Yet Another Abortion Thread

[Saidi]

I don't like abortions, but I'm not about to tell people not to have them at all.  I believe there are circumstances when it is necessary.  However, I also believe there are people that abuse the option and take it too lightly.  It is a sad reality that just like how there are people that understand how serious a matter abortion is, there are those that do see it as an easy out. 

Case in point, my ex husband.  He thought he would put it into his head to tell me to have abortions with my last two children.  Why I stayed with him after the first time he opened up his mouth with that particularly stupid idea I don't know, but I did and when our birth control failed (making me part of that 1% this particular form of bc liked to flake out on) he once again TOLD I NEEDED to have another abortion.  Thankfully I have sterner backbone than he expected (I seriously think he thought he married a doormat) and have the three children that resulted from ALL my pregnancies living with me today.  We had all our financial needs covered, roof over our heads, medical coverage, food, a steady income; he just simply did not want more responsibilities.  The first words that came out of his mouth when I told him I was pregnant the last two times were literally "We can't have them.  You have to have an abortion." 

This made me think, what right did he have to tell me what to do with my body?  Most importantly, what right did he have to cut another life short before it even begun? I also could not get over the fact that my husband would want his own child dead, but that's besides the point.  The point is that despite whatever he thought he had no right to tell me to have an abortion.  That was entirely up to me.  This made me think, and realize that despite my dislike for abortions and my views on it I had no right to tell someone else not to have one.  I can only control what happens in my body.  I took the precautions I needed to take to keep me from getting pregnant, and he was left free of worries.  How is that responsible or fair? How does that give any man a right to have a say on what happens in a woman's body?

The responsibility of birth control should not be left to only one partner, but it should be shared by both.  If a man's partner is on some sort of birth control and he really does not want an "oops" baby then he should take the steps needed to ensure his end of the deal is covered.  heh... see what I did there?  After my third child I made the choice that I did not want any more children, so I took responsibility for my body again and took permanent measures.  Speaking of which, when my mother had her tubes tied, she had to ask my father for written permission and a signature... can you frackin believe that??

[vtboy]

I don't know how marriage works where you are from, but I'm pretty sure that in marriage all the assets are shared, children too. That being said if the father was against the pregnancy he would also need to get a divorce. Otherwise he would just be the father still, or maybe just the stepfather...

Where I come from, noncustodial parents pay child support to custodial parents, regardless of whether they were ever married. So, if I understand your answer to my question correctly, you would absolve the non-consenting married father from any obligation to pay child support, provided he got a divorce, just as you would the unmarried father. Well, at least you are consistent.

Saying that the father should just suck it up and be the father isn't really fair. 

No, I didn't say the father should suck it up and be the father. I said the father should suck it up and pay money so that his offspring is more likely to have a better life.

One could use your same thinking to say that women should just suck it up and have the baby. Basically saying that women can have abortions, but men have no say in whether or not they have to support a child they would rather have aborted is creating a set of laws that makes it okay for women to make the choice to be a parent or not, while creating other laws that force men into being parents whether they like it or not.

The questions of whether a woman should enjoy a largely unfettered right to choose whether or not to abort a pregnancy, and whether a man should be allowed to avoid the economic burdens of a child he does not want, are not analogous because the interests they implicate are not alike.

In the case of abortion, it is the woman's interests in both the privacy of her reproductive decisions and in autonomy over her own body that are primarily at stake. The law recognizes these interests to be so fundamental that it bars intrusion upon them, under almost all circumstances, by government, mate, or parent. This may be a bitter pill for the mate who wants to be a daddy, but he can go spread his seed upon more willing fields if he is so inclined. The adage about possession being nine tenths of the law is nowhere more fully realized than in abortion jurisprudence.

The interests most clearly implicated by the latter decision, however, are quite different. They are: (i) those of the semi-unwanted child in health care, food, shelter, education, and other necessaries which may be beyond the mother's capacity to furnish; (ii) those of the mother in not having to carry the load entirely on her own shoulders; and (iii) those of the father in spending his money in other pursuits. Were (ii) and (iii) all that were at stake, I might agree that a woman who decides to bear a child over her mate's objection should also alone bear the financial consequences of her decision (though, the thought of attaching financial penalties to the decision to forego abortion is a troubling one). But, as I tried to point out in my last post, there are also the needs of the newly formed person to consider.

Short of requiring women to have abortions when their mates insist, are you suggesting the child born to a financially straitened mother and unwilling father should be left to its own economic devices? Or, would you prefer that taxpayers  bear the cost of dad's joyful spurt?     

[LunarSage]

One would hope that a pregnant woman's SO (assuming they're together and in a healthy, loving relationship), the one who presumably got her pregnant would have his views and advice taken into account in regards to whether the woman chooses to have an abortion or keep the child.  Seeing as how that's the only circumstance I can think of where the potential father's opinion makes any difference at all, I don't think we need any special laws to protect men in these cases.  As I said, a woman in a loving relationship with a man in that situation is likely going to take his feelings and opinions into consideration before making that decision.  As Trieste said, it's her body, her pregnancy, her decision.  The term (of a couple saying) "we got pregnant" isn't meant to be taken literally.

That said, I do believe that men's rights in a lot of other things are kind of going the wayside, which is what I think is at the heart of Chris Brady's concerns (I could be wrong).  I just don't think it's something that needs to be addressed in the abortion debate... nor do I think that Chris should be vilified.  We're all a friendly community.  It's what separates us from forums like, say... the WoW boards.  *shudders with horrid memories of absolutely no moderation and rampant immaturity*

[Caela]

Kendra's Article

I grew up in a Catholic home in Ireland, the youngest of 8 children.
Abortion in our household was on a par with my coming out of the closet at one time.
But until it happens to someone you love, for reasons you would not wish on anyone ... then opinions are just that your own opinion.
My family are very pro-choice now and embrace the LBQT community as best they can because of me.

Last month in Ireland a horrific incident occurred, it shouldn't have happened in a developed country but it did.
--> Irish Times Link

There has been an outcry like never before in Ireland as a result, just when the country is preparing to yet again vote on whether to have abortion legalised here or not.
So many young girls, rape victims among others travel daily to England to have the procedure done.

This woman's life could have been saved.

In My Opinion the mothers life is just as important as the babies.
Her body, her decision - though I do also believe that if there is a stable relationship, a loving one - then the partner should be involved in the decision process too.

THIS pisses me off! I am, personally, pro-life. I do believe a child's life is precious but I don't believe I have the right to force my own personal beliefs off onto someone else. I may think abortion is wrong but that just means that I won't have one. Since I don't live anyone else's life I don't have the right to make choices for them. But this! That woman's husband should sue that fucking hospital into the damned ground! She was already fucking miscarrying and at only 17 weeks! Heartbeat or not this fetus had no hope of life and this should not have been dragged out for three fucking days. If she wasn't passing the fetus naturally they either should have given her pitocin to make her uterine contractions strong enough to expell the fetus and placenta, or done a D&E to remove them.

From my p.o.v. this hospital murdered this woman.

[Caela]

Speaking of which, when my mother had her tubes tied, she had to ask my father for written permission and a signature... can you frackin believe that??

I will say that needing anyone else's permission for a tubal is f*cking stupid, however, a lot of docs are pretty even handed on this one. When my dad went for his vasectomy, my step-mom had to sign off on it too.

[Torch]

I will say that needing anyone else's permission for a tubal is f*cking stupid, however, a lot of docs are pretty even handed on this one. When my dad went for his vasectomy, my step-mom had to sign off on it too.

When Mr. Torch had his vasectomy, I had to do the same thing. *nods*

[Shjade]

From my p.o.v. this hospital murdered this woman.

Correction, this hospital tortured and murdered this woman.

[Caela]

Correction, this hospital tortured and murdered this woman.

Very true. I think you could also make the argument that they tortured her husband, forcing him to stand by and watch while they didn't do the most obvious thing to save her life.

I mean, gods, if this child had been viable (at least 24 weeks if they had the appropriate NICU equipment) they'd have done an emergency c-section to deliver it and care for the mother. This child had NO HOPE of life so instead of simply losing one life, now two are dead.

I may be pro-life, but I cannot justify that no matter what the argument.

[Callie Del Noire]

Very true. I think you could also make the argument that they tortured her husband, forcing him to stand by and watch while they didn't do the most obvious thing to save her life.

I mean, gods, if this child had been viable (at least 24 weeks if they had the appropriate NICU equipment) they'd have done an emergency c-section to deliver it and care for the mother. This child had NO HOPE of life so instead of simply losing one life, now two are dead.

I may be pro-life, but I cannot justify that no matter what the argument.

IF it's the hospital that did the hack job on my little brother's arm all those years ago, it's clear their compotence hasn't improved

[Chris Brady]

Very true. I think you could also make the argument that they tortured her husband, forcing him to stand by and watch while they didn't do the most obvious thing to save her life.

I mean, gods, if this child had been viable (at least 24 weeks if they had the appropriate NICU equipment) they'd have done an emergency c-section to deliver it and care for the mother. This child had NO HOPE of life so instead of simply losing one life, now two are dead.

I may be pro-life, but I cannot justify that no matter what the argument.

As Pro-Life I would have wanted her to get an Abortion.  Her life was in peril.  Sorry, Kid, but you had your chance, the mother gets to live.  End of discussion.

[Chris Brady]

That said, I do believe that men's rights in a lot of other things are kind of going the wayside, which is what I think is at the heart of Chris Brady's concerns (I could be wrong).

A bit of this.

Having seen at least three guys react when they found out that their girlfriends had an abortion, effectively behind their backs, I have to say that maybe the psychological impact may not be as big to males as it is to females, but it's there too.

It's an issue that outside of rape and abuse cases (And sometimes even IN those cases), that actually has bigger ramifications than we seem to want to admit.

[Stattick]

That said, I do believe that men's rights in a lot of other things are kind of going the wayside...

Well, yeah. We're going from a society in which men had ALL the rights, to a society where women now also have some rights.

[Chris Brady]

Well, yeah. We're going from a society in which men had ALL the rights, to a society where women now also have some rights.

seriously?  You seriously went there?

I'm out.  This is getting as bad as it was on RPG.net.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Feel free to elaborate on what rights women had and are accruing that has placed men at such a disadvantage these days.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well, yeah. We're going from a society in which men had ALL the rights, to a society where women now also have some rights.

Really? Given the attacks on abortion, reproductive health and such thay were rolling BACK women's rights in some areas.

[LunarSage]

Well, yeah. We're going from a society in which men had ALL the rights, to a society where women now also have some rights.

Feel free to elaborate on what rights women had and are accruing that has placed men at such a disadvantage these days.

One example is that in most cases the mother is awarded parental custody regardless of the circumstances in the case of a divorce.  There's this unfortunate and backwards in my opinion thought that woman are always the more fit parent simply by virtue of being women.

Then there's the fact that in many areas, men are not allowed to work in child care... because you know, all men are pedophiles.

[vtboy]

One example is that in most cases the mother is awarded parental custody regardless of the circumstances in the case of a divorce.  There's this unfortunate and backwards in my opinion thought that woman are always the more fit parent simply by virtue of being women.

Although the biases of judges undoubtedly enter into custody decisions too frequently, in many cases the woman is awarded custody because both parties assumed more or less traditional roles during the marriage, at least with respect to dividing up the burdens of child rearing. When mom has been more involved in school matters, organizing recreational activities, providing care during illnesses, etc., it becomes difficult, in the absence of fairly compelling circumstances, to argue that dad should get custody.   

[Stattick]

Really? Given the attacks on abortion, reproductive health and such thay were rolling BACK women's rights in some areas.

Well, yeah. But at least women don't have to get their husband's permission to get abortions or birth control again, assuming that one or both of those aren't outright banned.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The determination of child custody is often signaled out as a right of women over men.  Unfortunately the truth is a little less flattering to woman.  An estimated 10-15% of custody cases are awarded to the father, though that number is steadily increasing.  That number though does include negotiated settlements, not just awarded custody by a judge.  Meaning that the 10-15% number is when the father negotiated with the mother to give custody over to her for whatever reason.  Such a decision does not involve the courts.

Research has also shown that women are more likely to ask for sole custody over fathers.  This means that the woman is actively showing an interest in custody of the children.  Fathers that ask for sole custody are awarded sole or joint custody more often than even women in some studies.  http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html

[Silk]

Another example is Women are capable of delivering personal care to men, but not vice versa, this included a situation at my old job about a male client who didn't want to have personal care by a woman, when I took it to the governing body for poor conduct because it wasn't meeting the clients needs, nothing was done about it. (and we wasn't lacking in male staff either)

Another one is during matters of domestic abuse there is a great deal of support for women in the situation, but there is currently little to no support for males in domestic abuse cases, it's not a requirement for councils to supply male support but it is for female.

Let alone in such cases of the law, if a male calls for domestic abuse, he is the one that gets arrested not the woman.

Then lets look into the ammount of female health governing bodies there is in comparison to the ammount of male health.

There is a good deal of situations where males are discriminated against for no other reason than being male in the male-female demographic.

[Torch]

One example is that in most cases the mother is awarded parental custody regardless of the circumstances in the case of a divorce.  There's this unfortunate and backwards in my opinion thought that woman are always the more fit parent simply by virtue of being women.

That topic was covered extensively in this thread, which had to be closed by Veks because of a slew of misogynistic comments. Please let's not go there again.

[LunarSage]

Fine, but what about the child care thing?  Men are often completely barred from careers in child care because of the stupid notion that all men are potential pedophiles. 

[Silverfyre]

Really? I have never encountered that as both an elementary educator and a licensed day care provider.  What factual evidence do you have for this aside from personal experience? I can understand that fewer men go into such a field but I have nwceet seen such discrimination.

[LunarSage]

I could tell you about at least five day care centers in one area that refused to hire men because all the parents would take their kids elsewhere were a man working there.  I can't find any references online, but that certainly doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  Even if it only happened once (which is untrue), there's precedent for men to stand up and say "bullshit".

Let me give you another example...

A stranger approaches a couple with a small child and compliments them on how cute the child is. 

1.)  The stranger is a woman.  The couple will more often than not smile and take it as nothing more than an innocent gesture.

2.)  The stranger is a man.  The couple will more often than not scowl at the man and treat him like he's some sort of stalker pervert after their child.

Because of this, I pretty much ignore children I don't know altogether whenever I'm in public.  Is it right?  Hell no.

[Silverfyre]

Well any discrimination of that sort is disgusting. I know the centers I used to work at behaved in the opposite manner and thought having a male on staff was a great thing for the kids who went there. I can see where you are coming from and it is an unfortunate thing.