Seriously, this thread is closed?

I continue to be dumbfounded by the new moderation. The idea that men have no say in an abortion was an undisputed part of the Roe jurisprudence. A revival of Roe, as proposed in the thread, would continue it. A poster cannot argue that men are disadvantaged in that situation when they are clearly and unabashedly disadvantaged in the situation? Is truth banned on the SDMB?

And you couldn’t wait until tomorrow to complain. Boy that was quick.

I cited the rule the thread ran afoul.

Wait for tomorrow.

I was just about to start this thread after sending a message to the mods. Here is what I sent them

We are having a discussion on reproductive rights and everyone had been relatively cordial over when men’s reproductive rights apply re: abortion. In fact, I think we all agreed on the issue it was just a question of how you word it when limiting the man’s rights under the circumstances. It did not derail the tread and is a relatively minor part of the entire thread. IF the mods feel that the subject is not being dealt with appropriately here, then do what you always do and post in the thread what specifically we are barred from discussing OR move it to a category that it is allowed like IMHO.

My question is when did the board move from mods guiding a discussion to stay within the rules to Shut It Down Now! And I feel that What_Exit’s reply to UltraVires is inappropriate qua mod. YOU felt the thread needed to be closed now and couldn’t wait until tomorrow so why call UV out for complaining now and not tomorrow?

Because I have to discuss it with 2 other Moderators who may not be around today.

It is that simple. The thread appears to be a violation of the rules.

So wait until tomorrow to close it just like you told me to wait.

Is there a forum where that would be unquestionably allowed? If so, why not move it there (as long as it’s not The Pit)?

OR say, “Stop talking about men’s rights regarding abortion until I can confer with a couple of other mods. Everything else you are discussing may proceed.”

Last reply: I have to discuss it, but I think the forum for it might be the Pit or nowhere. IMHO is not a place for political threads/debates to bypass the rules of GD and P&E.

But the thread might be allowed. So please be patient. Now I have other stuff to do. So goodbye for now.

I cannot more strongly and respectfully disagree with this (really? only the Pit for a father’s choice over abortion?) and I ask the other mods to put a stop to this absurdity in moderation.

Agreed. It was such a minor part of the thread. What happened to the board where you could talk about anything? I have accepted that there are exceptions to that now. Fine. But the application here was ridiculous and could very easily have waited until tomorrow when it would have been summarily rejected by the powers than be.

Which of these topics cannot be discussed on this board?

Single father adoption
Female-on-male domestic violence
Male-v-female incarceration rates
Medical research inequality between the sexes

Those are all issues that the Men’s Rights movements rally behind, but none of them on their own (or even together) necessarily reflect the chauvinism and misogyny of the Men’s Rightsers.

It is the same for Does the father get a say in the decision to get or not get an abortion? I know where I stand on the matter, but it’s a valid topic for discussion.

Exactly. If the thread was only about men having a say over abortion then OK, I would get why it was closed. But it was a few posts in a thread about marriage rights and reproductive rights including contraception.

I really do not understand the rationale behind this moderation decision. The thread had already moved on from the “men’s rights w/r/t abortion” topic, and if that wasn’t good enough surely a mod note to drop that particular conversation would have sufficed?

I guess I don’t. It’s not a proper subject for debate over whether the father gets a say in abortion? It’s a pretty solid issue for debate. I know the arguments and all are reasonable and not similar to racism or hate speech or misogyny. It is really about a father’s paycheck.

Much like how the pro-choice side hits us on a valid point about how can you support a rape exception when you believe it is human life, the argument about how “choice” should extend to the father is another valid one worthy of discussion on a board about fighting ignorance. Nobody’s ox is gored by this debate nor does it rely on any stereotypes about sex/gender.

It’s because it would violate the rule in question. The real question is should it be a rule?
Why can’t we ask why does Karen in Texas have more legal recourse about a woman’s abortion than the dad without it violating a rule about discussing men’s rights? ESPECIALLY if the discussion that results is civil and respectful?

I don’t get it, either.

Because I don’t think it violates the rule. The rule was intended, AFAIK, to stop whining and bitching about how men are somehow now an underclass in society. This was a debate on a specific point where men were unquestionably denied a choice in the abortion decision and the debate was whether that is proper. I don’t read the rule so broadly, but I agree with you that if that IS the rule it should be repealed immediately.

If generally applied it would forbid (except in the Pit) any thread about underrepresentation of men in nursing schools or really any contrary position to a woman’s rights question like it did in your thread. Again, this new stuff only serves to stifle debate and it needs to stop.

I think What_Exit felt it violated

about the ways in which men are somehow naturally entitled to be in charge

But if so, then he completely missed that no one supported men forcing abortions or making the mom carry the baby to term. The closest we got to that was my question of if two people have equal rights but disagree how is that settled?

Or maybe it violated

how men are somehow disadvantaged in society

But again, I don’t think anyone said that.

Agreed. I think the position is that yes, the woman has the right to control her body, but given that choice should she then be able to compel payment of child support for 18 years over the opposition to having the child by the father? Does her choice then require her responsibility? Excellent arguments on both sides of that question.

I don’t mean to debate that, but @What_Exit 's interpretation of the rule forbids that debate entirely. Bad moderation.

I’m not a p&e mod, and i wasn’t following the thread. But “this thread is closed until the mods can discuss it” is hardly a draconian action. And that’s the status at the moment. Sure, make arguments for why it ought to be reopened after the appropriate mods have discussed it. But please cut WE? a break for pausing discussion for a day.