Roe v. Wade is history

Post Reply New Topic

Oh I see. Well it's hard for me to know how to feel about the issue because it's very complicated. One the one hand people don't think the women are being cared for enough, which is understandable, and on the other hand, people don't feel the children are being cared for enough which is understandable.

But how do you decide who is more important? In the old expression 'women and children first', if you had to choose between one or the other though, then how does one decide who comes first...

The mother comes first, because she's a citizen of the United States and protected by the constitution.
It says all men are created equal and that there is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't just mean citizens with a penis.

There's also religious freedom and the freedom of privacy for all citizens.

Most of the embryos in question are tiny and only a few weeks old.
Some of them are cells in a petri dish.
They don't have equal rights as citizens, even though it's a very stressful decision for everyone involved.

Oh I see. Well I've had this conversation with my gf about the roe vs. wade issue, and she feels that it's very much a man vs. woman issue, and that the decision was made by men, but it seems to me that other women I know are pro-life and over half the men I know are pro-choice in conversations.

So why would some people feel this is a man vs. woman issue, if there are a lot of pro-life women and a lot of pro-choice men?

In these stats here for example, men are almost equally split on the issue:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro ... ables.aspx

So why is it considered to be a man vs. woman issue therefore, if that's the case?

I don't see it as a man-woman issue.
I see it as an issue that affects all genders.

Some men don't want to be fathers but they'll be forced.
That's a huge emotional and financial toll.
They will have to stay in contact with women or children they might not love.
They will also be hated by the mother's family if they don't stay connected.
They won't be able to move to other countries / states if they want to be involved with the child.
They could be arrested or persecuted if they distance themselves but don't pay.
The woman / partner could be abusive or unstable.
These men would still need to be connected to that woman for at least 18+ years.

Some men want to be fathers but the child or their partner's life could be in danger.
Perhaps the child is seriously ill with genetic deformities or will need around-the-clock care.
Perhaps their partner will die, or have medical / mental health challenges because of the child.

Men are losing their voice here just like women.
Don't forget some men / couples are choosing to keep babies, but that should be their choice.
The gov't shouldn't be able to tell men whether or not they will become parents.
That should be a decision between the man and his partner, or his partner alone as she is the mother.

In terms of the court ruling, no ... there are women in SCOTUS. I believe there are three.
This was not decided by men.
It was decided by men and women together.

* When I say "men", I also include boys. Boys can make babies too.

Those are good points. It's just some women I know talk about it like men are trying to have kids, and trying to stop them from aborting and it's their fault, so I am not sure where that comes from.

It probably comes from women who fear their partner will tell them what to do.

Some men (boys) tell their partner they want the child aborted.
Maybe the mother doesn't agree. ^

Some of them say they want to keep the child.
Maybe the mother doesn't agree. ^

Some of them might suggest adoption.
Again, the mother might not agree. ^

It's hard on men to be told "I'm keeping this baby and you'll have to pay for 18 years."

It's hard on men to be told "We have to get married."

It's hard on men to be told "I'm having your baby but you can never see them."

It's hard on men to be told "I don't want to marry you, but you'll need to do 50-50 care."

This is why it's hard on men.

Despite all of that, it's very hard on women especially when the father doesn't agree.
Because the embryo / baby is in her body, she should have the final say.
I think some women are afraid this won't happen.

That's not to mention women (and girls) who become pregnant against their will.
This can happen by rape from a friend, stranger, partner, husband, or relative (incest).
These women (or girls) want to make sure that have sole decision-making over their bodies.
Their bodies have already been violated if they were forced to conceive without consent.

Two fourteen year olds have sex, she gets pregnant.How can the boy support her and the baby? He can’t stay in school and work full time.He won’t have a good paying job.How can she stay in school and care for a child?
Then grandparents who are almost done with child raising ,might have to start all over.

^This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME.....

This is the sort of thing that keeps people in poverty in poverty.....

My greatest fear as a parent was my son getting a girl pregnant.
That was more scary to me than the possibility of my daughter getting pregnant.

If it was my daughter, I assume I'd have some ability to counsel her and support her.
I could help her with whatever she chose, and be involved.
I could raise the baby if I chose.

If it was my son ....
There was no guarantee that he (or I) would have any say in what happened.
I might never see the baby.
The baby could be aborted or given up for adoption without our input.
We might not even know about the baby. Ever.

Grandparents are definitely affected in whatever choice is made.

My brother's girlfriend had an abortion when they were in their 20's.
He didn't know until after it happened.
He had always wanted to be a parent and he was devastated.
Regardless, he knew it was her choice.

He ended up adopting and being a single dad.

This makes sense, but to be more specific, my women friends who think it is men trying to control women believe that it's government men who are up to it, and men in the government only, compared to women, and not men they would be having sex with personally, which is why I don't understand why they feel it's men against them.

Well could they have some sort of insurance for this in the government or something like that?

I don't know.
You'd have to ask them.

Perhaps show them a picture of SCOTUS.

Maybe all the "red state" governors are male?
I have no idea about that.

Even if they are, it stands to reason they were elected by both men and women.

Baby insurance?

It's called abstinence.

Falling short of that, most babies of young teens are conceived accidentally, by force, or through carelessness.

Oh okay thanks. I can look into that. Well when it comes to this issue and how some women may see it, here is an example.

There is a woman I know who is pro-choice. Yet in another converstation before, she said she felt that the birth control pill is antifeminist towards women. Sexist as in men inventing a pill for women, influencing them on not getting pregnant.

However, she considers the woman's right to end a pregnancy to be feminist. The thing I have trouble understanding is, why does she consider it to be antifeminist to stop a pregancy before it happens, but she considers it to be feminist to stop a pregancy after it happens?

Why is pre-pregnancy cancelation anti-feminist, but post-pregnancy cancellation feminist, if that makes sense?

No one forces birth control pills on girls or women, so I don't see how that's anti-feminist.
She might mean that some women feel like it's a necessary evil.
They might feel like their male partner won't be responsible with condoms or the rhythm method.
She might fear being assaulted, in which case she would want to be using contraception.

In short, she might feel like women have no choice but to make the birth control choices.

A lot of men have the attitude that a girl / woman is to blame if they fall pregnant.
They say "Why weren't you on the pill?" in an effort to avoid responsibility or accountability.
Then if a baby is conceived they want to walk away, or tell the woman what to do.
This is like a double whammy because the woman is being forced into responsibility twice.
He isn't.

(Of course this isn't always true of men, but I think this is what your friend is getting at.)

I've already posted a long blurb about why oral contraception and hormonal IUDs aren't safe for many girls or women.

They pose health risks of their own, just like pregnancy does.

That makes sense. Good points. So in this abortion issue in the US, is it a case of blue states granting them under all circumstances and red states none at all, no exceptions or are their exceptions and it's more case by case in some cases?