The Life Zone: If Saw and Human Centipede had a baby
The glow of pregnancy
Three young women wake up, confused and terrified, in a room that looks like a cross between a normal hospital room and the creepy underground lair of some mad scientist from a horror movie. A video screen flickers on and a creepy older man, looking a bit like Academy-award-nominee Robert Loggia, appears on it, telling the women that he’s their “jailer.” The women, you see, had all been getting abortions when their jailer’s shadowy accomplices kidnapped them and brought them to this strange prison, where they will be forced to live for the next seven months until they gave birth. “You were all on the operating table, all ready to commit murder,” announces a mysterious doctor. “Your babies will be given life just as God planned.”
This is the premise of a new horror film called The Life Zone, which recently had its world premiere at the prestigious, er, Hoboken International Film Festival, a festival that was, perhaps not coincidentally, founded and chaired by the film’s writer and producer, Kenneth del Vecchio. In case you think I’m making all this up, here’s the film’s trailer, which makes The Life Zone look a bit like an equal-parts mixture of Saw, Human Centipede, and The Handmaid’s Tale, with Robert Loggia in the role of Jigsaw/Dr. Heiter/The Commander:
Now, if you thought that something seemed really … off about that trailer, well, you’re not alone. For the film is not, as you might have assumed from my description, a warning against the fanatical misogyny of many in the anti-abortion movement.
No, the film – produced by a pro-life former judge, crime thriller author, and Republican New Jersey state senate candidate – is meant as pro-life propaganda. As the offical press release for the film’s premiere put it:
The film, which appears to cut right down the middle [of the abortion debate], examining the topic from both sides, offers a powerful, anti-abortion climactic twist. Del Vecchio and the cast invite pro-lifers to come to this historic event.
During the months the three women are held in captivity, you see, they are exposed to a barrage of films and books intended to, er, educate them about abortion –what their attending obstetrician Dr. Wise describes as “an abortion think tank.” Two of the captive women do indeed convert to the pro-life side; apparently we in the audience are supposed to develop Stockholm Syndrome along with them. The third, as we see in the trailer, tries to induce a miscarriage, which doesn’t go quite as planned.
And this sets us up for the final twist, which I’m just going to go ahead and reveal: once all three women have given birth, Dr. Wise tells them she’s going to sew them all, mouth-to-vagina, into a Human Abortion-pede!
Actually no: the twist is that the “life zone” the three women in has actually been … purgatory! All three “captives,” you see, had died on the operating table while getting their abortions. (Apparently they went to the world’s worst abortion clinic, as first-trimester abortions don’t involve anything more surgically invasive than the insertion of a suction tube; the risk of death from a legal surgical abortion is 0.0006%, one in 160,000 cases, making the procedure many times safer than childbirth itself.) Their time in the “life zone” was a test: the two women who changed their minds were whisked up to heaven, while their miscarriage-attempting, stubbornly pro-choice companion is sent straight to H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks. Dr. Wise, despite being on the right side of the abortion question, also goes to hell for committing suicide. And, oh yeah, their jailer – Loggia – was Satan. Why Satan and a hell-bound doctor were the ones trying to convert the abortion ladies to the pro-life side I can’t tell you; del Vecchio’s theology is evidently more sophisticated than I am.
The real twist here? As Jersey Journal writer Alan Robb notes:
The Life Zone went viral across the internet [last] Friday after blogs The Frisky and Talking Points Memo picked up on the film’s trailer. … But despite garnering more than 20,000 hits on YouTube in the last four days, only fifty people – including the film’s cast and producers – attended this weekend’s screening, and even those who starred in the movie didn’t know how to interpret its twist ending.
It’s impossible to tell from the trailer if the film is bad in a so-bad-it’s-good way, or if it’s just plain awful. I will try to get hold of it when it hits video, and will report back with my results.
In the meantime, if you’re looking for a good horror film set in a creepy hospital, try renting Infection, a Japanese film from 2005. Or, if you’ve got a longer attention span, try Lars Von Trier’s supernatural soap opera The Kingdom, a darkly comic miniseries which takes place in what one might call, paraphrasing Bill Murray’s character in Tootsie, “one nutty hospital.” Both are conveniently available on Netflix instant watch, so you don’t even have to leave your pregnancy dungeon to see them.
EDITED: Added some info on the minimal dangers of abortion procedures.
Posted on June 8, 2011, in creepy, evil women, misogyny, patriarchy, reactionary bullshit, vaginas. Bookmark the permalink. 1,066 Comments.
MRAL – Why don’t you want feminists to be all over prison rape? We’re against it. Seems like every hand helping there is a good thing.
Another point I should make- as I’ve said, I’m pro-choice, which entails choice for everyone, not just women. This means I am in favor of the very noble Choice for Men, which is a major hot-button issue in the MRA community. A lot of feminist hypocrites show their TRUE hypocritical and female supremacist colors when it comes to this issue.
Women get raped in prison, too.
And you’re right, I suppose – you get to have an opinion. But the rest of us get to have the opinion that your opinion sucks, and further opinions of our own as to your moral character.
I’m actually quite interested in your opinion on this, MRAL: If YOU were in charge of the pro-life movement, how would you do things differently?
Well Holly, the point is that any attempt to say women’s opinions are less valid would cause a major issue in the mainstream (ie, feminist) media.
Ooh, more MRAL-kicking to be done!
So, you’re so stupid (and possibly flustered from being attacked so fiercely, good!) that you can’t even think of ONE legitimate issue that affect only people with biological man-parts?? I’ve got a few for you: prostate cancer. Male birth control pills. Male fertility issues. Prison rape? Not really, prison just happens to be the one area where men are raped at about the same rate as women are raped. Either way, more power to you if you want to devote your life to making men’s lives better by working on those issues.
Nope. As you can see, you’re completely wrong about that. As usual.
“Your opinion about abortion is invalid.” Does my saying that magically conjure up brown-shirted goose-stepping feminists? No? Shucks. Let me know if they do show up.
I’m not pro-life, so I wouldn’t be in charge of the pro-life movement.
Did you mean pro-choice? I have no problem with the pro-choice community actually, but it’s the FEMINIST community I dislike. There’s overlap obviously (99% of feminists are pro-choice) but not everyone who is pro-choice identifies as feminist.
You mean, someone has invented a way for men to gestate fetuses? Fantastic, then I’m for Reproductive Choice for Men too.
And I’m all in favor of men having choices, too! A man should have contraception and sterilization procedures available for him on demand, with the costs of such subsidized that even the poorest men have access to them. Men should have access to comprehensive sex education, so they fully understand the risks of sexual behavior and how to mitigate them. And a man has just as much bodily autonomy as a woman does, so if a man gets pregnant, he has every right to abort.
I think women’s opinions are LESS IMPORTANT when it comes to prostate cancer funding. Do you agree? If not you’re a hypocrite. Also, can you imagine if I was a prominent person who said that publicly? My life would literally be over.
MRAL, men do not have a War Spleen that women simply lack by virtue of their sex. Men do lack uteruses.
Tell you what, you stay out of abortion discussions and I’ll butt out of discussions of…I dunno…vasectomies? Prostate exams? Writing in the snow?
You’re right, I meant pro-choice, not pro-life.
What you said was, Let me reiterate again that I am pro-choice, I just think the fymynysts handle the issue poorly.
And my question is, if you were put in charge of the pro-choice movement, what would you do differently? Because even though some pro-choice people don’t identify as feminists, most of the leaders of the pro-choice movement do.
No, Choice for Men is what can be termed “paper abortion”. We all know that during sex things can go wrong, mistakes can be made, etc. Women do not need to worry about this because they can get an abortion, or take morning after pills, or whatever. But men have no such option. It is one of the more obvious misandric double standards. So, while the baby is still in the first trimester, men should be allowed to sign away all responsibilities (and rights) to the hypothetical child. Very, very reasonable, right? The feminist hypocrites don’t think so.
I agree. That was easy. Come on, fuckwit, try harder.
No, feminists don’t think that a father should be allowed to punish an innocent child for a disagreement he had with the child’s mother.
Come on, you festering little pustule. Haven’t you got anything original? Oh right, you’re an MRA. Of course you don’t.
Maybe a lot of pro-choicers identify as feminist, but not nearly all, and I think many that do identify in a more abstract way, like, “yeah sure, I guess women should have rights”, not realizing that is no longer what the movement is about.
“No, feminists don’t think that a father should be allowed to punish an innocent child for a disagreement he had with the child’s mother.”
I thought a fetus wasn’t a child? Get your facts straight, dipshit. If the father is “punishing” the child, the mother is killing it.
So, while the baby is still in the first trimester, men should be allowed to sign away all responsibilities (and rights) to the hypothetical child.
So what you’re saying is that a child’s right to be taken care of is less important than a man’s right to have sex without consequences, right?
And you do realize that when a woman gives birth to a child, she’s now just as much on the hook for child care and support as the father, right?
“(99% of feminists are pro-choice) ”
I’d argue it’s more like 100%. A feminist that isn’t for bodily autonomy is like an atheist that believes in God. Mutually exclusive concept. Conservative fake not-feminists like the Independent Women’s Forum do not count.
Maybe a lot of pro-choicers identify as feminist, but not nearly all, and I think many that do identify in a more abstract way, like, “yeah sure, I guess women should have rights”, not realizing that is no longer what the movement is about.
You’re still not answering the question. Answer the question.
I thought I answered the question. I wouldn’t do anything differently. The pro-choice community is different from the feminist community.
Obviously, a fetus is not a child. But if the mother chooses to carry her pregnancy to term, it becomes a child, and the man becomes a father. He then has responsibilities towards that child which are not mitigated by his desire for the child’s mother to get an abortion.
*yawn*
“So what you’re saying is that a child’s right to be taken care of is less important than a man’s right to have sex without consequences, right? ”
The mother is thus responsible for taking care of the child, on her own. If she doesn’t want to… well, she can get an abortion as well.
Sally, my reply to Victoria applies to you too. The mother is now the primary caregiver (we all know this happens regularly anyway), and if she cannot or does not want to provide, she can follow in the father’s footsteps and get an abortion as well.
I have a feeling MRAL would allow abortion…in certain circumstances. Maybe force it in some circumstances.
In other words, pro-choice for men, anti-choice for women. One needn’t be against abortion to be anti-choice (see: China)
Like I said on the other thread, I am 100% in favor of male abortion so long as:
1) It takes place in the first trimester of pregnancy
and
2) The man has the fetus removed from his uterus
Fine, then – what do you think is wrong with the way feminists are handling the issue of being pro-choice? You said you thought feminists handle the issue poorly. I’m trying to pin you down on precisely what the feminists are doing in the pro-choice movement, which the non-feminists are not doing in the movement, that you find so objectionable.
Is it just that the feminists don’t think you ought to be allowed to abandon a child?
This is where the distinction between fetus and baby is an important one to make.
One cannot abort children. Once they exist, they must be taken care of. Now, if you are in favor of taxing all men and women and having the government raise them instead, feel free to make the case for it. But currently, we lay the primary responsibility for a child’s welfare on the shoulders of the child’s biological parents.
She can’t get an abortion once it becomes a child, because by then, it’s already been born. Try again.
By the way, I will name one issue where I think ciswomen’s opinions matter less–circumcision. I do get genuinely ooked out when women treat circumcising their sons as no big deal. A person with a penis, circumcised or not, has a lot more first-hand knowledge and a lot more personal stake, and so is entitled to have his opinions valued more.
No, I am for choice for women and men, at all times, no matter what. The thing is, choice for women is allowed and the right is fairly stable (both wishful-thinking Republicans and fear-mongering feminists would have you think differently, but there’s no way the government will ever overturn Roe v. Wade). With men, choice is nonexistent, so forgive me for thinking it’s a bigger issue.
Damn my slow connection! I keep getting beaten to the punch and end up parroting other people. Sorry folks.
Yes, that’s exactly it. Go ahead and try to deny it, MRAL, but that is in essence the MRA position on abortion and child support. Conflating fetuses with children is a very useful rhetorical tool when you’re arguing for idiocy such as this. Which is why you keep doing it.
I got to wondering, if you think fetuses aren’t alive, do you think children are alive? When does a baby become alive?
“So what you’re saying is that a child’s right to be taken care of is less important than a man’s right to have sex without consequences, right? ”
The mother is thus responsible for taking care of the child, on her own. If she doesn’t want to… well, she can get an abortion as well.
So, yes, you’re saying a man deserves the right to have sex more than a child deserves to be taken care of.
That’s a filthy lie. Any man who gets pregnant has every right to choose whether to abort it or carry it to term.
I am an feminist and I honestly don’t see the problem with so called paper abortions, provided the paperwork would be required to be filed in a timely manner, such as to allow for an actual abortion should the woman chose to have one, and provided that the paperwork would include an agreement to split the costs of any abortion. I realize that I may be overlooking something in reaching this conclusion and would welcome any explanations of why this is wrong.
Victoria, I don’t really think hardcore feminists run the pro-choice movement. It’s a full-time job to be a senior leader in one of the other. I should have been clearer- I don’t like the way feminists (made up of pro-choice people, but are not the pro-choice movement) discuss the abortion issue, because it’s done in a hostile manner, usually involves mocking men, and also feminists are generally against Choice 4 Men.
(both wishful-thinking Republicans and fear-mongering feminists would have you think differently, but there’s no way the government will ever overturn Roe v. Wade)
Unnecessary. Regulations and acts of terror make it effectively impossible to procure an abortion even if it’s technically legal.
By the way, I will name one issue where I think ciswomen’s opinions matter less–circumcision.
The C-bomb has been dropped. Everyone hit the deck. *fetches popcorn*
Sally, maybe you failed biology, but men don’t get pregnant. However, they have the same responsibilities afterward (they don’t actually give birth, but that’s negligible compared to the next 18 years of financial and emotional commitment).
Fatman – Two reasons:
1) Abortions aren’t just a matter of cost. They also involve strangers going up your hoo-hah and doing things that hurt like the dickens.
2) If the mother doesn’t want to abort, if she wants to keep the kid, what then? The kid will cost just as much to raise as any other. I don’t think it’s fair to the child (or to society, if you want to take the “welfare comes out of my tax dollars” perspective) to say the father’s off the hook just because he wanted the fetus to be aborted.
No… I’m not saying the man’s right to sex is more important than a child’s right to be taken care of. That’s very important. But you’re twisting the facts of the issue. The child is not a child as the time of abortion- which is why the mother can have an abortion. The same principles would apply for men. Once the child is born he is completely committed and cannot get an abortion.
Forgive me for thinking that you were ignorant of this fact. You see, the choice to get an abortion can only exist when a person is pregnant. Anything else is tantamount to slavery.
Tell me, MRAL, what would you think of a government that mandated abortions for women who didn’t want them? On the basis of, say, controlling population. It’s a compelling interest. Would that be a violation of women’s human rights or not?
Fatman- Throw in a back-up source of child support and I too would not have a problem with “paper abortions.”
But that would probably require TEH SOCIALIZMS. Which is evil and feminine and quite possibly ghey.
“The thing is, choice for women is allowed and the right is fairly stable (both wishful-thinking Republicans and fear-mongering feminists would have you think differently, but there’s no way the government will ever overturn Roe v. Wade)”
Someone hasn’t been paying attention lately!
For what it’s worth, I find the concept of paper abortions interesting. I just don’t know how to get around the fact that it’s basically asking the government to subsidize these paper non-fathers. It’s … problematic.
I think “paper abortions” or “choice for men” is wrong because it violates the rights of the child. Every child has a right to know their parents and to their resources and support until they are old enough to support themselves. A “paper abortion” is tantamount to child-abandonment.
If you’ll all excuse a terrible, terrible analogy, unplanned pregnancies are like car accidents: you didn’t want it to happen and it is an expensive pain in the ass, but saying you don’t *want* to deal with it won’t un-break the car or un-pregnant the lady. Life is inconvenient, but you can’t change the past or trample other people’s rights just because you don’t like the consequences.
The root problem here is that childbirth isn’t fair. The only way to have total equity is to have the Supreme Court rule that fetuses will exist 50% in the mother and 50% in the father, can only be created by conscious choice, and can be made to painlessly vaporize at any time between conception and their 18th birthday.
Until we get that ruling, shit will be unfair, because the physical reality of pregnancy happens in a woman’s body, and the physical reality of a child’s need for money and effort cannot be wished away.
No, that’s exactly what you’re saying. I understand that it’s a little embarrassing to realize that your viewpoints value a man’s orgasm over a child’s well-being, but that’s just part of life when you’re an MRA. Maybe if you change your views then people won’t think you’re an asshole who thinks that a man’s ability to have consequence-free sex is more important than ensuring the well-being of children.
because it’s done in a hostile manner
I know, how dare we get annoyed that other people try and control what we do with our bodies!! Could you please show me how a non-feminist, pro-choice person manages to talk about abortion in a hostile manner, while a pro-choice feminist is overtly hostile? I mean, how exactly are you defining ‘hostility’? Because I think men like Scott Roeder, Paul Jennings Hill, Eric Rudolph and John Salvi are WAY more hostile in the abortion debate than feminists are (hint: no feminist has ever bombed a clinic or committed murder to further the cause, all those men killed at least one person).
usually involves mocking men
I won’t deny that some pro-choice feminists openly mock men, but they usually don’t mock men as a gender – they reserve their mockery for individual assholes who deserve to be mocked.
and also feminists are generally against Choice 4 Men
So it basically is that feminists don’t think you ought to be allowed to abandon a child. Good to know. You’re really not convincing anyone here that you’re *not* an asshole with positions like that.
Sally, well then the definition of abortion should be expanded. Anyone who is committed to caring for a child has the right to abort that child, be it biologically or legally, before the child is born.
You know what? Here’s the real difference between female abortion and “male abortion.”
After a woman gets an abortion, the father doesn’t have to feed it and diaper it and send it to school for 18 years.
**I miss three days ago, when I had never heard of “The Human Centipede.”
Sorry about that Bee. Nice to see David picked up on it though.
CHOICE 4 MEN IS NOT ABANDONING A CHILD.
No, Choice 4 Men (in a best case scenario where it is only during the first trimester) is telling a woman she’s being forced to have an abortion, otherwise the guy’s gonna abandon her child.
That’s not a full choice.
I have to think about this. Some of you have put forth suprisingly reasoned arguements against Choice 4 Men, mostly the child abandonment thing. Usually it’s just “LOL MEN SHOULD KEEP IT IN THEIR PANTS”, which is less than convincing. The abandonment thing upset me a little. I’ll be back later.
What you’re really saying here is that a man should have the right to do to his sex partner what was done to the women in this movie: kidnap her, tie her up, and force her to give birth against her will. I don’t see any other way to make this happen. Except for the aforementioned artificial uterus. That’s a men’s issue I would get 100% behind. You should really be agitating for the medical field to put more research into developing artificial uteri. Then men can achieve true equality.
Repetition =/= truth
I actually appreciate that tremendously, MRAL. Whatever you conclude, being able to question your beliefs and accept arguments from your opponent is something that no one (and yeah, I do include us–not that we’re wrong, just that we certainly can get stubborn and closed up, or at least I know I can sometimes) does easily.
CHOICE 4 MEN IS NOT ABANDONING A CHILD.
It wouldn’t be if someone else picked up the check. After he “aborts”, who takes up the slack in his stead? I assume you’re ok with setting up agencies (with taxpayer funds, natch) to compensate?
Yeah, I’d be okay with that too. What do you say, MRAL — how should we set that up? How about a tax on men, which they would be allowed to stop paying if they chose to take responsibility for a child they fathered?
CHOICE 4 MEN IS NOT ABANDONING A CHILD.
No, it pretty much is.
Her: “Honey, I’m pregnant!”
Him: “Well, we had some okay sex, and the orgasms were nice, but I don’t really want to pay for a child. I’m not going to give up any of my money or time for your child.”
Her: “Well, okay then. I think I can have the baby on my own anyway, and I really want to be a mother”
Him: “Peace out!” :: goes and finds other women to fuck ::
TEN YEARS LATER
Child: “Mommy, where’s my daddy?”
Her: “He didn’t want to be a father, so he abandoned us before you were born. Mommy loves you very much, though!”
So how is this NOT abandonment?
You’re assuming that women get pregnant so they can siphon off a man’s resources, and so if a man decides to not be a father at all, then the woman will automatically get an abortion. But in the real world, women decide to become mothers for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with getting money from a man (and given the cost in both real dollars, time spent and intangible sacrifices made, becoming a mother in exchange for a few hundred dollars a month, if that, is a shitty, shitty trade-off).
Here’s a newsflash: The so-called ‘paper abortion’ happens in this country almost every day, when women get unexpectedly pregnant and have conversations with the father. I personally know one woman who decided to go the abortion route when her partner made it clear she would get no support from him.
Even if there was a stable, sustainable funding alternative for women whose partners chose not to support their children, I still don’t like it. A child has a right to know who their father is. So much of who I am only makes sense to me because I know my parents. It gives me a sense of continuity, of belonging in the world. The only case where I would be okay about concealing knowledge of a living father from a child would be in cases of rape. But even then, I think if the child wants to know, they have a right to.
I looked up some statistics about single mothers and decided that maybe Choice 4 Men is not ideal after all. But it’s not fair and I think we can emphasize that and not mock men who are upset at their lack of rights. tThese men deserve sympathy because, again, it’s not fair at all. And I still don’t like the way feminists discuss the pro-choice issue (calling it “anti-choice”, mocking men, etc.)
MRAL – I agree that it can be a raw deal to be a father against your wishes, with the caveats of:
1) It’s a raw deal to raise a child alone
and
2) It’s a raw, raw, raw deal to be an unwanted child
Frankly, any scenario (other than a pre-agreed sperm donation) where the kid isn’t wanted by both parents is a less than awesome situation, but the solution for that isn’t to put all the responsibility on one parent.
But it’s not fair and I think we can emphasize that and not mock men who are upset at their lack of rights.
By ‘lack of rights’, you mean ‘not able to have sex and then possibly abandon the child’.
These men deserve sympathy because, again, it’s not fair at all.
Sure, and if a male friend of mine unexpectedly became a father before he was ready to do so, I’d commiserate with him about being in a challenging situation. But I’d still expect him to do right by another human being, i.e., his child.
And I still don’t like the way feminists discuss the pro-choice issue (calling it “anti-choice”, mocking men, etc.)
But people who are against abortion are actively trying to take choices away from women. They are not pro-life, because they don’t act like they value life. Especially not now that the newest item on the anti-choice agenda seems to be restricting contraceptive access to people.
Please show me where feminists are mocking men as a gender, and not the few anti-choice asshats who deserve mockery.
And what do you think is worse: mocking some guys on the internet, or shooting some guy in church? Mocking some guys on the internet, or mocking some women on the internet for being ‘bytchys’ who won’t say hi to you?
I really wish there were some way that a person could find out, before they have sex with another person (in cases where one of those people could become pregnant), what that other person thought of birth control and pregnancy and abortion and sex in general, and then could somehow convey their thoughts on those topics back to that person. That way, fewer people would be surprised to find out that the person they had sex with wasn’t using birth control, or was morally against abortion, or didn’t want children. Oh why oh why won’t some bright person think of a way … some kind of communication devise or tool … for people to impart this very important information to others at an appropriate time!
I don’t know. Maybe some kind of medallion/bracelet thing? Or … oh, there MUST be an easier way! Wait a minute, wait a minute! No. I lost it. Oh well. Maybe some genius inventor will some day figure out how a man and a woman can find out what the other thinks about life-changing topics.
I think if the child wants to know, they have a right to.
Indeed, it may even be a medical necessity. Al this talk of setting up funding agencies to compensate for dickwads walking away from their pregnant partners is really just a thought experiment to show MRAL how utterly fucking unworkable it all is.
The reason it’s unworkable is because there is a real biological inequity here: some people have uteri in which to gestate fetuses, and some people don’t.
Having a uterus gives you an extra set of choices about whether to reproduce, since you’re the person who’s going to be physically constructing the body of a new human being with your own blood and bones and nutrients.
Trying to give people without uteri that same set of choices is idiotic, it amounts to a denial of reality. In fact, it is one of the most honest manifestations of womb envy that you’ll ever see.
Bee – People (male and female) do lie and change their minds.
I actually do have a lot of sympathy for guys whose partners keep pregnancies when the guy didn’t want or expect them to. But it’s “shit, you’re going to be dealing with some tough consequences” sympathy, not “shit, you deserve to walk away from all consequences” sympathy.
For what it’s worth, I find the concept of paper abortions interesting. I just don’t know how to get around the fact that it’s basically asking the government to subsidize these paper non-fathers.
considering the likely quality of some of these putative fathers, I can see trying to get them out of the picture also. As long, as someone else pointed out, teh mother and child are supported through other mechanisms.
Of course, then the dickweeds will get all butthurty and try to weasel their way back into the child’s life.
“I actually appreciate that tremendously, MRAL. Whatever you conclude, being able to question your beliefs and accept arguments from your opponent is something that no one (and yeah, I do include us–not that we’re wrong, just that we certainly can get stubborn and closed up, or at least I know I can sometimes) does easily.”
Yes, I’d like to second that.
As for the whole paper abortion thing – I have mixed feelings about it, but like Holly said, as long as it’s mostly women* that can get pregnant, it’s not ever really going to be fair. I don’t think the father should ultimately get to make the decision about whether or not someone has an abortion, because the father doesn’t have to carry the baby to term. On the other hand, I am a little squeamish about the fact that a mother can decide “I’m not personally or financially stable enough to be a good caretaker for a child/not mature enough/etc” and a father can’t decide the same thing. From a fairness perspective it seems like the paper abortion would have to happen before the two even had sex, but that’s sort of silly and impractical.
Over all though, as a few people have said before, I think that GOOD, COMPREHENSIVE, sex education and easily available contraception are the best solutions here.
*I just want to point out, really quick, that yes MRAL, men can get pregnant – specifically, transmen. Regardless of your legal or chosen gender, I think any pregnant individual should be allowed to get an abortion.
“Bee – People (male and female) do lie and change their minds.”
Absolutely true. But I don’t think it’s too idealistic to think that talking about these kinds of things before p-i-v sex couldn’t hurt, and might in a few cases help get people on the same page so that there are … fewer big surprises.
Or too jaded to think that the same MRAs who support the idea of paper adoption might be the kinds of people who don’t bother finding out what their sex partner thinks because *shrug* bitches.
Womb envy? That’s a fucking laugh. More misandry from feminists, female supremacy and a belief that the female body is better when it’s not. Sounds like a fascist Nazi eugenics state to me.