| Should men have a say in whether or not the woman carrying his child has an abortion? |
|
Should men have a say in whether or not the woman carrying his child has an abortion?
Click to vote
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
Asked 4 years ago
by lettertwentysix  United States |
|
About
Homeschooling knitter who loves gadgets. =)
|
11 Points
|
Input yes, final decision, no.
"
"
"
Agreed
He can say his opinion but at the end of the day it is not his vagina... or to be more politically correct, womb, it's the 21st century we got all that gender identity things and stuff, and i wouldn't doubt that now-a-days a man can get pregnant....
What?
gender identity is what one person identifies their gender as, regardless of biological gender.
And all the varying levels of transgenderism, what exactly is their gender....
And i was j/king with my friend on day, and was all like "i'm not going to classify my gender, i'm just going to me" but then i was all "j/k, that's just too 22nd century for me..."
and like i said, i wouldn't be surprised if now-a-days a biological male, obviously a biological female that identifies as a male can get pregnant, could get pregnant.
A biological female that does identify as a male did get pregnant. Weird thing is the guy is probably going to expect the kid to call him dad when the very fact he gave birth will mean he's mom. Pretty sick thing to do to a kid, huh?
well if your brought up your whole life thinking the color in the sky was green, you tend to believe it....
If someone who has tits is all "i'm a boy", I just go along with it... My lesbian friend, Stephanie, had a lil "Andy" faze.... i don't know, i'm gonna guess many lesbians go through an "i'm a boy" or "i was supposed to be a boy" faze, all my lesbian friends have but they all grew out of it.... i guess some stick with it and some move on.... and my friend Stephanie had a "boyfriend", who was basically a girl with a shaved head, baggy clothes, and strapped down tits, who had plans to get a dick.....
I reckon that's true; but it doesn't mean it's right. But it's one ticket to fame, the kid will probably be sought after to do TV shows for the rest of his or her life. If he or she takes after their parents it may take a while for them to decide if they're male or female.
Obviously the guy will be called "dad"! What else would he be called? Kids are conceived in labs, given birth to by their grandmothers, aunts, surrogate moms with no connection to the family whatsoever, etc... What's the big deal? So what if in that particular case he or she came out of his father's womb? Nothing ground-braking there and it certainly won't be any weird for the child. That happens will all seahorses... ;)
If the child is raised with love and proper care I don't see how that family bringing him or her to the world in the most logic way they had available can be considered "sick". :/
But I thought "mother" means "giver of life." If "dad" is really mom, then how can other other female in the relationship be thought of as "mom" if she wasn't the kids' biological mother?
In sexual beings the mother is the producer of eggs. In this case the father is biologically the mother but that's a tad irrelevant: he contributed with half of the kid's genome as is expected but he had to do more because the mother couldn't. He might be considered a super dad but biologically he just did what every other father do - he gave half his genes to the mix, he just went further by providing the conditions for the development of the fetus.
The mom will have the same relationship with her child as all adoptive mothers (or the ones who had to use a surrogate mother) has with their children.
You are right, that is another reason he is the proper mother ... he gave his egg, not his sperm. Women don't produce sperm. So you're wrong about him biologically doing what mother's do because he contributed the egg, not the sperm, and then he bore the child. The only thing making her a man is, a.) she says she's a man (something many dykes say), and b.) taking male hormones to grow a beard ... but I lived in NYC for a while and saw many hirsute women with facial hair, so facial hair means nothing. Is just her saying she's a man make her a man? Or is she really still "mommy" despite what she says?
You're missing the point entirely by being deluded by irrelevant external differences: the egg and the sperm look very different but they're essentially the same thing, a sex cell with half the genetic material to make up a diploid organism. The only difference is that eggs have some nutrient provisions to feed the embryo. That and the presence of mitochondria doesn't change the fact that it's just a cell with half of the genes needed for conception just like the sperm is.
He didn't contributed with his sperm only because he was born in a body unable to produce it. Him donating eggs or sperm is irrelevant because in the end it's all just human DNA and it should be his sex to determine his role in the family. If he says he's a man and his psychiatrists agree, then there is no doubt that he is in fact a man. Gender reassignment surgery is a complex process and it isn't taken lightly. The body he was born in doesn't determine who he is, the body is changeable, it's parts replaceable and ultimately even disposable. If he knows he's a man, it makes no difference whatsoever that every cell in his body carries two X chromosomes. Again, you're being tricked by appearances.
Oh! and the sexual orientation has nothing to do with a transgender condition: he can be gay, bi or straight independently of the fact he was born in the wrong body. As for the lesbians with facial hair you mention, maybe that's just their way of constructing their gender, bending a bit the boundaries imposed for womanhood. Regarding the case of the pregnant guy, he's a man so of course he's going to be dad, no confusion there.
You are saying he's a man just because he says he's a man? My wife can say I'm a chimpanzee and some may believe her, but just because I act like a chimpanzee does not make me a chimpanzee. You are saying because he looks like a man (in every sense but the fact he has a vagina), he is a man? The doesn't make any sense.
If you take him down to the genetics lab and the number of chromosomes they find determines he is a woman, no amount of clever semantics is going to change the biological truth of the situation.
So if she is a woman who gave birth and her chromosomes says she's a woman, then she is "mom" regardless of what "People Magazine," "The National Enquirer," and "The Village Voice" say.
The elaborate process of gender reassignment can makes us all pretty sure that, if he made it through the last stages of it, he is most definitely a man (plus he shouldn't have a vagina anymore by now). Maybe you should look it up and that might prevent you to compare that situation to your wife's claims about your simian behaviour.
I'm saying he's a man because he knows he is and because psychiatrists can tell the difference between a transgender individual and someone who might be suffering from some kind of delusion, personality disorder or any other alternative (like a homosexual person trying to get it a little easier, for instance). And that's a distinction you obviously don't seem to be able to make.
As human beings, we're far more complex than our biology despite your attempts to oversimplify a delicate issue.
So you say you're a man, or you say you're a woman, and I'm supposed to believe whatever you say?
Okay. Suppose I want to put my twin sons up for adoption and you look at them and say, "I'm sorry Chip but you are very much mistaken, those children are both girls, they must be your daughters. Then I speak to them and I say, "Sons, smile for the nice man," and they smile. Does it make them boys just because I have called them my sons and taught them to answer to "Sons" rather than "daughters"?
I don't think you can convince me.
It's exactly because we don't believe whatever people say and because there might be a lot of reasons for people making those claims that the gender reassignment process begins with psychiatric consultations and that in the end the results must be checked and confirmed by an independent psychiatrist before any hormonal treatment and surgical procedure is initiated. (Dramatic changes are involved so there's no room for doubt and no errors are allowed.)
Who said I was trying to convince you? I don't have a messianic vocation and we live in the Google era so the information for you to understand what transgenderism is all about should be fairly accessible.
One psychiatrist is all that's needed? What if the psychiatrist is a fruitcake too? :)
Two psychiatrists, actually (at least). I guess the double check approach also addresses that possibility... And you're making fun of a sensitive topic again. :/ I can't even start to imagine what it must be like to be born in a body of the wrong sex and to have to go through all that long, painful and complicated (on all levels) process to conquer an image more in synch with the person's nature but I reckon that anyone in that situation wouldn't like to see that matter taken so lightly. It's just disrespectful to those persons' suffering.
I just said what if the psychiatrist is a fruitcake because I once knew a psychiatrist and what he did for fun after he got his pilot's license was, well, he and his whole family would visit different nudist camps on weekends.... and if an ordinary person did this other people would think they were weird.
I didn't get if he and his family were naturists (maybe that's frequent that naturists marry each other and that they impose that philosophy onto their children or perhaps one element of the couple converts the other) or a family of voyeurs (if he did it for some kind of scientific reason, I don't see why he'd need to bring his family along... maybe to avoid retaliation or to teach them anthropology lessons?).
Would the "nos" have a different opinion if the woman had the child by another man? Shouldn't the man she was married to have more say in the matter then?
Nope. Ultimately, he doesn't have the kid. Most places he is responsible for its upkeep if they are legally married at the time, end of story.
How unfair.
You say "nope" and follow-up with "how unfair." Strange opinion; why not be fair instead?
Irony:
1.
a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.
2.
a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: "Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated" Richard Kain.
b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
3. Dramatic irony.
4. Socratic irony.
Meaning 1c, and possibly meaning 3, apply.
Irony? Or, facetiousness?
Actually what it really depends on is how good of a lawyer he can afford to prove she's a tramp.
The right lawyer, the right jury (if it gets that far) and she's toast!
How fair, eh? :-)
agree dauguy
Wouldn't a paternity test make the other guy responsible for paying child support?
Depends on the state and or country. Some places, the legal father is the mother's spouse. The law doesn't automatically update as technology advances.
I thought challenging the constitutionality of a law was one way to get outdated laws overturned and new precedents established, at least in the USA, I'm not familiar with other countries.
The constitution doesn't address these issue--perhaps you could make a civil rights violation out of it, perhaps not. No matter which legal challenge you bring, you need to have very, very, VERY deep pockets--and the Supreme Court can still refuse to hear the case.
For civil rights violations isn't that what the ACLU is for (to help people whose rights are being trampled)?
They take the cases they want to take. Usually in any particular part of the country, they are pursuing only particular cases. For example, when I had (according to them) a slam-dunk freedom of speech case against my employer, they would not pursue it because they were only pursuing that kind of case in the Great Plains area. Seems that funding is the issue.
So, unless you are very lucky, it takes bottomless pockets, lot of time, and a willing Supreme Court to get anything decreed unconstitutional.
I reckon men's rights are at the bottom of the pork barrel. :(
Yeah, poor guys. They still get paid one dollar on the dollar instead of sixty eight cents for the same job; drugs are still tested on them and not women or children; etc. Must be hard being so repressed.
*wipes sweat off brow*
Indeed, ...tell me about it! :-')
Absolutely... I know in America if a woman wants an abortion and a man doesnt, it's tough for him. but if a woman doesnt want one, and a man does, then he gets to incur fun payments, sometimes not even for his biological offspring. I dont know the best solution here, I just think women get too much power and the laws are too lopsided in my nation. And I cant abide any law that is skewed.