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.
*sigh*
Just once can we get through a thread without Godwinning it? Please?
Do believe penis envy exists?
You’re preaching to a choir in which probably many have oft heard, “Tsk tsk tsk, she shoulda kept her legs shut”, so we know just how convincing that kind of argument really is.
Yeah Pam, that’s what I usually tell the feminists, and then they run and hide behind their moderator who bans me for no reason. Typical feminist behavior.
MRAL, thank you very much for taking the time to listen and research and revise your opinion. I am pleasantly surprised.
And just for the record I said cis-men’s opinions are LESS valid, not invalid. That’s an important distinction, really. I also think my opinion on such topics as male circumcision, and prostate cancer are probably less valid then people who have prostates and penises.
And, also, for the record, some trans men can get pregnant. That’s why I’ve been trying to specify cis-men.
I reckon penis envy can be a real thing. Of course it’s easily mitigated by the purchase of a prosthetic cock.
Uterus envy isn’t as easy to deal with. I’m speaking kind of tongue-in-cheek about it, but it really does seem to me that a lot of these arguments boil down to “WAAAH YOU HAVE A UTERUS AND I DON’T IT’S NOT FAAAAAIIRRR!!” Well, if you had a uterus then you’d be all set, right? So, uterus envy.
I still don’t think men’s opinions are less valid, really. If that were the case women’s opinions would be less valid in a WHOLE hell of a lot of different areas in society.
Right, we’re back to all that equipment that only operates if you stick your dick in it.
Translated, Sally is a Hitleresque female supremacist who believes female bodies are better than male ones.
Penis envy is AT LEAST as widespread as this new “womb envy” thing.
Anyway, what does it matter WHY you don’t do something? All that matters is that you don’t, therefore your opinion “matters less”. That opens a fucking big ass can of worms.
Wait, she’s Hitler for mentioning strap-ons?
*brain explodes*
For what it’s worth, I kinda envy penises, but not in a resentful way. I just think they’re nifty. I think what I’ve got is nifty too.
I do, as I said, think ciswomen should have less of a say in things like circumcision and male health issues.
I just don’t think a woman’s pregnancy is a male health issue. (And neither is war or politics; not only can women participated in these male-dominated arenas, lots of them do.)
Women are better than men at making new human beings, it’s true.
Keep working on that artificial uterus and perhaps someday men will be able to achieve true equality with women.
Dude, uterus envy is totally a real thing. Not in that everyone has it. But I know people who don’t have them who would do anything to bear a child. Seriously. It makes me so sad that they can’t.
And I would love a detachable cock. So I bought myself one! Not as good as the real thing, I suppose, but it suits me and my lovers well.
See, here’s the problem with the MRA movement and attached misogynists.
Someone surmises (somewhat accurately) that womb envy explains some of the positions taken in this thread.
MRAL immediately assumes that the poster is saying that all men suffer from womb envy, and this means that all feminists think that all men suffer from womb envy, and is therefore misandrist. Because it’s easier to jump to those conclusions and be a Glen Beck-style reactionary than actually think about what was actually said.
Some men probably do have womb envy, and some women probably do have penis envy. But I think in both cases, they should just get the fuck over it and be content with the bodies they have.
By that logic, men are better than women at pretty much everything else, it’s true.
Man, I wish I could donate my uterus to someone. I have no desire to make use of it, and I know quite a few people who would love to.
“By that logic, men are better than women at pretty much everything else, it’s true.”
Please explain?
Hitler and strap-ons go so well together.
Cis men are better at making sperm than cis women are. Other than that, anything goes.
Sally says men are better than women at making children, but that’s only because men cannot. If you’re going by that logic, all the things women were barred from doing in the ancient past (when society really was patriarchal), was simply because men were better.
I would hate to get pregnant, don’t envy the uterus, thus Sally’s misandry is exposed.
Credit where credit is due: I’m glad that MRAL is willing to re-think his stance on “choice 4 men.”
You may now return to mocking him at your leisure.
MRAL lives in a strange country where all schools, universities, businesses, and civic institutions have doors that only open if your stick your penis in a special penis-recognition device. It’s like retina scanning. Also, every single piece of heavy machinery and every vehicle, and every computer has a similar penis-recognition device attached to it. So, if you don’t have a penis, you are incapable of going to school, working, running for office, driving a car, joining the army, or doing anything except having babies. Oh yeah, and cooking.
I still think the mother is irrelevant in the Choice 4 Men situation, it’s sure as FUCK not for her. It’s for the child, imo.
Basically, kids, Sally is making a distinction without a difference.
You’re conflating two meanings of “cannot”: there’s “incapable of” and there’s “not allowed to.” You’re asserting that women didn’t do a lot of things in the past because they were incapable. But nowadays, they do do those things! Two explanations:
1. Women have undergone a super-super accelerated evolutionary process that has radically expanded their capacity for abstract reasoning and various kinds of intelligences, while men have stayed more or less at the same level
2. Women were always ABLE to do those things but didn’t because they were not allowed to
I know which explanation seems more plausible to me. You have an alternative explanation, MRAL? Let’s hear it.
“Do [you] believe penis envy exists?”
I devoutly believe penis envy exists. I’m like Woody Allen. I believe (devoutly) that penis envy exists among men.
“Sally says men are better than women at making children, but that’s only because men cannot. If you’re going by that logic, all the things women were barred from doing in the ancient past (when society really was patriarchal), was simply because men were better.”
Okay, having a little trouble following the conversation now – MRAI, what things are men better at then women (other than making sperm and possibly building muscle mass)?
“I would hate to get pregnant, don’t envy the uterus, thus Sally’s misandry is exposed.”
Did Sally specifically say you had uterus envy, or that all men had it? I must have missed that.
distinction without a difference. you got no experience, you got no experience.
The frustrating part in this whole Choice 4 Men thing is that no one’s even questioning that it’s the mother’s place to do 100% of the diaper changes, midnight feedings, trips to the playground, supplying and preparing the kid for school, choosing between working part-time and getting childcare, shopping and cooking for two, etc…
The only question is whether the man writes a check once a month or not.
Womb envy is like state sponsored eugenics? What on earth?
Never mind. I can’t even deal with that foolishness, right now.
I also struggle with the concept of the “paper abortion.” I agree that it’s completely disingenuous to conflate terminating a pregnancy with raising a child. I think it provides the illusion of equity in a situation where total equity simply cannot be achieved. Reproduction is asymmetrical.
And I know women who essentially are or have been in this predicament. They found themselves pregnant unexpectedly, told their partner and were told that if they decided to have the baby they’d be on their own. Certainly, women have legal recourse in this situation, but not all women pursue it. They chose, fairly early on in their pregnancy to carry to term and raise a child despite the biological father making it clear that he didn’t want to be involved.
I also know women who received child support payments in a regular and timely fashion but whose children received no emotional support from their fathers. The children still felt abandoned. Rulings about child support cannot require a man to provide emotional support to a child. Don’t misunderstand me, I believe that most men love their children dearly and, in the event of a separation from the mother of their children will do their best to provide financial and emotional support to their child/children. But courts cannot and do not order fathers to actively parent. How would it be enforced?
I still think the mother is irrelevant in the Choice 4 Men situation, it’s sure as FUCK not for her. It’s for the child, imo.
Because no man, ever, anywhere, ever cared about his partner enough to take her feelings, wishes and fears into consideration when contemplating what to do with an unplanned pregnancy.
Sally says men are better than women at making children, but that’s only because men cannot. If you’re going by that logic, all the things women were barred from doing in the ancient past (when society really was patriarchal), was simply because men were better.
Sorry, try harder. Your logic fails. Cismen are biologically incapable of getting pregnant and using their bodies to sustain a growing fetus. No matter how they work out, what inclinations they were born with, what career path they follow, a cisman living in today’s society or any society predating ours, is going to be physically incapable of sustaining a pregnancy. Cismen are not barred from getting pregnant by society, cismen are barred from getting pregnant because that’s the hand biology dealt them.
MRAL’s back already? That was a short three months.
I didn’t say that YOU personally suffer from uterus envy. But I have certainly encountered MRAs who exhibited strong signs of it. This dude named Mercurial Muse who used to pester people on Pharyngula whenever women’s issues came up springs to mind.
This doesn’t make sense. Are you saying that all you need is a little practice in gestating fetuses and you’ll get the hang of it?
Well Victoria, clearly feminists don’t want men to have any sort of say in abortion issues (look at the many scathing discussions feminists have about men who try to be a part of that decision-making process). Why the hell should men take women’s feelings into account?
This scene from The Life of Brian pretty much sums up why the whole “Choice 4 Men” thing is ridiculous on its face:
I’m saying a woman who has never fought or been affected by a war is no more experienced in war than a man is with pregnancy. A lot of men don’t know shit about wars either, it’s true, but the point is that whole thought process opens a big ass can of worms.
Well Victoria, clearly feminists don’t want men to have any sort of say in abortion issues (look at the many scathing discussions feminists have about men who try to be a part of that decision-making process).
What exactly do you mean ‘part of the decision making process’? If you mean men thinking they get a veto override on what a woman does with her body (or even an equal vote), then you’re right, we tend not to like those men. If you mean a man and a woman who privately decide what to do with an unexpected (or an expected but dangerous) pregnancy, that’s something different entirely.
I think that if a woman is not a bitch and a c-word she will at least consider the father’s feelings on the matter, and I mean seriously consider them.
But see, then you aren’t arguing that war is an issue for MEN, you’re saying it’s an issue for SOLDIERS. And based on your earlier comment that only people who are effected by/have experienced (can’t remember exactly what you said) should be able to be president, does this mean you think we shouldn’t have a president who hasn’t served in the military?
“Well Victoria, clearly feminists don’t want men to have any sort of say in abortion issues (look at the many scathing discussions feminists have about men who try to be a part of that decision-making process). Why the hell should men take women’s feelings into account?”
Citation is your friend buddy.
Oh wait it’s MRAL, never mind then. Please impart your worldly knowledge upon us oh mighty lifeguard of Maine.
I don’t think that, I’m exposing Sally’s feminist idiocy as the Hitler nazi propaganda it is.
we li(v)e in a democracy where everyone’s opinions matter equally, not a female supremacist fascist though(t) police Hitler state.
(sry I had to fix up some of your typos so it’s clear what you said :) )
can you PLZ PLZ PLZ tell that to guys like Arnie and NWO and some of the other ppl here? xD Cuz they RLY dun believe that, and maybe it’ll help if you tell that we do DON’T live in a female supremacist fascist thought police Hitler state :)
(why is it specifically a Hitler state btw? o_O What do Feminists have to do specifically with Hitler? It can’t just be regular fascism neways? Is Hitler now a brand name? o_O )
Also maybe you should answer some of the questions above without (as usual) dodging it :) At least you’ve come around on the paper abortion thing, at least understanding it’s more complex than what’s going on and the focus that you’re talking about atm is “omg I dun want to be stuck w/ the kid” rather than the right to your own body thing :)
Also… it’s not according to gender, it’s by ppl’s bodies and their body autonomy. I’m a woman, but I’ll never have a right to abortion and I have many male friends who DO. If the law was segregated by gender, then I would and they wouldn’t, but it’s not.
Oh and to everybody else: what’s the opposite of penis envy? Cuz whatever it is, I have it xD In giant huge f-ing spades -_-;;
I’m saying a woman who has never fought or been affected by a war is no more experienced in war than a man is with pregnancy. A lot of men don’t know shit about wars either, it’s true, but the point is that whole thought process opens a big ass can of worms.
Your logic fails again.
Let’s try this again: Most ciswomen have some kind of sex drive. They want to have sex, with men they find attractive. They want to have satisfying romantic relationships with men, which will probably involve some kind of sex life. They also know that one of the potential consequences of sex is pregnancy, and that raising a child is a huge commitment, which might interfere with a woman’s other plans. Therefore, abortion and reproductive choice is very important to women.
Are you going to claim that men have a drive akin to a sex drive which compels them to go out and join other large groups of men which then go on to murder groups of other men who don’t look like them and maybe talk funny and wear weird clothes?
Whatever.
Actually, I do believe men should have the right to sign away their parental rights–as long as it’s early in the pregnancy, and it’s done with the knowledge that they cannot later demand those rights and the mother is under no obligation to provide the child with information regarding the father’s identity. If women have the option to avoid parenthood, so should men. That’s fair. In fact, that’s pro-choice.
“I don’t think that, I’m exposing Sally’s feminist idiocy as the Hitler nazi propaganda it is.”
And MRAL has now broken Godwin’s Law, and revealed new depths of personal idiocy.
Honestly, I’m calling extremely incompetent troll on this kid, just one who notably and stupidly includes his many personal hang-ups with his contrarian garbage.
All this talk of Choice 4 Men makes me want to listen to 90’s r&b.
“I’ll make love to you, like you want me to, and I’ll hold you tight, up until you get knocked up and expect me to stick around but I’ll make loooooove to you…”
I think that if a woman is not a bitch and a c-word she will at least consider the father’s feelings on the matter, and I mean seriously consider them.
And what makes you think that women don’t? If you conclude that women aren’t sufficiently solicitous of their partner’s feelings on the matter, does that mean that you get to revoke their right to an abortion? What about a man’s obligations to take his partner’s feelings into consideration, or the feelings of the potential future child into consideration?
What you’re basically demanding is the right to peer into other people’s private lives and then pass judgment on them.
JohnnyKaje gets a prize! :D
More prizes to nebody who comes up with the lyrics to a 90s song along that vein! :3
Sarah, that sucks that that happened to you-I probably would have said “hey, you said no sex. That means no sex. Go wank in the woods if you must get off but leave me out of it.”
Then again, I have a rather tart tongue on me.
Also, to add in something which is not MRAL-centric:
I have to really object that this movie qualifies as a horror film. In a horror movie, you’re supposed to identify with one of the characters and then be moved when the character experiences the horror. But, even though I’ve only read David’s summary of the movie, I don’t think we’re supposed to identify with the women. And the horror does not seem to be painted as ‘jeebus, these women have been forcibly kidnapped and don’t know what’s going to happen to them next!’
Instead, this seems to be a movie about punishing women for having sex – even the ‘good’ women, after all, still die.
Actually, now that I consider it, there is a real world equivalent to Mr. Al’s Paper Abortion.
Vasectomy.
Get snipped, dudes, and the issue won’t come up.
Problem solved, now stop your sniveling.
I want to point out AGAIN, that I said cis-men’s opinions are LESS valid, not INVALID, on the abortion issue. And that is an important distinction! I still value and appreciate all sorts of people’s opinions.
And, you know what, I’m really torn on the so called paper abortion. I think in a perfect world a father should be able to opt out of parenthood early on. But abortion is a really, really difficult decision to make. And sometimes people lie and are bad people. And children need a lot of resources to be raised. So, in the end, I think that the father has to just accept the choice of the mother. Even though it’s unfair. But it’s really unfair to everyone. So, I dunno. *sigh*
Big sigh.
All this idiotic blathering by Mr. Al is making me long for back when I was watching “The Human Centipede” trailer. Good times.
I think in a perfect world a father should be able to opt out of parenthood early on.
he can, like I said.
Vasectomy.
Or being the guy in the Human Centipede.
Thanks, Elizabeth. I mean, I did want to sex him up and all. And it was fun in the moment, so not a total wash. It was just his attitude afterwards that stunk.
@Zombie, The thing is, like I was saying earlier, people do make mistakes. And I think there needs to be room for mistakes to be rectified.
But yeah, a lot of these guys whining about getting trapped into child-support should really just get snipped. I got an IUD, and it was one of the best decisions of my life.
Or we could all watch the human centipede? and never have sex again?
One of the problems I see with the “paper abortion” is that a man may willingly sign away his obligations and any and all future rights to a child. But what happens if the child wants/needs to learn his identity later? Would the law require him to provide contact information? Would the child be ineligible until 18 years of age? What if it’s a medical query of pressing concern?
And is the “paper abortion” the only choice Choice4Men is interested in procuring? I mean the opposite end of the argument is that a man should be able to insist that a woman carry a pregnancy to term which would be impossible to enforce outside of some demented scenario like this film in the post. Still, I doubt that Choice4Men is seriously interested in trying to force a woman to have a child. Individual men might want to do so but as a legislative option it has no legs.
Again, reproduction is asymmetrical. Nothing will change that.
And I think there needs to be room for mistakes to be rectified.
He can freeze his little wigglers if he wants to maintain the possibility of future children.
Regarding paper abortions-the thing that I think about is the man who truly deep down would love to have the child and would take 100% responsibility of raising the kid financially and emotionally without asking for a single thing from the mother…she still has an absolute right to abort if she wants to. It is her body and her decision ultimately because…again, her body.
So if he has to accept her decision to abort, I can see why the concept of paper abortions at least tries to give the man a similar right as the woman in the scenario that wants an abortion the man does not want.
But as Lady V and others have said, there is a baby if she decides to not abort. Unless there is a lot more social support for mothers…that baby needs to be supported.
But aren’t there MRA types who complain when their girlfriends/wives/whoever get abortions? That they’re being deprived of fatherhood? I remembered reading about one such dipfuck in New Mexico. There’s the Feministe story of it, as the original local paper one is in the archives behind a sign-up wall. http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2011/05/17/just-totally-normal-pro-life-things/
Not to mention all those protestors who hold up the “Men Regret Lost Fatherhood” signs.
filet, I’ve been meaning to write about that dude; I think what’s holding me back is that I just get depressed thinking about it.
If you think there are no atheists who believe in God, you’ve never heard of S. E. Cupp.
Let me explain these concepts for the four millionth time:
-conception-egg provider and sperm provider have (or should have) equal rights and responsibilities. See the court rulings on the legal status of non-implanted embryos for more on this-both progenitors have a right to their own gametes and an equal right over non-implanted embryos.
-pregnancy-the pregnant person, whose body and life are burdened by the pregnancy, has rights over the pregnancy. This is true regardless of whether or not the pregnant person is the egg provider-surrogates have the sole right to abort, under the law, and ethically. The surrogacy case is the closest we have to a real life “artificial womb” scenario-neither the egg provider nor sperm provider has the right to abort, because neither is pregnant
-after birth-egg provider and sperm provider have (or should have) equal rights and responsibilities. This includes egg providers who do not want the baby, as well as sperm providers who do not want the baby.
The egg provider has no more rights to abort per se than the sperm provider, it just happens (due to biology) that the egg provider is often the pregnant person and as such has the rights of any pregnant person (or any person) in regards to preserving their own bodily autonomy.
On the notion of fetus as a person, ethically, that should not prohibit abortion rights either (see here for more on that argument http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm)
On war-when women (both cis and trans), trans men, non-binary folks, and all other non men are exempt from paying taxes that go to war or the military, and exempt from having wars and military actions take place in locations where they work, live, raise their kids, and have their communities-then you can get back to me about war, MRAL, and we can discuss non-cis men soldiers who elect to fight in your unfunded desert battle arena that uses none of my taxes and kills no one who isn’t a fellow arena fighter.
But you miss the point, it is not that men, or other non-pregnant people are barred from having emotions or opinions about the pregnant person’s pregnancy, it is that they have no right to use the law, force, etc. to deny the pregnant person the ability to exercise their bodily autonomy. For example, a few years back my cousin got a really ugly tattoo. I thought getting it was a rather bad idea (not because I hate tattoos in general-the one he wanted was ugly) and I thought his choice of artist was poor (this person had a reputation for botching work and for not taking proper sanitary precautions). So, I did think he shouldn’t do it, but what I did not do was try to force him, blackmail him, or legally deny him the right to get the tattoo. Because, it is his body and he can do with it whatever he likes-regardless of what I may think. When it comes to issues of bodily autonomy, everyone has more say and more interest over their own body than anyone else does, so pregnant people should have more say and more interest over their abortions, or lack thereof, than anyone else.
@posterformerly; but the paper abortions as espoused by our guy here is specifically in the opposite situation – the woman is going to have the child, but the guy who donated his sperm doesn’t want it to impact his lifestyle.
Seems like you can’t win with the MRA guys. Almost like they have a problem with something else, if only I could figure out what it is….. oh yeah, women having autonomy.
Correction: “all other non-men” should be “any other non-men who are not a part of one of the former groups”, the former makes it sound as if the list is of non-men, when it isn’t, as it included trans men.
You know, following along with MRAL has actually helped me out a great deal. Re: abortion, here’s my thoughts on the matter:
The situation is inherently unbalanced: women must actually bring children to term, whereas men cannot. If a woman decides she does not want to have a child, and since before some fuzzy boundary the fetus is not a child, the man really doesn’t have a say in the matter. If the woman wants to bear the child, and the man does not, its a little bit late to do much about that since once the child is born, both become parents, and it really should be the woman’s choice whether to trying to bring the child to term. So for men who don’t want to be parents, contraception contraception contraception. (This should be standard anyway, since abortions are no cakewalk. Even morning after pills have some really annoying side effects.)
I still kinda feel like “paper abortions” (eugh…) should be possible, if both parties agree, for the same reason that putting a child up for adoption exists. It isn’t great for the child, but sometimes it may be the best solution (perhaps a religious woman who is absolutely convinced she must bear the child after contraception fails). But focusing on that is kinda missing the point, which is this: if you don’t want children, use contraception. I don’t see why, in all the conversation about how women are forcing men to pay childhood, why MRAL never once mentioned that the man could have used a condom.
Well, I’m still open to thoughts on the matter, so feel free to criticize if something doesn’t make sense. Back to the daily feminist
and of course that was supposed to be “child support”, not “childhood.” No edit button makes me a sad kirby….