathlord]

I don't think that is what they meant. I think what they were saying is that if the woman does things to try to become pregnant without informing the man (such as having fertility treatment or tampering with the condoms)knowing he is against the idea of having a child and he was wearing protection should the man be held responsible for care of the child and payment also, I don't think him being a carrier for something was important but rather an example of why he wouldn't want a baby. If she informs him (before of course) then it is his responsibility also as he chose to have sex knowing she was trying to get pregnant. I do agree though that he could just get a vasectomy and solve the problem if he plans on never having kids

 

Is it some secret rule that admins can't debate because i have never seen an admin in on a debate in a forum, maybe they create fake normal profiles and do it...tricky little admins

 

 

No, Mash was just born with more common sense than me XD

 

I've seen a few of the admins get into it pretty hardcore with people. *cough* not mentioning names *cough*

 

At the end of the day, it's always possible that if a guy isn't willing to raise children if it happens he could not have sex. Like I said before, maybe that's just an old fashioned point of view and instant physical gratification is worth more to us as a people than a possible life. But to me- just to me, mind you- I think if you're not willing to deal with the possibility of having a child you should either find a permanent solution (tubes tied/whatever) or abstain. I'm certainly not ready for children right now, but if my girlfriend happened to get pregnant I would keep and care for the child, regardless of the impact on my personal life. And I feel pretty strongly that if you don't agree with that, you should wait until you're ready for the possibility of having a child before having sex.

[Tomwa]

If we're going to play to abstain or deal with it argument it should carry just as much weight against the women.

 

In my original example the disabling of future child making is not the goal. You can play "Abstain" all day long but it doesn't matter if all humans are half dead and eating poo as our only source of food basically no-one will abstain for the good of their children. Not to mention as a spouse you have responsibility to pleasure your partner.

 

But I'm gonna let this thread die now, tired of arguing about abortion (Which I don't even support to begin with) when the topic of the conversation was feminism.

[DrummerKidJack]

Not to mention as a spouse you have responsibility to pleasure your partner.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like you're saying that a person in a committed relationship is obligated to sexually pleasure their partner, regardless of their own feelings on the matter, which would be very, very rape-y. That's not the case, right? Because couples aren't responsible for their partner's sexual pleasure or lack thereof. Everyone has the right to seek their own sexual satisfaction, and people have the right to help them seek it in a safe, consensual manner, but that doesn't mean that the outside party is responsible for the first party's pleasure. That just turns sex into a power thing, which should never be an issue in a decent relationship.

 

I have nothing to add to the actual abortion argument, that one sentence just kinda freaked me out.

[Tomwa]

 

Not to mention as a spouse you have responsibility to pleasure your partner.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like you're saying that a person in a committed relationship is obligated to sexually pleasure their partner, regardless of their own feelings on the matter, which would be very, very rape-y. That's not the case, right? Because couples aren't responsible for their partner's sexual pleasure or lack thereof. Everyone has the right to seek their own sexual satisfaction, and people have the right to help them seek it in a safe, consensual manner, but that doesn't mean that the outside party is responsible for the first party's pleasure. That just turns sex into a power thing, which should never be an issue in a decent relationship.

 

I have nothing to add to the actual abortion argument, that one sentence just kinda freaked me out.

 

Not really interested in writing a big paragraph on it right now (Firealarm won't stop churping and won't let me sleep) but in no way did I mean rape (I'm not even sure where you got that? Maybe I'm just not reading with that idea in mind). I do believe that married couples do have an obligation to provide sexual relief for their loved one, it goes both ways and their is of course no "Do it or else" attitude to be involved. It's just part of the deal. You love them? Yes? You want them to feel good? Yes? Then when they need to be relieved you help them. No not if it's going to bring harm to you do to so but if you can and there's no outrageous demand being made then yes.

 

Hence the obligation. It's not something that should be written in law but in a good relationship you should be willing to have sex with your partner. It's part of the marriage concept (kinda why there's sex on the honeymoon).

 

Edit: I should note I'm a no sex til marriage person, I would prefer to be that close to only one woman in my lifetime. So I would have course be seeking people with the same mindset. Think of it from that perspective.

 

If my wife wants to have sex and all I wanna do is play Mario Kart I have an obligation to go play with her for a bit and then resume my game (She should probably let me finish the race first though). Essentially what I'm saying is you have to take care of your partners needs as well as your own. That is to say you should be willing to make them feel good when they need it but willing to go without if they simply aren't able to do so.

 

Edit2: Upon rereading the statement I understand the rapey-ness sound you get from it, not what I meant.

[DrummerKidJack]

Aaaaah okay, I see what you mean now. Fair enough. The topic of sex and the ambiguity of the English language do not go together well.

[Tomwa]

Aaaaah okay, I see what you mean now. Fair enough. The topic of sex and the ambiguity of the English language do not go together well.

 

I'm a bad communicator, I say things as though they only have one meaning and that one meaning is MY meaning. Then someone comes along and takes it the wrong way and I have to explain myself.

[willow512]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that sounds like you're saying that a person in a committed relationship is obligated to sexually pleasure their partner, regardless of their own feelings on the matter, which would be very, very rape-y. That's not the case, right? Because couples aren't responsible for their partner's sexual pleasure or lack thereof. Everyone has the right to seek their own sexual satisfaction, and people have the right to help them seek it in a safe, consensual manner, but that doesn't mean that the outside party is responsible for the first party's pleasure. That just turns sex into a power thing, which should never be an issue in a decent relationship.

Of course you should never force anyone into any sort of sexual activity. (Or any other activity for that matter) But it is much more complicated than just saying "No responsibility."

 

But being in a committed relationship does bring certain responsibilities and obligations that you've chosen to accept by engaging in that relationship. If you don't want to be in a sexual relationship with someone, then don't be in one! It's as simple as that. A relationship is much more than just sexual. But to deny that sex is a part of it is just denying the point of such a relationship. (Biologically, sociologically, psychologically speaking) It's a really basic human need, you can't ignore it and expect things to just be all right.

 

Sticking with someone in a relationship for whatever reason but declining the sex is putting your partner in a very difficult position. At that point you need professional help, someone needs to make the tough choice and bail, or if you do want to continue your paths together you need to have a sit down and find some kind of agreement that will truly satisfy both partners.