Absolutely destroyed the abortion debate. Really well done. I didn't find myself laughing so much as being completely enthralled in the story and appalled at what is going on there.
Well done Mr. Oliver, I hope it gets some momentum.
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
Actually in hindsight, I take that back. I can believe it.
Yup, it was a good story and yes, horrible and embarrassing for the USA, however, this is pretty much what men go through every day. No options and they pay for it the rest of their lives.
Yup, it was a good story and yes, horrible and embarrassing for the USA, however, this is pretty much what men go through every day. No options and they pay for it the rest of their lives.
Really?
...
...
...
Really??!!!
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Superfraggle For This Useful Post:
Yes, really. There is also really zero need to be condescending either. This is a massive subject that is ignored, and I used to get so fired up that I couldn’t type or even think clearly. At any rate, I do not want to derail this thread so I will comment on your comment even though it really deserves the same respect as a White Rhinoceros Poacher and I won’t comment on it any further.
I get that Women’s Rights and Feminism is all the rage and because of that it’s easy to support and it gets the money. I am not a feminist, nor will I ever be one. One of the major reasons that I’m not is when you actually talk about real problems for the other sex you get the backhanded comments, the sarcastic “poor you”, or the out right “I don’t care” behavior. Feminism is supposed to be about “everyone”, but much like communism, which twisted into something much different and didn’t help the common individual, feminism is like Spa Lady, it’s only for women. I’m a Humanist which is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.
Abortions, why do they exist? An abortion is a medical process of ending a pregnancy so it does not result in the birth of a baby. It can be done in the earlier stages by medication or in the later stages by a medical procedure. The three main reasons to have them are 1) Negative impact on the mother’s life. 2) Financial instability 3) Relationship problems/unwilling to be a single mother. 4) Stem Cell and Health research. So, in western culture we look at specifically the woman during pregnancy. She alone gets the choice and a man just has to suck it up. There is no choice for him. There was no conversation before intercourse about agreeing to have baby.
Abortions, why are they such a debate? 1) Abortion offends God. This one works for those who believe in the almighty. 2) Life begins at conception. 3) Mankind must protect life at all cost. 4) Abortion is unsafe. Really, the it’s the religious faction that are behind the anti-abortion stance by an overwhelming margin. As we gain more awareness in science and technology we start to separate church and state and this is something that is very important. No laws should exist where a good percentage of population are negatively affected, or their inalienable rights are affected.
Just in-case people are wondering, I’m Pro-Choice.
I believe that a fair and responsible society that believes in equal rights should give both parties involved the option to terminate or release the burden if one side wants the child and the other doesn’t. Now many here will jump on the highly-unlikely-train that a man will force a woman to birth a child. Well, if she gets paid like a pro athlete you might just have an argument… Very few men would demand that a child is born, and it would effect far less of the population than our current social model. Also, in a world where one can abort, a woman can just get it done without telling anyone. Yes, it’s her body for those 9 months, but, in the current social model, it’s everyone’s responsibility for the rest of their lives. Do I STRONGLY feel this way? Well, no, I think if a woman wants to terminate she should be able to even if the man wants it. I’m just going all out “equal”. But the highly-unlikely-train is coming, and if it is his only chance at a child because he got his balls crushed by a horse then there should be some wiggle room.
Why do I feel this way?
I know 4 people on this forum alone that have had a nightmare of a life because of a one-time encounter or short affair that led to offspring and I know a lot more. I’m part of a group of 2000 in Alberta alone that are going through hell with similar stories as below. It’s heart breaking and nobody listens.
I can talk about 3 of them as they openly share their story.
Man #1 – Found out that he was going to be a father 3 months into a relationship. He was 21 and in school and in no way did he want a child. She was Catholic. The guy couldn’t finish school because of bills, she worked minimum wage and never finished school. They split, she believes only women should raise children and men have no rights (She’s also a raging “feminist”). Her daddy paid for a lawyer and he couldn’t afford one and her daddy bought her a place to live and he can barely afford to live in Calgary. He lives in a basement suite and eats like crap and drinks too much. Hasn’t seen his kid in 5 years. Talks about killing himself and can’t get help because when he finally could afford a lawyer he doesn’t was the courts getting notes on his depression (Which is caused by the courts and the Ex having the option of destroying his life though FAMILY LAW).
Man #2 – Had a brief encounter with a woman. It really didn’t last long. He moved to Alberta and got a job working in the Oil. Life was great for him because he’s making good money. Almost a decade later he gets notified that he’s a Dad. He had no idea. The woman comes after him for child support and back pay. He believes in the “burden” of paying child support so he complies. However, he now knows that he’s a dad! He wants to see his child and get to know it! Unfortunately, she doesn’t feel that way. She also doesn’t feel it’s in the “best interest of the child” to work. Her daddy bought her a house too. So, Man #2 wants to be apart of the child’s life and she doesn’t think that it’s important. He tries to get supports from the courts but they see him as a paycheck too. There is no visitation enforcement. He drank like a fish, and has a lot of trouble staying positive…
Man #3 – This one is gold. Man and woman buy a house. The woman already has a child. 7 years later they split. She’s getting $150.00 a month from the real father. Instead, the boyfriend is stuck paying the main bill. He lost his house and almost everything he had. Not even his responsibility.
So, the social cost is a big factor. If both parties have the option to terminate many of these stories wouldn't exist. Because even if the woman wanted the baby and he didn't he could at least terminate the paper side of the pregnancy. If the soon to be mother finds out that she is all alone she would most likely terminate and have a child when she and another man really want one.
The financial cost for both parties when the lives of both parties aren't being treated equal. This child will not have a balanced life.
In reality do I think that equal abortion laws will happen? Hell no. Do I want them? Yes. What I would settle for? The dismantlement of Divorce Law and a mandatory 50/50 practice. No child support (Award), No Alimony Award as both are responsible and both can pay evenly. Decisions get made together. Watch Divorce Corp.
Anyway, back to the regular forum discussion.
P.S. I could have made this a lot longer…
Last edited by To Be Quite Honest; 02-29-2016 at 03:42 AM.
^^
I was thinking about your post last night before going to sleep, and I agree that it seems most intuitively fair that, before some given time in the pregnancy when it is safe for the woman to have an abortion and the fetus is still not too far along, each party should have the right to withdraw their desire to raise the child. Of course, if the woman doesn't want the child then she would just have the abortion, but if the man doesn't want the child then the woman has the choice to continue but with sole responsibility for care of the child.
I suppose the state would also need to take on some extra burden in ensuring that the welfare of the child is adequate.
I can't edit the post to format it. The post just disappears. Sorry.
Quoting this one instead of the other for length. This is all I'll have to say about it, as you're right that this isn't the thread for it. Forcing a woman to carry a child to term, give birth to it, and then make the active decision to care for it or give it up for adoption is not the same as forcing a man to pay child support. Even when you conveniently ignore the less divisive things they talk about in the video, such as those who have been raped.
You may be right that there are flaws in the system for men as well. it is absolutely not "pretty much what men go through every day"
Last edited by Superfraggle; 02-29-2016 at 12:48 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Superfraggle For This Useful Post:
This is, quite frankly, completely insane. You realize what you're advocating for is allowing one person to have control over whether another person has to undergo non-essential medical surgery, right? Not only is that a fundamental violation of a person's rights under the charter, it is a complete contradiction of any conventional understanding of humanist ethics.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Hahaha yeah I'm reading it going... this is going to end up being satirical in some way, right?
I am pro choice yet am very alive to the sheer difficulty of the abortion issue given that any line drawn as to when a fetus or baby is granted full rights as a human being is hard to morally justify. But surely we can all agree that "private citizens cannot compel other private citizens to have surgery" is the right public policy?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I wouldn't presume to speak for TBQH but as Johnny B alluded to there is something not right about mutual consent not being a consideration at all for childbirth. The woman gets to decide if the child goes to term or is aborted, while the man lacks any rights to have any say regardless of the woman's choice and can then be reduced to a monetary aid provider. Something about that is not right. It has little to do with the Oliver segment but is an interesting subject that needs to be explored more because equal rights for parents is an absolute necessity.
Maybe there does need to be some creative thinking there to deal with the legitimate concerns you're raising, but the point is that it's clearly NOT the solution to force a fully competent person to have surgery they don't want to have, or even subject them to ANY medical treatment they don't want.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I wouldn't presume to speak for TBQH but as Johnny B alluded to there is something not right about mutual consent not being a consideration at all for childbirth. The woman gets to decide if the child goes to term or is aborted, while the man lacks any rights to have any say regardless of the woman's choice and can then be reduced to a monetary aid provider. Something about that is not right. It has little to do with the Oliver segment but is an interesting subject that needs to be explored more because equal rights for parents is an absolute necessity.
The law is designed the way it is to theoretically serve the best interests of the child. Compelling a woman to have surgery she does not want or need is a massive step backwards for society. I'll agree it's maybe not a perfect law, but any alternative has to consider the interests of the child as its primary focus, not the interests of the ding dongs who forgot to wrap it up. If we lived in a society where contraception or education surrounding contraception was not readily available, I might be open to different suggestions. Similarly if you could prove that one or both parties in the arrangement lacked the cognitive abilities to understand contraception, then I think there should be alternative solutions. In either case the end solution still wouldn't be to legally compel a woman to terminate the pregnancy, it would be along the lines of providing increased support or social assistance for the parents if the mother elected to carry the child to term.
I wouldn't presume to speak for TBQH but as Johnny B alluded to there is something not right about mutual consent not being a consideration at all for childbirth. The woman gets to decide if the child goes to term or is aborted, while the man lacks any rights to have any say regardless of the woman's choice and can then be reduced to a monetary aid provider. Something about that is not right. It has little to do with the Oliver segment but is an interesting subject that needs to be explored more because equal rights for parents is an absolute necessity.
Let's say I have a son and he needs a heart transplant. A perfect donor is found in a patient who just died in the next bed in the hospital.
If that now deceased person is not an organ donor, the hospital cannot take that organ to save my son's life.
Insisting a woman has to go to term with a pregnancy she doesn't want is basically saying a corpse has more rights than does a living woman.
If a man wants control over his possible offspring, only have sex when you're certain you want to conceive with that woman, only when you can afford to support that child on your own, when you can (in the US anyway) pay for her medical bills (a completely normal, healthy birth in the US runs well into 5 figures), also make sure her bills are covered in the weeks her body needs to recover from said pregnancy. (A typical woman who gives birth often has major repercussions from giving birth for 4-6 weeks after the child is born, and many women are never the same after giving birth)
Giving birth isn't just surgery, it's not like arthroscopic surgery where she goes in, has the procedure and is home that night. Even a normal birth is multiple days in the hospital. It is a hugely invasive process unlike almost anything men can experience. And that's just the final part of a pregnancy, that doesn't include the other 30-some weeks of misery beforehand.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
^^
I was thinking about your post last night before going to sleep, and I agree that it seems most intuitively fair that, before some given time in the pregnancy when it is safe for the woman to have an abortion and the fetus is still not too far along, each party should have the right to withdraw their desire to raise the child. Of course, if the woman doesn't want the child then she would just have the abortion, but if the man doesn't want the child then the woman has the choice to continue but with sole responsibility for care of the child.
I suppose the state would also need to take on some extra burden in ensuring that the welfare of the child is adequate.
The law is designed the way it is to theoretically serve the best interests of the child. Compelling a woman to have surgery she does not want or need is a massive step backwards for society. I'll agree it's maybe not a perfect law, but any alternative has to consider the interests of the child as its primary focus, not the interests of the ding dongs who forgot to wrap it up. If we lived in a society where contraception or education surrounding contraception was not readily available, I might be open to different suggestions. Similarly if you could prove that one or both parties in the arrangement lacked the cognitive abilities to understand contraception, then I think there should be alternative solutions. In either case the end solution still wouldn't be to legally compel a woman to terminate the pregnancy, it would be along the lines of providing increased support or social assistance for the parents if the mother elected to carry the child to term.
I don't have the time for a full reply but 1) obviously forcing surgery on an unwilling person isn't the answer and seems like a counter to a point I never made and 2) didn't we just learn from John Oliver that many abortions don't even require surgery?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
Let's say I have a son and he needs a heart transplant. A perfect donor is found in a patient who just died in the next bed in the hospital.
If that now deceased person is not an organ donor, the hospital cannot take that organ to save my son's life.
Insisting a woman has to go to term with a pregnancy she doesn't want is basically saying a corpse has more rights than does a living woman.
If a man wants control over his possible offspring, only have sex when you're certain you want to conceive with that woman, only when you can afford to support that child on your own, when you can (in the US anyway) pay for her medical bills (a completely normal, healthy birth in the US runs well into 5 figures), also make sure her bills are covered in the weeks her body needs to recover from said pregnancy. (A typical woman who gives birth often has major repercussions from giving birth for 4-6 weeks after the child is born, and many women are never the same after giving birth)
Giving birth isn't just surgery, it's not like arthroscopic surgery where she goes in, has the procedure and is home that night. Even a normal birth is multiple days in the hospital. It is a hugely invasive process unlike almost anything men can experience. And that's just the final part of a pregnancy, that doesn't include the other 30-some weeks of misery beforehand.
Quite a bit of what you posted seems tangential to my post so I'll just reiterate that the child is not solely the women's responsibility, nor should she have sole decision making power over the life or potential life of the child. You shouldnt get to have full control over birth/abortion then expect someone else to split the responsibility once the child is born. Sharing responsibility should start at conception, not birth. "It's my body and my child until it's born then pay up" does not sound like a good philosophy when it comes to taking responsibility for a child's life.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cecil Terwilliger For This Useful Post:
