Socialism, Men, and Pro-Choice

[thriller]

I am completely, 100% pro-choice. And I believe under socialism, society would be too. But I have a question. If a woman became pregnant and wanted an aborotion, but the father didn't, what would happen under socialism? If the father decided to pay all the bills and completely take care of the child, would he have a say? After all, you need two people to make a kid. And eqaulity between men and women would flourish under socialism. I just think if the father took complete responsibilty, he should at least have a voice. Any thoughts?

[Nuvem]

That...is a tough one. On the one hand, the woman is the one who has to carry the child for 9 months. On the other, it does indeed take two for typical conception and the man has just as much right to the child once it is born. I don't really have a good answer for this one, I'd have to ponder it and take a look at some other people's opinions. I hadn't ever really thought about this before.

[Sosa]

Here is my opinion in that case:

If the father is willing and able to provide for the needs of the child AND the pregnancy is not harmful to the health of the mother or child, then the father should win. I am pro-choice too.

[Armchair War Criminal]

If we respect bodily autonomy, it's the woman's choice. Period.

It's possible that under socialism truly radical solutions to childrearing will appear, and no one will be harmed if the biological father decides to opt out of parenting; in this case, everyone's autonomy will be preserved. If something like present arrangements continue, though, I'd say that a woman's control over her own body and a child's right to care override the biological father's right to extract himself from the situation. (Of course, it should go without saying that birth control and sex education should be available to all.)

[Amphictyonis]

Haven't you heard? According to Glen Beck, under socialism, population control would dictate every second 'born' be aborted and the state will tell you when you can breed.

[Nuvem]

I wonder what historical evidence he's claiming to draw that load of bullshit from. China's 2 child limit laws? If that's the case he's horribly mistaken because China is not currently Socialist, it doesn't require abortion, and the state lets the Chinese people breed freely. It just restricts the number of children they can care for and that's why their adoption centers are bursting at the seams.

Thanks to his moronic "logic", I'd say that the Chinese example is the only thing he could possibly be drawing that conclusion from, in spite of how hideously wrong and misinterpreted that would be.

[Victus Mortuum]

Perhaps there would be the development of artificial wombs. This would allow women to not have to deal with carrying and birthing if they didn't want to (and I suspect this would become common under this assumption). Just a thought

[Magón]

Haven't you heard? According to Glen Beck, under socialism, population control would dictate every second 'born' be aborted and the state will tell you when you can breed.

I thought it was sacrifice the first born?... Oh wait, that's God... :cursing:

[Summerspeaker]

Bodily sovereignty trumps everything else. It's the choice of the person who's pregnant. The notion of the state or community intervening to coerce them into birthing the child disgusts me.

[Thirsty Crow]

That...is a tough one.

No, not really.
It is the woman who must go through 9 months of pregnancy and then experience the pain of child birth. It's her call and her call alone. Of course, it is up to the concrete individuals to work things out.

[ZeroNowhere]

To be honest, I'm not sure why this thread includes 'socialism' in the title, as it doesn't have much to do with socialism. I do agree, however, with the posters who would give the female the right to choose. Well, unless sometime in the future males got pregnant somehow, in which case the pregnant one still decides. Nonetheless, I don't think that inserting sperm into somebody gives you the right to force them through pregnancy, nor to force them to abort if they do not wish to.

[Sosa]

Correction: The woman should have the final say. Ideally the couple will decide together whats best, but in the end the woman has to have the final say because she is the one carrying the child.

My personal opinion would be that the best situation is for the father to care for it if he is willing and able to, and give the child an opportunity to be a productive member of society.

[thriller]

To be honest, I'm not sure why this thread includes 'socialism' in the title, as it doesn't have much to do with socialism. I do agree, however, with the posters who would give the female the right to choose. Well, unless sometime in the future males got pregnant somehow, in which case the pregnant one still decides. Nonetheless, I don't think that inserting sperm into somebody gives you the right to force them through pregnancy, nor to force them to abort if they do not wish to.


I didn't say anywhere that the father has a right to force the woman through child birth. I was merely asking if under socialism a father would have a voice in the matter. I must have mistyped.

[RedMaterialist]

I am completely, 100% pro-choice. And I believe under socialism, society would be too. But I have a question. If a woman became pregnant and wanted an aborotion, but the father didn't, what would happen under socialism? If the father decided to pay all the bills and completely take care of the child, would he have a say? After all, you need two people to make a kid. And eqaulity between men and women would flourish under socialism. I just think if the father took complete responsibilty, he should at least have a voice. Any thoughts?

When men have to have the kids then they can make the choice.

[thriller]

Alright people must be misinterpreting what I posted. I am not staing that the man should have the final decision and choice in the matter. It is the woman who has the child, I know that. But under socialism what would happen? If socialism is truley a collectivist and equal society, would one single person have the complete decision?
(And I'm surprised no stalinists chimed in haha)

[Reznov]

I have to go with the father on this one. It is an agreement and fact that she would get pregnant.

If the father is willing to support the child and can provide for it, then I believe he is a parent just like the mother is and deserves just as much right to have his child as the mother does of getting rid of it.

This is not sexism but a choice of a parent and child imo.

[Nuvem]

Yes, I think the idea of body sovereignty trumping all other arguments is actually quite sexist and ignores a lot of factors. I know I would be pretty traumatized if I wanted to have a child (not that I ever would) and the woman who I was with aborted it without talking with me or against my wishes. There has to be a collaboration and a consensus between both genders in this scenario and simply laying down the law that the woman gets to make the final say as though the man is just an emotionless lump of skin is just as sexist as saying the man gets the final choice because the woman is supposedly inferior.

If consensus absolutely cannot be reached, the situation becomes very complicated. In all fairness, the woman entered into a sexual relationship (assuming consent) fully willing and aware of the potential consequences, as does the man in the equation. If it is wrong for a man to abandon a woman he has impregnated, is it not equally wrong for a woman to abort a child without the man's knowledge or consent? While it is the woman who is physically obligated to carry the child, we can't forget that the man shares the emotional burden, including the excitement of joy of becoming a father.

I'm completely pro-choice and have no qualms about a couple conjointly deciding to abort a fetus if that is their wish, but I also believe in personal responsibility. Whether it's a man skipping out on his pregnant partner or a woman aborting a child without consulting the father, the result is emotional anguish and frankly either choice is a cop-out from responsibility. This is precisely the reason people should use protection until they are absolutely certain they want a child, but of course it's never that simple. There are always mistakes or exceptions (myself being a BIG accident).

This is why I say this is a tough question to answer. There is no hard-line black and white answer to this that isn't heavily biased or non-holistic.

[Armchair War Criminal]

Nobody is saying that the man is just an emotionless lump of skin. We're only saying that pregnancy is a thing that happens inside women's bodies, a statement that should be uncontroversial.

Is it true that a man might feel acute emotional anguish at his girlfriend choosing to have an abortion? Of course. Are there other situations where we'd say one person's emotions override another person's bodily autonomy? None that I'd say. It is, after all, an extremely common situation for one person to desire another physically and emotionally, and for the desirer to feel awful heartbreak if this isn't reciprocated - but I hope no one would say the desiree is obligated to reciprocate, even morally.

[9]

I have to go with the father on this one. It is an agreement and fact that she would get pregnant.

If the father is willing to support the child and can provide for it, then I believe he is a parent just like the mother is and deserves just as much right to have his child as the mother does of getting rid of it.

This is not sexism but a choice of a parent and child imo.

and if you think its sexism, its just because you're a sensitive *****, you pussy!

this concludes another RevLeft dickwaving discussion on how much control we should allow women to exercise over their own bodies.

/thread

[the last donut of the night]

I have to go with the father on this one. It is an agreement and fact that she would get pregnant.

If the father is willing to support the child and can provide for it, then I believe he is a parent just like the mother is and deserves just as much right to have his child as the mother does of getting rid of it.

This is not sexism but a choice of a parent and child imo.

Yes, I do have a sailors mouth. Did it offend you? Then toughen up you pussy penis!

why aren't you banned?

[9]

there's no reason to ban him, tbh; let's not start that.

[Magón]

I have to go with the father on this one. It is an agreement and fact that she would get pregnant.

If the father is willing to support the child and can provide for it, then I believe he is a parent just like the mother is and deserves just as much right to have his child as the mother does of getting rid of it.

This is not sexism but a choice of a parent and child imo.

I would suspect it's a bit of a *****, having to carry around something you don't necessarily want for 9 Months straight. But agree that if the father wants to take care of it, and the mother doesn't, then at least the kid will have somewhere to go, rather a foster home or something.

And also, why would it be the Child's choice? They don't even know what's going on... far as I know.

[Sosa]

It's definitely a tough issue. Yes the father should have a say. We are not asexual beings, it takes two to make a child and the fathers voice should be valid. However, the mother would have to have the final say on the matter, if she cannot be persuaded by the father. This is a matter than can only be resolved by both.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Alright people must be misinterpreting what I posted. I am not staing that the man should have the final decision and choice in the matter. It is the woman who has the child, I know that. But under socialism what would happen? If socialism is truley a collectivist and equal society, would one single person have the complete decision?
(And I'm surprised no stalinists chimed in haha)

Really what does that entail? If a woman was pregnant and the man could not convince her that because he wants the baby that she should carry it for 9 months and give birth to it for him, then too bad, he needs to find a willing partner to have a baby. For him to have "a say" would mean that he is forcing her to do something against her will. He would have to find someone who wanted to give their kid up for adoption or find a a willing surrogate mother to carry the fetus and give birth to it.

What if you reverse the situation: a woman got pregnant and wanted to give birth to a baby, but didn't want to raise it, she wanted the father to raise it all by himself. It still takes two to make that baby, why should the father take away her choice to give birth just because he doesn't want to raise a baby? Because at that point it is not a mutual decision - one person is forcing another to do something they have no desire to do.

[thriller]

Really what does that entail? If a woman was pregnant and the man could not convince her that because he wants the baby that she should carry it for 9 months and give birth to it for him, then too bad, he needs to find a willing partner to have a baby. For him to have "a say" would mean that he is forcing her to do something against her will. He would have to find someone who wanted to give their kid up for adoption or find a a willing surrogate mother to carry the fetus and give birth to it.

What if you reverse the situation: a woman got pregnant and wanted to give birth to a baby, but didn't want to raise it, she wanted the father to raise it all by himself. It still takes two to make that baby, why should the father take away her choice to give birth just because he doesn't want to raise a baby? Because at that point it is not a mutual decision - one person is forcing another to do something they have no desire to do.

1. I didn't say the father should have a "say" in the matter, I said a "voice". There is a difference. Here in the US we all have a "voice" in politics because of the first amendment and voting rights. But we don't at all have a "say" because the government doesn't listen to us and doesn't give a shit what we want.

2. Your ignoring the issue. Please tell me how you believe it would work under SOCIALISM. I get that it's wrong, but how would the politics of a collectivist, equal, and workers run democracy deal with it? I'm not debating the morality of a womens right to choose, I'm debating the politics of socialism and womens rights. It's like if I asked "Would racism exist under socialism?" and you saying "Racism sucks!" No shit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. I didn't say the father should have a "say" in the matter, I said a "voice". There is a difference. Here in the US we all have a "voice" in politics because of the first amendment and voting rights. But we don't at all have a "say" because the government doesn't listen to us and doesn't give a shit what we want.

2. Your ignoring the issue. Please tell me how you believe it would work under SOCIALISM. I get that it's wrong, but how would the politics of a collectivist, equal, and workers run democracy deal with it? I'm not debating the morality of a womens right to choose, I'm debating the politics of socialism and womens rights. It's like if I asked "Would racism exist under socialism?" and you saying "Racism sucks!" No shit.Sorry, I'm not trying to be antagonistic... I don't see how socialism or capitalism changes the fact that if a man and a woman get pregnant, only the woman can decide to carry through with the pregnancy or not. Like I said if a man wanted the baby and the woman didn't, the baby shouldn't be born unless that man can somehow find a woman willing to carry the baby and give birth to it(if that's possible). Even under socialism, a man should have no right to force a woman to carry through with an entire pregnancy and birth.

Giving birth is called labor, right:D? A man in socialism should not have the right to force a woman to labor against her will.

[WeAreReborn]

I think it shouldn't be decided by a set of laws, written or not. It would be purely situationally based, and obviously the woman in like 95% of the cases would have the upper hand in that situation and would get their way. But to put my opinion into it, I agree that it is the woman's choice. It does take two to make a baby, but they should have talked about it first, AND the guy doesn't have to carry it around in his uterus for 9 months then go through labor.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Here is my opinion in that case:

If the father is willing and able to provide for the needs of the child AND the pregnancy is not harmful to the health of the mother or child, then the father should win. I am pro-choice too.

"Pro-choice" means the right of a woman to decide what is right for her body. What you have described is not "pro-choice" - it's fucked up.

[Sosa]

"Pro-choice" means the right of a woman to decide what is right for her body. What you have described is not "pro-choice" - it's fucked up.

Did you conveniently ignore my later post were I corrected myself and basically redacted that statement?

[thriller]

Apparently :lol:

[thriller]

Sorry, I'm not trying to be antagonistic... I don't see how socialism or capitalism changes the fact that if a man and a woman get pregnant, only the woman can decide to carry through with the pregnancy or not. Like I said if a man wanted the baby and the woman didn't, the baby shouldn't be born unless that man can somehow find a woman willing to carry the baby and give birth to it(if that's possible). Even under socialism, a man should have no right to force a woman to carry through with an entire pregnancy and birth.

Giving birth is called labor, right:D? A man in socialism should not have the right to force a woman to labor against her will.

So you believe no laws in socialism should govern a woman's right to choose? Okay, that answers my question, thanks.

[ZeroNowhere]

I didn't say anywhere that the father has a right to force the woman through child birth. I was merely asking if under socialism a father would have a voice in the matter. I must have mistyped.
If you mean that the father should be able to state his opinion, then sure. However, I assumed that you weren't asking anything as mundane as whether the father's opinion should be censored, and as such I can't see what this 'voice' would consist in except the potential to force the woman to have a child against their will.

Otherwise, it would be more or less irrelevant if the father decided to support the child or not, as he'd be able to give his opinion, and thus have all the voice he's going to have in the matter, and it would be the mother's choice.

This, of course, is my opinion, and nothing inherent to socialism.


Giving birth is called labor, right:D? A man in socialism should not have the right to force a woman to labor against her will."In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Evidently, labour must become life's prime want. Communists are actually closet Victorians.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So you believe no laws in socialism should govern a woman's right to choose? Okay, that answers my question, thanks.No laws restricting this, and moreover, I think any "laws" should include birth-control, abortion, pregnancy care and so on should be treated as medical issues and provided like all medical treatments.

[Cowboy Killer]

On a personal level,between the mother and the father I think both of their opinions should be considered between them but I think ultimately as societal precedent it should be up to the woman.

[Ravachol]

While I understand that It can be very hard for a father who really whishes to keep the child to leave the descision up to the mother, in the end it's still the mother who has to go through to process of child-birth. It's her body that will have to go through this process and not his and from what I've gathered the process isn't that nice....

It would be surreal to force women to go through this process against their will only because the father wants THIS specific baby. We should also consider the implications of a child being born to a mother who never wanted him/her and a father who did...

[DaComm]

I would suspect it's a bit of a *****, having to carry around something you don't necessarily want for 9 Months straight. But agree that if the father wants to take care of it, and the mother doesn't, then at least the kid will have somewhere to go, rather a foster home or something.

And also, why would it be the Child's choice? They don't even know what's going on... far as I know.

This, the mother has the choice- bearing the burden of an unborn human which comes with many a pain. Besides, if you are pro-life you are saying that the rights of an unborn fetus overide the rights of the birthing woman, who, as I said earlier, goes through many hardships when pregnant.