Yet Another Abortion Thread

[LunarSage]

I can't believe I never saw this video before... but good old George puts things pretty close to how I feel on this topic.  It's hard to argue with his logic.  I really didn't see anywhere else that was appropriate to share it in.

George Carlin - Pro-Life is Anti-Woman!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and hazard a guess that E has way more folks leaning toward the Liberal side of the spectrum than Conservative.  I could be wrong, but  I don't think so based on my experience.  I do wonder what those who disagree with George's views on this matter would say. 

[Lux12]

*applauds wildly*It's like someone stole my thoughts and then uploaded them to youtube.

[Deamonbane]

I don't think I have ever said this about anyone before, but I think I disagree with just about everything he says lol... It's amazing... I would love to meet this guy... we would argue for days, and somehow, I would come out of the conversation feeling like an absolute idiot...

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't think I have ever said this about anyone before, but I think I disagree with just about everything he says lol... It's amazing... I would love to meet this guy... we would argue for days, and somehow, I would come out of the conversation feeling like an absolute idiot...

Unfortunately you're years too late.  George Carlin passed on in 2008. 

[Deamonbane]

That is terribly unfortunate...

Edit: I don't mean any sarcasm in this message, btw...

[Callie Del Noire]

That is terribly unfortunate...

He was VERY good at challenging your beliefs. 

[Deamonbane]

No doubts about that... a very convincing speaker...

[Serephino]

He made some good points. I'm actually for social programs and birth control, which is why I don't consider myself pro-life even though I'm anti-abortion.  It's just crazy.

[Deamonbane]

I don't know... my thought is that a mother's connection to her child should be so strong that she wouldn't even consider abortion... and if she is then, well...

[Lux12]

I don't know... my thought is that a mother's connection to her child should be so strong that she wouldn't even consider abortion... and if she is then, well...

It's always more complicated than that.A vast number of women who get abortions think it would be more merciful to prevent a child from being born to unfit parents  than make them to suffer for their faults.We should focus on taking care of the life that is before we make more, and there are many problems that adoption does not solve.

[Deamonbane]

Well, there is always the option of adopting... of course, I am not a woman, and have never had any children, so I am unfit to be an accurate judge in this respect...

[Serephino]

I will admit, there are some good reasons for it.  I've had to do some soul searching myself, and came to the realization that with all my issues, pregnancy would probably not be a good thing for me.  The medications I take have serious risks for major brain development problems.  I wouldn't want a brain damaged child, as well as I don't know what pregnancy hormones would do to me.  Add to that, we're barely making ends meet as is.  We couldn't afford to care for a child, and I'm sorry, but I don't want to make taxpayers care for it either.  This is why I try to avoid pregnancy in the first place, but should it ever happen, I'm going to have a lot to think about.

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

I don't know... my thought is that a mother's connection to her child should be so strong that she wouldn't even consider abortion... and if she is then, well...

"Based primarily on nothing, and no experiences you can possibly have. Except your strong fatherly connection to the contents of your testicles, which you totally have, right?"

[Deamonbane]

Of course I do... I made that point clear in my last post... I am not a woman, neither have I ever had any children, so I am basing my argument on hear-say... which would usually mean that it is inaccurate, and incorrect...

[Lux12]

I will admit, there are some good reasons for it.  I've had to do some soul searching myself, and came to the realization that with all my issues, pregnancy would probably not be a good thing for me.  The medications I take have serious risks for major brain development problems.  I wouldn't want a brain damaged child, as well as I don't know what pregnancy hormones would do to me.  Add to that, we're barely making ends meet as is.  We couldn't afford to care for a child, and I'm sorry, but I don't want to make taxpayers care for it either.  This is why I try to avoid pregnancy in the first place, but should it ever happen, I'm going to have a lot to think about.

We of the pro-choice mindset believe in prevention, but prevention doesn't fix everything either, nor does adoption.There are many things it does not address. There are women who die in the streets of countries around the world because they cannot get legal abortions. I am one of two sons conceived and born to a pro choice family. I've also known women who have had to suffer through wanted pregnancies, one of whom is a devout Christian. There are some things it just does not fix.

http://atheosemanon.deviantart.com/art/Adoption-will-NOT-solve-the-abortion-problem-321252061?offset=20


http://goldencoathanger.com/2010/06/14/adoption-is-not-an-alternative-to-abortion/

[Torch]

A vast number of women who get abortions think it would be more merciful to prevent a child from being born to unfit parents  than make them to suffer for their faults.

And the factual proof of this statement would be....?

Of course, if this is just your opinion you are certainly entitled to it, but to presume you know how "vast numbers" of women think is preposterous.

[Lux12]

I'm beginning to feel there's a double standard here because you're not asking everyone else to offer a link or a formal citation for what they say.

[Torch]

I'm beginning to feel there's a double standard here because you're not asking everyone else to offer a link or a formal citation for what they say.

You stated that you presume to know how women think. I'm asking for clarification on that statement. You are within your right to choose to answer or not, just as I am within my right not to ask anyone else the same question.

As I said, you are more than welcome to your opinion, but opinions and facts are not one and the same.

[Lux12]

Well for one I've known quite a few women who have told me the exact same thing though I doubt you'll accept that since I can't exactly just make them to come on here and tell you that. If that's not enough for anyone, then here's more food for thought:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.html

http://io9.com/5958187/what-happens-to-women-denied-abortions-this-is-the-first-scientific-study-to-find-out


http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html

http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionReasons.htm

[Torch]

Well for one I've known quite a few women who have told me the exact same thing though I doubt you'll accept that since I can't exactly just make them to come on here and tell you that.

That's referred to as anecdotal evidence and is meaningless in a debate thread.

http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/why-do-women-really-have-abortions

You do realize the above link is from a pro-life group, yes?


In any case, according to Guttmacher (the source referenced in all of your other links and thus the only one really needed), the most common reason women give for obtaining a termination is financial neediness, combined with existing responsibilities that are a current priority.

That is a far, far cry from your statement, i.e. "preventing a child being born to unfit parents". You really should choose your words more carefully.

[Lux12]

Damn.Must have copied the wrong address on that one.I'll have to look up the link I meant to post again.When I say unfit, I do not mean that in the permanent sense.I mean it as in they know they're in a position that would make them unfit at the time.

Who the hell profanes Susan B.'s name by using it for that agenda?Let alone on a sight that also misrepresents facts and statistics by manipulating words and claiming the existence of preposterous conspiracies.

[Stattick]

I agree with almost everything George Carlin said.

[Torch]

Damn.Must have copied the wrong address on that one.When I say unfit, I do not mean that in the permanent sense.I mean it as in they know they're in a position that would make them unfit at the time.

That's why I suggest you choose your words more carefully. Usage of the word "unfit" in any sense plays into the agenda of pro-life groups, who like to portray women who choose abortion for any reason as being unfit to be a parent at any time, whether before or even after the fact.

Take some advice from someone who has been active in supporting a women's right to choose longer than you've been alive: Don't use the word "unfit" when explaining your position. I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm giving you useful and constructive criticism.

[Stattick]

In any case, according to Guttmacher (the source referenced in all of your other links and thus the only one really needed), the most common reason women give for obtaining a termination is financial neediness, combined with existing responsibilities that are a current priority.

That is a far, far cry from your statement, i.e. "preventing a child being born to unfit parents". You really should choose your words more carefully.

I would say that financial neediness, combined with existing responsibilities that are a current priority DO make one an unfit parent. Take a woman who's barely scraping by while working. She's one paycheck from being out on the streets. Do you really propose that she try to carry the child to term when she can barely afford to feed herself? She's probably going to end up homeless when she has to take maternity leave, and probably loose her job too. How's she going to survive, much less take care of a baby?

[Torch]

I would say that financial neediness, combined with existing responsibilities that are a current priority DO make one an unfit parent. Take a woman who's barely scraping by while working. She's one paycheck from being out on the streets. Do you really propose that she try to carry the child to term when she can barely afford to feed herself? She's probably going to end up homeless when she has to take maternity leave, and probably loose her job too. How's she going to survive, much less take care of a baby?

Because it's a slippery slope when we equate fitness as a parent with financial obligations. If poor folks shouldn't be parents, then there are a whole lot of people on Elliquiy who are unfit parents.

[Trieste]

As has been said before (a lot), prevention and adoption don't cover every contingency and pregnancy itself has some very real, very scary, and often very long-lasting consequences/side effects. No woman should be forced to go through the trauma of pregnancy against her will. Ever. At all. Period. This is regardless of the circumstances surrounding conception.

I don't know... my thought is that a mother's connection to her child should be so strong that she wouldn't even consider abortion... and if she is then, well...

There are, unfortunately for this theory, people out there who have the maternal instinct of a split pea. I know - I've seen the crime scene photos of the aftermath. -_-

[Endorphin]

George Carlin clearly makes a lot of salient points in this video. I took particular note of the one about 80% of fertilised eggs being ‘flushed away’. If that statistic is even remotely accurate, it’s quite a blow to the pro-life argument that life begins at fertilisation – which, quite clearly, needs to be qualified.

In any case, I find that the needs of the pregnant mother (father, family etc) are more of a concern than a collection of non-sentient cells that some class as life and others do not, so I strongly support any argument that is based on upholding these values – especially in situations where the pregnancy is unplanned, unwanted, a result of rape, or otherwise threatens potential deleterious consequences to those involved. And I must say that I would like to see more legal consideration for the prospective father(s) in such instances.

Whilst I won’t go as far as saying that anyone is an ‘unfit’ parent, some are definitely more fit than others and can produce an environment which has a higher chance of successfully raising a well-adjusted child who plays a positive role in society. Something that what many people, including myself, view as desirable.

[Braioch]

Sure some are 'more fit' than others, but last I checked, you're never really fit enough to raise children. It isn't like someone hands you a step by step manual on how to raise children and the expect expenses that in which you will be facing. Really I'd say no one is completely fit to raise children, your children eventually whip you into shape :P

As for Carlin, a pity to have seen him gone, he was rather brilliant and he still manages to send me into a fit of laughter unfit for the wee hours of the morning. Though a few of the stats he threw out I feel the urge to check up on, the rest of the statements he made however I fully stand behind, probably with a smirk on my face.

Fact of the matter is adoption really isn't a good alternative to abortion. If the child is lucky enough to be given to good temporary homes until actually adopted, it still means they're shunted around without any real consistency or structure in their lives. (That's an 'if' I don't need to cite the horror stories that some kids endure in the system that is beyond broken) Not too mention, you're still throwing kids into a system that is overloaded, into a world that has so many children in it as it is. To me that really isn't pro-life, those kids may never have the chances to have a real life in their younger years, if ever, just to rot away in the cracks of the system.

For me personally, from what I heard from my mother, I could have had two other siblings, one older and one younger than I. Both my sister and I fell into a time in her life where she felt that the children being born would have had a stable home, a loving environment, and parents whom would be able to provide for them. She was right. The other two? No, considering the time periods that these children would have been born, my mother would have either been too young, or with the case of the later child, within three or four years would have been in a seriously harsh financial situation and WAYYYY on the outs with what would have been the father.

Her reasons were sound, but as I told her, reasons are inconsequential. In the end, your reasons don't really matter much, as it is your body, your choice, your decision in the end. Reasons only serve to justify where justification doesn't matter to your critics, and are redundant to the people who support you. So really, I don't think discussing the reasons, or the justified reasons, for such a thing have any real point.

[Moraline]

Love him, hate him, agree with him or don't, Mr Carlin was a brilliant comedian.

[Callie Del Noire]

Love him, hate him, agree with him or don't, Mr Carlin was a brilliant comedian.

The man made you THINK. You didn't have to like him, or agree with him.. but he made you THINK. He challenged the world.. He admitted he had flaws.. I read one of his interviews.. in playboy I think (yeah.. I DO read the articles in them) and he told how much of his own life he screwed up with booze and pills and how he fought to get back off of them. And how much he fucked up his own relationship with his family.

He was crude, crass and sometimes downright annoying.. but he was very honest with himself.

[Chris Brady]

I am pro-life.  And I believe in contraception.  If you're going to have sex, but don't want children, then do your best to make sure it won't happen.  But if it does happen, I'd rather (as I cannot force anyone, nor do I wish to) that if you not want the child, you consider adoption.

A lot of the younger pro-choice seem to use abortion as a convenient way to remove a problem.  A human life in the making is not problem.  Human lives are precious.  All life is.  At least to me.

Again, if you want to fuck like bunnies, go ahead, it's a fun recreational pastime (pun intended.)  Just make sure anything unwanted doesn't happen to the best of your ability.

[Deamonbane]

In my mind, life begins where you want it to... if you want to have a child, the life begins before conception... if you love the child, then the life begins when you find out you are going to have a baby... if You don't want to have a child so badly that you want to have an abortion, then, in my mind, the life didn't begin at all... all life starts with love, and the commitment that a parent has to his/her unborn child...

[Kendra]

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.

[Endorphin]

Sure some are 'more fit' than others, but last I checked, you're never really fit enough to raise children. It isn't like someone hands you a step by step manual on how to raise children and the expect expenses that in which you will be facing. Really I'd say no one is completely fit to raise children, your children eventually whip you into shape :P

I know you're deliberately being a bit facetious here; and I totally agree with you. However, I also want to add that that dogs and rats raise their offspring. And even cockroaches can procreate. Making a baby is not a difficult thing to achieve (for most). The  trick is raising a child in a way that 'fits' our society - something that is a whole lot more difficult to achieve and a lot more valuable when it is achieved.

I'd love to live in a world where abortion isn't required. But let's face it - this is not an ideal world. Sometimes we need to make concessions and agree to things we would like to avoid. Whether or not we are pro-life or pro-choice and agree with the decision that is made, we should agree that we should not villify those people who are unfortunate enough to need to make that decision.

[ejohanson]

Nearly no-one in these discussions ever talks about their personal experiences. People can be so pro-choice and yet recoil in horror if you ask them what their personal experience with abortion has been. I don't get that. If you're so ashamed of something you can't even talk about it in nearly anonymous circumstances... why would you do it?

I'm 30, I've been responsible for 2 abortions that I know of; one when I was 17, another when I was 19. I paid for them both times, drove my partner, stuck around for after care. I had two 'near misses' as well, at 15 and 25 respectively, where a woman tested positive and miscarried a few weeks afterwards while we were waiting for the appointment.

I always use at least one method of birth control, which is better than I can say for most my friends. Condoms with strangers, but if I've seen the STD test results for someone and they tell me they're on the pill I will skip condoms. Since I have more sex now than I did when I was a teenager, I suspect that the prevalence of teenage pregnancies in my life is a sign that my partners and I have been getting better at using birth control. I know I've probably paid for... between one and two dozen doses of plan B for times when the condom slipped or someone was just nervous or whatever. I'll buy a girl plan B if I just look at her for a long time.

Realistically, my number is probably higher, because most of the people I've slept with are strangers I have no contact information for... but probably not that much higher. I tend to frequent the same spots, and check the same hook-up sites, and no-one has ever come up to me and said "remember me? You knocked me up" or "wanna see pictures of our son?"

Slightly off-topic, but as to STDs other than baby-itis, most of my friends ask me at some point "fuck dude, how many STDs do you have?" None. I have never had an STD, and I get tested constantly. It is partly luck, partly the fact that I actually ask people before I take them home (several people have told me "yes I'm poz but suppressed" or "Yes I have HSV". Yes they were there to hook-up. No they weren't going to tell anyone who didn't ask). I will walk away if someone's genitals look sketchy (which is spurious reasoning, but it isn't a bad thing to trust your instincts), and partly because I really, seriously use a condom every single time I'm with someone I haven't seen a current STD test from. I couldn't give a fuck less how well I know you or how long we've been fucking or how virginal you say you are.

[Callie Del Noire]

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.

A shame.. really. I know when I lived in the republic of Ireland back in the deep dark 80s.. one of the folks my dab worked with needed a type of birth control to regulate her hormones. To them.. she had:
-Find a doctor willing to go against the church and write a prescription
-Find a pharmacist willing to go against the church to order and fill her prescription.

Typically she had to drive to Dublin from Longford to get it filled every time.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

My stance has always been that when a woman feels confident that she can deliver a child without ridicule, without sacrificing her dreams and her life that society can start to discuss taking abortion off the table.  When the deck is not so stacked then there can be some notion of withdrawing the option.  Until then there is no way I want to see a repeal of Roe v Wade.  I’ve heard the horror stories, seen with my eyes the pictures of what those days were like with back alley abortions and women “taking care” of things themselves.  A fourteen year old girl shouldn't have to bleed out alone because she’s too ashamed to call her mother and tell her what has happened.  Women shouldn't come into the emergency rooms with chemical burns inside their bodies from desperation. 

I am not a fan of abortion.  To me the world would be great if no woman ever felt the need to have one.  We don’t live in that kind of world and taking away an option like that leads to horrific things.  People can blame the woman; can point toward whatever they want.  Someone willing to go to those lengths is crying for help and I’d rather we be able to give them that help than the alternative.

[Sho]

A lot of the younger pro-choice seem to use abortion as a convenient way to remove a problem.

I usually try to steer clear of these threads (they have a tendency to get heated), but I have to admit...this is an argument that has always bothered me. In my own personal experience, I have never known a woman who lightly got an abortion - the amount of social stigma associated with it today makes it a hard experience for any woman, even one who would be so blase as to have no feelings whatsoever. I usually don't want to be the person who asks for proof, since I think everyone should be able to have their own opinions, but...do you have any proof for this statement? I mean...personally, I've never seen any study that was even mildly unbiased that supported the claim that a lot of younger, pro-choice women (or really, any women) see abortion (which is, mind you, an expensive and potentially dangerous procedure) as equivalent to the use of condoms.

[Endorphin]

In all of the cases I've known where a girl/woman has had an abortion (which isn't very many, fortunately), it has been an extremely stressful decision that they have agonized over for days or weeks. It is something they have taken very seriously, become extremely emotionally involved with and weighed up the facts for over and over.

I've also watched many of my mates (who are responsible for the other half of the pregnancy) also go through an extremely stressful time as they try to support their partner and convince them that they should make the decision to terminate - a decision which they, as males, have already arrived at almost instantly and now have absolutely no control over or legal recourse whatsoever, but which could have a devastating impact on them for the next 20 years or so.

Granted, people should be more careful when having sexual relations - but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any options available when it comes to rectifying that situation.

Let's face it: Abortion is a very convenient way to remove a problem. It's not desirable, it's not a nice decision and it's not something you would actively encourage as a hobby or pastime. But, it is available, it is necessary and it does have the potential to save people from ruining their lives over an unwanted child that they can't properly afford to support in a balanced, loving home situation.

[Braioch]

A lot of the younger pro-choice seem to use abortion as a convenient way to remove a problem.  A human life in the making is not problem.  Human lives are precious.  All life is.  At least to me.

I'm going to need citation on this one, this seems like a generalization that I all to often see thrown out there absentmindedly to justify a pro-life stance. All of the women I have ever known to have an abortion never treated it as a convenient means to solve their problem. All of them came to the decision through a process weighing both sides and being able to deal with possible repercussions later on. Never was it some knee-jerk reaction akin to taking some Midol for cramps and bloating.

I know you're deliberately being a bit facetious here; and I totally agree with you. However, I also want to add that that dogs and rats raise their offspring. And even cockroaches can procreate. Making a baby is not a difficult thing to achieve (for most). The  trick is raising a child in a way that 'fits' our society - something that is a whole lot more difficult to achieve and a lot more valuable when it is achieved.

I'd love to live in a world where abortion isn't required. But let's face it - this is not an ideal world. Sometimes we need to make concessions and agree to things we would like to avoid. Whether or not we are pro-life or pro-choice and agree with the decision that is made, we should agree that we should not villify those people who are unfortunate enough to need to make that decision.

Using dogs and rats is not necessarily a proper comparison in this case. In this case you're talking about an animal (us) that has a much more complicated mind and societal system. (As well as greatly varied in both) They teach their young how to hunt, survive and other things that have been made instinctual with the honing of teaching by example. Human beings have to teach a whole variety of things to their children that are far more complicated and complex that take years to properly get across.

And I don't really know where that second paragraph came from, as I thought I made it rather clear that I am most definitely, wholeheartedly and unflinchingly Pro-Choice. I absolutely abhor vilifying these women and support their decision, whichever they may choose.

[Endorphin]

That's precisely my point. Hence why I prefaced the paragraph by saying that I agree with you. What I'm questioning is your use of 'you're never really fit enough to raise children', which I totally understand in context but take exception to as it's clear that all animals (including humans) breed, which by definition, means that they are 'fit' to be parents and raise their offspring. Semantics really. There's no debate that with civilized humans, the onus is on us to breed and raise our offspring in a manner that will ensure they assimilate into an established and very complex society.

The second paragraph has nothing to do with your comments. Once again, I support your comments.

[Trieste]

I'm not sure why the discussion of other animals is relevant, but it seems relevant to note that rats (and mice, also) cull their litters when there is overpopulation or when a female is undernourished. So, essentially other organisms kill their young when they know that there won't be enough food to support a larger population. Soooo, not having enough resources to raise offspring is kind of a huge deal if you want to take a look at the nature model.

[Chris Brady]

I usually try to steer clear of these threads (they have a tendency to get heated), but I have to admit...this is an argument that has always bothered me. In my own personal experience, I have never known a woman who lightly got an abortion - the amount of social stigma associated with it today makes it a hard experience for any woman, even one who would be so blase as to have no feelings whatsoever. I usually don't want to be the person who asks for proof, since I think everyone should be able to have their own opinions, but...do you have any proof for this statement? I mean...personally, I've never seen any study that was even mildly unbiased that supported the claim that a lot of younger, pro-choice women (or really, any women) see abortion (which is, mind you, an expensive and potentially dangerous procedure) as equivalent to the use of condoms.

I said 'seem'.  It's anecdotal, I will state that mainly because I went to rather bad high school, about 20 years ago.  And I've kept in touch with a couple of people, and it's still the same thing, kids get pregnant, and then get an abortion when whatever it is doesn't work.  Not to mention that I know know a lot of younger ladies, namely little sisters for about... 10?  12?  people and the casualness about their abortions creeps me out.

Now, I'm not saying all of them do it (or even most), I'm not saying that it's not a hard choice, it's just that the ease of abortions seem to take away the actual emotional impact, especially for the poor communities.

Part of the issue, I guess, is that it's mostly the teenagers that have done it IN MY EXPERIENCE.  Usually in retaliation of something, like anger to parents, or trying to keep the boyfriend, or some other anger management issue, but when they find out it doesn't work, then they consider abortion.

[LunarSage]

I do want to point out that abortions can be extremely painful, so I wouldn't say they could be considered an easy solution.

[Chris Brady]

I do want to point out that abortions can be extremely painful, so I wouldn't say they could be considered an easy solution.

Honestly, I think the psychological impact lessens after the first one, and it's really just the local scene.

[Trieste]

I don't really know that I would like to hear "I have to stop by the clinic and get an abortion, then I have a manicure appointment, then I've got to pick up a bottle of wine for the dinner party" or anything, but I'm not sure that expecting women to publicly beat their breasts and gnash their teeth or something is necessarily a reasonable expectation. It's been said before that you can never really know what's in someone's mind, and that's probably especially true here. It's an extremely private trauma.

[LunarSage]

Honestly, I think the psychological impact lessens after the first one, and it's really just the local scene.

I'm talking about physical pain.

[Stattick]

Yeah, that's who needs to have more kids: irresponsible teens with anger problems.  ::)

As to the really blase people getting abortion after abortion... fucking let them. I'd much rather let them get abortions then have society deal with the consequences. Have you seen what kids raised in that sort of environment are like, the sort where the parent(s) don't give a flying fuck about their kids? The better ones tend to be pretty fucked up, and the rest tend toward sociopathy.

[Torch]

It's been said before that you can never really know what's in someone's mind, and that's probably especially true here. It's an extremely private trauma.

Indeed, which is why I take all of the "so-and-so's casual abortion" nonsense as exactly that. Nonsense.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Studies seem to indicate women do not view or treat, in large part, abortion as a form of birth control.  Consider the logic behind this decision really.  A woman can go to her pharmacy and pack of pills to take over a month, receive a shot at their doctor that lasts a few months, have an IUD put in and various other non invasive procedures.  Or they can have sex unprotected and HAVE SURGERY.  Women are not stupid.  Also, a second study indicates that women after abortion are more likely to use birth control to prevent pregnancy and slightly more likely to do so than their counterparts who carried the child to term.  Meaning the women who had the abortion do not want a repeat.

Abortion is not seen by women who elect it as a preferred, or desired, form of contraception (Henshaw & Silverman, 1988).

Studies have indicated that while 70 percent of women used no form of birth control before their first abortion, only 9 percent failed to use a contraceptive method after their abortion (Henshaw & Van Vort, 1990).

Baltimore teenagers who chose an abortion were less likely to become pregnant in the following two years than those who had carried their pregnancies to term or who had not been pregnant. They were also slightly more likely to use contraception (Zabin et al., 1989).

The site for reference http://www.plannedparenthood.org/resources/research-papers/emotional-effects-induced-abortion-6137.htm

[Callie Del Noire]

what gets me in a LOT of these anti-abortion/pro-choice diatribes.. you see a LOT of blame put on the women.. nearly NO demand for the man to take responsibility. Not many at all. Part of it is the insistence that sex ed is something 'mom & dad' has to do. With little INFORMED education we're cultivating a culture of 'its HER responsibility'.

Very little male accountability is mention or pushed forward.

[Lux12]

what gets me in a LOT of these anti-abortion/pro-choice diatribes.. you see a LOT of blame put on the women.. nearly NO demand for the man to take responsibility. Not many at all. Part of it is the insistence that sex ed is something 'mom & dad' has to do. With little INFORMED education we're cultivating a culture of 'its HER responsibility'.

Very little male accountability is mention or pushed forward.

You know, I never really thought about it, but now that you mention it that seems more than a little disturbing.

[Torch]

Part of it is the insistence that sex ed is something 'mom & dad' has to do.

I'm not following you here. Are you saying it isn't the responsibility of both parents to educate their children about responsible sexual activity? Because I would have to vehemently disagree on that point.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm not following you here. Are you saying it isn't the responsibility of both parents to educate their children about responsible sexual activity? Because I would have to vehemently disagree on that point.

It IS the parents duty to do it, but how many do it right?  I know my brother and I got a long and frank discussion very early on due to my mother's experience with the early numbers of AIDS/HIV in the early 80s because she was a nurse but I ran into a BUNCH of kids in school that no training or education in sex and is consequences. 

While most parents can explain the birds and bees, how many know about the effectiveness of contraception or what sort of long lasting impact STDs can have on your life? 

And how many kids aren't getting ANY education?

There is a very scary 'head in the sand' approach among some folks out there.

[Torch]

It IS the parents duty to do it, but how many do it right?  I know my brother and I got a long and frank discussion very early on due to my mother's experience with the early numbers of AIDS/HIV in the early 80s because she was a nurse but I ran into a BUNCH of kids in school that no training or education in sex and is consequences. 

While most parents can explain the birds and bees, how many know about the effectiveness of contraception or what sort of long lasting impact STDs can have on your life? 

And how many kids aren't getting ANY education?

There is a very scary 'head in the sand' approach among some folks out there.

I don't disagree, but parents should be the first resource for a child's sex education. If parents can't (or won't) take on that responsibility, then of course it is up to the educational system to pick up the slack.

But speaking as a parent, I don't want anyone circumventing my responsibility to my child without my permission.

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't disagree, but parents should be the first resource for a child's sex education. If parents can't (or won't) take on that responsibility, then of course it is up to the educational system to pick up the slack.

But speaking as a parent, I don't want anyone circumventing my responsibility to my child without my permission.

True. But how many fols out there are as responsible as you Torch?  I'm not a parent, and for reasons I won't publicly discuss I don't think I will ever be. But instead of pushing for a head in the sand outlook in public education, I would hope I'd tell my kids to come talk to me about sex and its responsibilities. I've seen too many lives ruined by a lack of knowledge and a few outright tragedies that depress me still, decades later.

[Serephino]

I definitely favor education.  The question is, how much, and when?  I'm not a parent, but I could only imagine how many pissed off parents there would be if a school decided to give 10 year olds sex ed.  Of course, do it too late...  Parents really should educate their kids better, and the ones that favor abstinence only drive me nuts.  That's about as likely to happen as getting struck by lightning after being hit by a meteor; at least with the average teenager.

[Chris Brady]

what gets me in a LOT of these anti-abortion/pro-choice diatribes.. you see a LOT of blame put on the women.. nearly NO demand for the man to take responsibility. Not many at all. Part of it is the insistence that sex ed is something 'mom & dad' has to do. With little INFORMED education we're cultivating a culture of 'its HER responsibility'.

Very little male accountability is mention or pushed forward.

Actually, sadly, it's the pro-choice feminist groups that end up doing it.  Not to mention the current perception that the Mother figure is the most important in a child's life (Which according to a paper I cannot find, psychiatry claims that a father and mother figure are needed for the best results.)

By making the claim that only the woman has the right to decide whether or not she should have the abortion, not to mention that a lot of women who do, are single, you effectively give the signal that the man has no say in the kid's life.  By not allowing men to help in that decision, society fosters the image that men are all irresponsible jerks.

Yes, quite a few teenage boys, and a lot of college guys are, but there are those who, despite their age, would step up and help.  I have anecdotes about a couple.

Not to mention that a lot of the time, the jerks do take off, which does leave it in the woman's hands.  At the same time, safe sex educational commercials (which used to pop up randomly here, a decade ago, sadly) would do well to portray males in the decision.  But between the ardent Pro-Choice women, and the jerk population (which being loud and noticeable by their lack of being there, makes them seem like there might be more of them than not) it's effectively taken it out of any man's hands.

Whether or not men would, we honestly don't know as a society.  Because as I stated, it's been taken out of our hands.  Or so it's perceived.  Which ends up being a nasty loop.  Women are given the control, so men bugger off, which in turn gets men blamed for being jerks, which reinforces that it's the woman's choice, because men are irresponsible, so men are not allowed in the decision as they can't be trusted, so they bugger off which...

[Stattick]

Actually, sadly, it's the pro-choice feminist groups that end up doing it.  Not to mention the current perception that the Mother figure is the most important in a child's life (Which according to a paper I cannot find, psychiatry claims that a father and mother figure are needed for the best results.)

By making the claim that only the woman has the right to decide whether or not she should have the abortion, not to mention that a lot of women who do, are single, you effectively give the signal that the man has no say in the kid's life.  By not allowing men to help in that decision, society fosters the image that men are all irresponsible jerks.

Yes, quite a few teenage boys, and a lot of college guys are, but there are those who, despite their age, would step up and help.  I have anecdotes about a couple.

Not to mention that a lot of the time, the jerks do take off, which does leave it in the woman's hands.  At the same time, safe sex educational commercials (which used to pop up randomly here, a decade ago, sadly) would do well to portray males in the decision.  But between the ardent Pro-Choice women, and the jerk population (which being loud and noticeable by their lack of being there, makes them seem like there might be more of them than not) it's effectively taken it out of any man's hands.

Whether or not men would, we honestly don't know as a society.  Because as I stated, it's been taken out of our hands.  Or so it's perceived.  Which ends up being a nasty loop.  Women are given the control, so men bugger off, which in turn gets men blamed for being jerks, which reinforces that it's the woman's choice, because men are irresponsible, so men are not allowed in the decision as they can't be trusted, so they bugger off which...

Wow, your post literally made me nauseous. To state the women shouldn't have the right to an abortion without the sperm donor's consent is so mind numbingly backwards and wrong that I don't think I can state it in words. How... Victorian of you. You'd have fit right in a century or two back.

So, you think we should just let rapists continue their torture of women indefinitely after they've impregnated a women, and the rapist doesn't give his consent for an abortion? Then, after she gives birth, he can sue to get visitation rights while we're at it, right? Hell, at that point, why don't we just go back to how they did it circa 1000 AD - he forced himself on her, so now he gets to marry and keep her, eh? That way she's always right at hand for him to control forever after.

Up thread, Triest said it best, NO ONE should EVER have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with HER body.  Understand? Get it? It's not her husband's body. Not her father's body. Not some sperm donor's body. HERS. No one gets to hijack it for months on end in a medical condition that can and does lead to death in many women even today, not without her permission. You're proposing trampling on the very tenants of self determination, just because someone made the mistake of being born female. It's sickening. And I mean that literally.

[Callie Del Noire]

Wow, your post literally made me nauseous. To state the women shouldn't have the right to an abortion without the sperm donor's consent is so mind numbingly backwards and wrong that I don't think I can state it in words. How... Victorian of you. You'd have fit right in a century or two back.

So, you think we should just let rapists continue their torture of women indefinitely after they've impregnated a women, and the rapist doesn't give his consent for an abortion? Then, after she gives birth, he can sue to get visitation rights while we're at it, right? Hell, at that point, why don't we just go back to how they did it circa 1000 AD - he forced himself on her, so now he gets to marry and keep her, eh? That way she's always right at hand for him to control forever after.

Up thread, Triest said it best, NO ONE should EVER have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with HER body.  Understand? Get it? It's not her husband's body. Not her father's body. Not some sperm donor's body. HERS. No one gets to hijack it for months on end in a medical condition that can and does lead to death in many women even today, not without her permission. You're proposing trampling on the very tenants of self determination, just because someone made the mistake of being born female. It's sickening. And I mean that literally.

Just in case you're wondering.. I wasn't pushing for the right of the father so much.. as teaching BOTH persons their duties and responsibilities. I see little in the way of that in whatever sex ed is out there..

Responsibilty is part of sex..and damn little understanding of that is put out there. 

As for my personal experiences in a state where there is NO sex ed was taught in my district.. I saw a LOT guys suddenly bail when the 'rabbit died'. I saw a lot of teens looking confused because 'they didn't do what makes you pregnant' and so on. Also so a lot of 'Winchester' weddings'.

One of the saddest things was watching girls implode when they found out their family didn't support them, and the guys who were with days before suddenly vanish.

[Trieste]

Booga booga booga feminists!

* Trieste was wondering when that one would turn up.

It's really very simple:

Sex involves two people. It is the responsibility of both people to ensure that the sex is safe, consensual, blah blah blah.

Pregnancy does not involve two people (I'm not going to get into the whole "Is the clump of cells a person?" thing. For the purposes of my statement, it's a clump of cells and not a person until/unless it is born.). Pregnancy affects one person. Uno. It affects the woman. It is a women's health issue. Abortion is a women's health issue. It is her decision as to whether to involve the other person in the process, but it comes down to her health, her body, her choices, her ability to determine her own future. Someone who cannot get pregnant can pretty much feel free to have all the opinions they want, but I draw the line personally at someone who cannot get pregnant having any say in what to do about pregnancies. It is a women's health issue, at least until and unless men can start to get spontaneously pregnant from unprotected sex. Now, if the woman wants to involve her partner and discuss it with him, ask him to help pay for hospital care, etc, then it becomes a 'them' thing. But that is up to her.

If there is actually a child produced, it is, again, a 'them' thing. The only part where it's not a two-person thing is the physical condition of getting pregnant. Before and after that, you better believe both parents should step up. It pretty much takes two to tango, but it doesn't take two to be pregnant. So yeah, the jerks who take off should be held accountable for their child... but it's the woman who is responsible for decisions regarding her own body and her own health.

It continues to blow my mind how people can oppose that... at all. Ever. I mean, I don't get to determine what a man does with his testicles just because I've slept with him. Why should anyone else determine what I do with my body just because they've slept with me?

[Chris Brady]

Wow, your post literally made me nauseous. To state the women shouldn't have the right to an abortion without the sperm donor's consent is so mind numbingly backwards and wrong that I don't think I can state it in words. How... Victorian of you. You'd have fit right in a century or two back.

So, you think we should just let rapists continue their torture of women indefinitely after they've impregnated a women, and the rapist doesn't give his consent for an abortion? Then, after she gives birth, he can sue to get visitation rights while we're at it, right? Hell, at that point, why don't we just go back to how they did it circa 1000 AD - he forced himself on her, so now he gets to marry and keep her, eh? That way she's always right at hand for him to control forever after.

Up thread, Triest said it best, NO ONE should EVER have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with HER body.  Understand? Get it? It's not her husband's body. Not her father's body. Not some sperm donor's body. HERS. No one gets to hijack it for months on end in a medical condition that can and does lead to death in many women even today, not without her permission. You're proposing trampling on the very tenants of self determination, just because someone made the mistake of being born female. It's sickening. And I mean that literally.

And this post sums up the problem right there.  You immediately went after the loudest, most noticeable targets there.  Bad men.  In which rapists, abandoning jerks and anyone else who absolves himself of responsibility for having sex with women are a part of, with varying degrees of wickedness and harm.

Not only that, your outrage just shoved the entire child issue into the woman's hands.  Whether or not she wants it.

All because you immediately went to the extreme position.  Let me spells this out in big letters:

NOT ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS.

NOT ALL MEN FUCK AND RUN.

NOT ALL MEN ARE JERKS.

Yes, a fair bit are, and it's debatable whether or not it's society or just ingrained nature, but 100% of men will NOT run away from the responsibility of deciding what to do with an unwanted pregnancy.

Sometimes I wonder if "White Knights" aren't part of the issue.  And why the hell, did you immediately go for the most negative and extreme position???

Each situation should be reviewed (man, talk about a clinical way of saying this) by what the situation is.  Each rape, each accidental pregnancy caused by mishap (and I'm talking a bad condom, or other unintended event that ISN'T actively an act of harm) or other event causing pregnancy, should be evaluated by all the parties involved.

It takes two to have sex and make children.  And on the apparently rare occasions that it's not an attack on the woman, why should the man involved not be involved, assuming that he's a decent and responsible human being?  Why must we push this on the woman's/girl's shoulders?  How much damage does that do, psychologically?

[Kythia]

Chris,

You're absolutely right.  BUT.  If I have full control over an abortion or not there's nothing in the way of me discussing it to my heart's content with the potential father.  I still have that right.

But laws have to be simple, they have to be universally applicable.  A law that said "men have joint say over abortion unless its a rape or, you know, the father is kinda a dick and left her or, god I dunno, other cases where its not appropriate to involve the father" is too complex, too wide ranging.

Far better, in my opinion, to rely on the fact that, as you say, most men aren't rapists or whatever and most pregnancies won't be affected by the law.  The law is there to protect the minority cases, it doesn't need to guide behaviour in the majority.  The man can absolutely be involved.

Does that make any sense?

[Stattick]

*bleh*

Still sick... but it turns out that dinner isn't sitting well with me. Sorry Chris, I shouldn't have attributed the nauseous to your post.

[Torch]

Each situation should be reviewed (man, talk about a clinical way of saying this) by what the situation is.  Each rape, each accidental pregnancy caused by mishap (and I'm talking a bad condom, or other unintended event that ISN'T actively an act of harm) or other event causing pregnancy, should be evaluated by all the parties involved.

The situation (as you refer to it) is irrelevant. The circumstances are irrelevant. SCOTUS rulings have always upheld that a woman's right to privacy (and therefore her right to do as she pleases with her body) outweigh a father's interest in a fetus' welfare. They are not, and never will be equal.

Period.

[Chris Brady]

You know what I wish we, as a society, could do?  Make the men pay.  The Rapists, the Deadbeats.  Make them PAY, the victim directly.  Now, admittedly, I'd PREFER if the child was kept, but at the same time, it should NOT be all on the woman's shoulder (UNLESS SHE WANTS IT TO BE!  Some women don't want the man involved in their life for whatever reason), but if there was a way to make the man (the Jerk) pay for at least half of what needs to be done, that would be better for me.

But how do we know that wouldn't be abused?

(And yes, I know, it'd likely be something like maybe 10% of all cases would be abused, but as someone whose on disability, the 10% who abuse the system make it worse for those of us who are honestly hurt.)

[Stattick]

And this post sums up the problem right there.  You immediately went after the loudest, most noticeable targets there.  Bad men.  In which rapists, abandoning jerks and anyone else who absolves himself of responsibility for having sex with women are a part of, with varying degrees of wickedness and harm.

Not only that, your outrage just shoved the entire child issue into the woman's hands.  Whether or not she wants it.

All because you immediately went to the extreme position.  Let me spells this out in big letters:

NOT ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS.

NOT ALL MEN FUCK AND RUN.

NOT ALL MEN ARE JERKS.

Yes, a fair bit are, and it's debatable whether or not it's society or just ingrained nature, but 100% of men will NOT run away from the responsibility of deciding what to do with an unwanted pregnancy.

Sometimes I wonder if "White Knights" aren't part of the issue.  And why the hell, did you immediately go for the most negative and extreme position???

Each situation should be reviewed (man, talk about a clinical way of saying this) by what the situation is.  Each rape, each accidental pregnancy caused by mishap (and I'm talking a bad condom, or other unintended event that ISN'T actively an act of harm) or other event causing pregnancy, should be evaluated by all the parties involved.

It takes two to have sex and make children.  And on the apparently rare occasions that it's not an attack on the woman, why should the man involved not be involved, assuming that he's a decent and responsible human being?  Why must we push this on the woman's/girl's shoulders?  How much damage does that do, psychologically?

Just taking what you said to the logical conclusion. You said men should have a say as to whether a woman gets an abortion. I flat out disagree with your position; no one should be allowed to make decisions about someone else's health care excepting certain obvious cases like next of kin making decisions for comatose patients and so forth. The way you wrote your post implies that women should not be allowed to get an abortion without the father's consent. Do you really not believe that women sometimes get pregnant from rape and/or molestation? And that in some cases, the sperm donor would actually try to press his rights and force her to have the child? This is a world where at least one rapist ACTUALLY HAS sued for parental rights his his rape baby.

So, we have around 19 thousand abortions a year in the US. Only a very low percentage of women who have been surveyed claimed that the abortion they were having was because of rape or molestation. About half of a percent of women getting abortions reported that it was due to incest, while about one percent of women claimed it was due to rape. It's widely believed that rape and incest is greatly under-reported. But I'll be generous, and just use those numbers as is. As a matter of fact, I'll even toss out the half a percent of women who cited incest, and say that most of those were also rapes.

So, around 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest. That's nearly 200 women per year who've gotten pregnant from being raped, at a very conservative estimate. Your rules, as you wrote them, would mean that those women couldn't get an abortion unless the rapist consented.

But let's say that what you meant was that the man shouldn't be ignored. I still profoundly disagree with that stance, but let's put that aside for a moment. Let's say that the man wants her to get an abortion, but she wants to keep the kid. Are we going to force her to go down to the abortion clinic, in shackles if necessary? What about if she wants an abortion, but he doesn't? What are we going to do, put the fetus in protective custody? Put the woman under lock and key until she gives birth or miscarries? Do we charge her with murder or manslaughter if someone suspects that she tried to induce a miscarriage because she didn't want to be held against her will and have her body highjacked by an unwanted parasitic thing inside of her that will eventually grow to the size and weight of a bowling ball, that could have side effects potentially as severe as death for her?

Because here's the thing: someone's rights have to be squashed if there's a pregnancy, and one of the biological donors wants it aborted while the other does not. Everything else is equal here except that ONE of the parties has to have the parasitic thing growing inside their body for nearly a year. Since everything else is equal, doesn't it make the most sense to give the person who's body is going to be hijacked the decision? What possible reason could be come up with that would lead someone to answering "no" to that? I can think of NO REASON to say "no, the woman shouldn't make the decision" that isn't based on misogyny of some form - some people might think that women are too stupid or emotional to make the decision, or maybe they're a member of a patriarchal religion where the "wife must obey the husband" or some such. There just isn't a reason why the man should have the decision.

Or maybe you meant that both parties should get a say? How is that supposed to work? He says she should get an abortion and she doesn't want one - what do they do, flip a coin? Go to Abortion Court?

Let me tell you, I wouldn't want the decision as to whether to have a twenty pound tumor removed from my abdomen left to my girlfriend; at the same time, I don't think that the decision as to whether she gets an abortion should she get pregnant is my decision. I'd prefer that she would discuss it with me, but there's nothing that says that she has to - it's HER body. She doesn't have to discuss it with me if she goes to get a tattoo. She doesn't have to discuss it with me if she decides to shave off her hair. She doesn't have to discuss it with me if she decides to have an abortion.

[Chris Brady]

I am not honestly comfortable with comparing having a kid with having a tattoo, truth be told...  Sorry, that's just..

[Stattick]

I am not honestly comfortable with comparing having a kid with having a tattoo, truth be told...  Sorry, that's just..

But you're okay with discussing how we should take rights away from women?

[Chris Brady]

Never said anything about taking away rights.  I'm more about giving them.  Sharing the responsibility.  If possible.

Again, I want to point out that the situations and people involve can make it a lot more complicated, but at it's core, I don't think it's entirely fair that we leave the ball entirely in the woman's court.  I can't imagine the sort of pressure that puts someone under, especially since we're saying that it's all up to one person, and only one person to deal with it.

[Stattick]

By making the claim that only the woman has the right to decide whether or not she should have the abortion, not to mention that a lot of women who do, are single, you effectively give the signal that the man has no say in the kid's life.  By not allowing men to help in that decision, society fosters the image that men are all irresponsible jerks.

That's what you said, right there. I bolded the relevant parts. To paraphrase, you said, "Feminists claim that only a woman should make the decision whether to have an abortion. Men should help in that decision."

By the way, did anyone else notice that you said woman and men? Probably just your Freudian Slip showing, but it's implied that a woman that wants an abortion should have to go before a board of men to argue her case. But maybe it was just a typo, so I'll leave that one alone.

What you're saying is that before they can get an abortion, that they have to get permission first. So, you're claiming that women shouldn't be able to control their own bodies. That's about the biggest stripping of rights imaginable. So no, you didn't use the word "rights" per se, but it amounts to the same thing. It amounts to you thinking that women should be treated like children. Should your daughter get her ears pierced? Well, that's not up to her. That's up to her daddy. The condom broke and Mary got pregnant by accident. Should she get an abortion? Well, that's not up to her. That's up to her boyfriend. Same thing.

[ulthakptah]

Personally I believe that having a baby is a decision that both parties involved should have a say in. Naturally one can't force a woman to have or abort a baby, but one really shouldn't force a man to be a parent if he didn't want to. Babies aren't like tattoos, if your girlfriend gets a tattoo you don't have to take care of it and the courts don't take money from you to pay for its upkeep for 18-20 years.

In a perfect situation two consenting adult plan and conceive a baby, but this isn't what abortions are about. Abortion is for when conception happens by accident. This may be a happy accident and the two people end up wanting to both keep it, and live happily ever after. On the other hand they both might decide they aren't ready for a child, and both choose abortion. The real problem comes when the two disagree on what should happen. As stated one cannot force a woman to do things, so if the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't, tough turkey for the father. Until science finds some way to take out and grow a baby elsewhere it's just not fair to the mother. On the other hand if the mother wants to keep the child and the father doesn't well then the father should be able to give up his rights and responsibilities, and effectively be a sperm donor. By this I mean would be protected the same way as if he donated sperm at a sperm bank. Again this isn't very favorable, but it also wouldn't be fair to garish the fathers wages for all those years, with the threat of imprisonment if he can't pay, for a child he did not want. Accepting being the father should probably an opt-in rather than an opt-out. Otherwise you might come across the problem of waiting to tell the father only after the point where it is too late to abort.

In short, both want, keep, both don't want, abort, only mother wants, go it alone, only father wants, hope for an advancement in prenatal medicine.

As for religion and abortion. I am religious, but I know I can't, and I will not force my believes onto other people. What they do is their business. If they are interested in religion, they know where to go. All I can do is help if they ask. The rest is outside of my power. However none of this matters in this situation as I don't think of babies as people until they are separated from the mother.

[Silk]

I personally wish there was more options for the male in these situations, it's as bad for both sides in different ways, women need to put up with the pregnancy, be it voluntary, or involuntary, or get rid of it. (I state it because gender isn't a factor yet before more people get their back up) But I see a lot of people saying that "Men have shared responsibility but not shared right" in society and law that line of thinking is fundamentally flawed and dangerous, it's like saying a sales assistant is responsible for the store managers job but won't get paid the managers wage.

Either way it's a dangerous quagmire, if your not going to allow men the rights in the situation, then you can't then drag them back in with the responsibilities, and the ones who can see they're getting a sour deal of the situation will not likely live up to it, that is just as much on the woman for pushing away as the man walking away. I've seen it so often where the mother want's the father to provide funding, and only see the child when she wants and under her supervision, while painting a picture that he's a deadbeat dad that wants nothing to do with the kid, when the guy is borderline suicidal because the mother is making his life miserable. So I'm a lot more devided on the situation since it's just as easy for the woman to have malicious intent as it is for the male, So I refuse to see guys as jerks rapists and alike, because that's the person not the gender.

That's what you said, right there. I bolded the relevant parts. To paraphrase, you said, "Feminists claim that only a woman should make the decision whether to have an abortion. Men should help in that decision."

By the way, did anyone else notice that you said woman and men? Probably just your Freudian Slip showing, but it's implied that a woman that wants an abortion should have to go before a board of men to argue her case. But maybe it was just a typo, so I'll leave that one alone.

Not at all because when he said "woman" it's talking in singular, as in one. When he said men he was talking about the rights of men, a number not a singular. Your trying to see things that are not there.

[vtboy]

On the other hand if the mother wants to keep the child and the father doesn't well then the father should be able to give up his rights and responsibilities, and effectively be a sperm donor. By this I mean would be protected the same way as if he donated sperm at a sperm bank. Again this isn't very favorable, but it also wouldn't be fair to garish the fathers wages for all those years, with the threat of imprisonment if he can't pay, for a child he did not want.

Just out of curiosity, if mother and father are married, would you still allow the non-consenting father to absolve himself of all responsibility?

In any case, the idea of allowing non-consenting fathers to avoid financial obligation is a bad one. Reduction of the financial burdens of the custodial parent is not the only purpose of child support. It also serves to provide  better for the material needs of the child who, after all, had no say in the circumstances of its birth. If the father is impecunious and likely to remain so, the issue is pretty much academic. But, I see no reason why the child of a man with some means should suffer privation simply because the father prefers a more affluent existence.

I suppose our society might have forged a different balance among the competing interests implicated by a partially unwanted pregnancy without cataclysmic consequence, but the one it made -- i.e., to give the child a better chance to develop into a happy, healthy adult -- strikes me as reasonable. As to the non-consenting father, well, sometimes shit happens and you've just got to suck it up. Sometimes you lose your job. Sometimes the doctor tells you you've got 3 months to live. Sometimes, despite diligence, you knock up  the lady and she doesn't want the abortion. 

[ulthakptah]

Just out of curiosity, if mother and father are married, would you still allow the non-consenting father to absolve himself of all responsibility?

In any case, the idea of allowing non-consenting fathers to avoid financial obligation is a bad one. Reduction of the financial burdens of the custodial parent is not the only purpose of child support. It also serves to provide  better for the material needs of the child who, after all, had no say in the circumstances of its birth. If the father is impecunious and likely to remain so, the issue is pretty much academic. But, I see no reason why the child of a man with some means should suffer privation simply because the father prefers a more affluent existence.

I suppose our society might have forged a different balance among the competing interests implicated by a partially unwanted pregnancy without cataclysmic consequence, but the one it made -- i.e., to give the child a better chance to develop into a happy, healthy adult -- strikes me as reasonable. As to the non-consenting father, well, sometimes shit happens and you've just got to suck it up. Sometimes you lose your job. Sometimes the doctor tells you you've got 3 months to live. Sometimes, despite diligence, you knock up  the lady and she doesn't want the abortion.

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...

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

[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.

[Caela]

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.

I think the thing with the Daycare centers is, probably, regional but it still sucks that anyone would be treated that way. No one qualified should be denied a job simply because of their sex. If you've got the skills needed you should only loose out on the job to someone more qualified. It's not common in my area, but I have seen centers that have one or two men working in them, though they are typically way outnumbered by the female staff. Most of the parents I have seen at those centers seemed to think having a man around was fantastic for the boys that went there.

As for your example above, anyone that compliments my child gets a smile and thanks. I think it's ridiculous that people treat any man who is good with or likes kids as if he is some sort of potential predator. I think both the men treated this way, and the kids around them, lose out when it happens. I would think too (and am more than willing to be proven wrong) that these would be attitudes that would be hard to find statistical data on simply because most people aren't going to admit to them when asked objectively.

[Trieste]

It appears to be a dying stereotype. When I looked for citations, the most recent I could find was from 1988. Anything more recent talked about how gender disparity in child care environments is generally seen as harmful.

On the other hand, to address the women's care centers .... thing, women STILL can't really walk into a doc's office or a hospital and get their lady parts checked out; they are required to go to a gynecologist. Whereas men, when they do have something weird going down with their bits, generally just go to a GP. It's getting better. I am no longer referred to my GYN for a simple yeast infection. However, there was (and still, to a point, is) indeed a need for separate women's care centers. It would be really nice if I could find a GP that was taking patients and could go in for my annual pap smear, for instance. Instead, I have to sit on a GYN's waitlist... and god help the women who prefer a female GYN.

[Caela]

It appears to be a dying stereotype. When I looked for citations, the most recent I could find was from 1988. Anything more recent talked about how gender disparity in child care environments is generally seen as harmful.

On the other hand, to address the women's care centers .... thing, women STILL can't really walk into a doc's office or a hospital and get their lady parts checked out; they are required to go to a gynecologist. Whereas men, when they do have something weird going down with their bits, generally just go to a GP. It's getting better. I am no longer referred to my GYN for a simple yeast infection. However, there was (and still, to a point, is) indeed a need for separate women's care centers. It would be really nice if I could find a GP that was taking patients and could go in for my annual pap smear, for instance. Instead, I have to sit on a GYN's waitlist... and god help the women who prefer a female GYN.

I read this and have to say that I think we are spoiled in my area. Around here a lot of the GP's will do your yearly pap and only refer you out to a GYN if a) you want one or b) there is something unusual that they think you actually need to see one for. We also have a huge number of female GYN's and one of our biggest groups in the area is exclusively female GYN's. I think a lot of this is easier in cities as opposed to more rural areas and that some of it is also regional as well.

[Trieste]

Yeah, I have never had a GP who would do a pap smear or anything, regardless of gender.

As far as the gender of the GYN, I cared when I was younger and first getting jabbed and poked... Now I care less about the gender of the GYN and more about their bedside manner. I have met some atrocious, insensitive female GYNs and some fantastic, very professional male GYNs. I think the perception of female GYN being better is something many women grow out of.

[Caela]

Yeah, I have never had a GP who would do a pap smear or anything, regardless of gender.

As far as the gender of the GYN, I cared when I was younger and first getting jabbed and poked... Now I care less about the gender of the GYN and more about their bedside manner. I have met some atrocious, insensitive female GYNs and some fantastic, very professional male GYNs. I think the perception of female GYN being better is something many women grow out of.

It sounds so weird to me to hear of GP's that won't do paps. In my area we even have a few that keep their pregnant patients and have privileges at the hospital to come in and deliver them (I'm a scrub tech in L&D at my hospital).

I agree about the perception of women being better GYN's. I think younger girls think that because if the GYN is a woman then she would have gone through the poking and prodding too and should be more sympathetic. Definitely not always the case! I saw a male OB at my last hospital and he was amazing! Where I'm at now, I see a woman and I wouldn't trade her for anything but if I had to choose between them I'd have a huge quandary before me. If my current doc moved for some reason, my second choice would be one of the male GYN's we work with. I do have to admit that I get a different perspective on them too though since I work with them at the hospital.

side rant/ Too many people keep crappy doctors!!! Unless you are bound to them for some reason (only one in the area, only one that takes your insurance etc.) if they are a crap doctor, or just simply won't work with you...get a new one!!!! There is no point in spending years being frustrated and getting poor care when you don't have to. Fire them and find someone else! /rant

[Chris Brady]

It appears to be a dying stereotype. When I looked for citations, the most recent I could find was from 1988. Anything more recent talked about how gender disparity in child care environments is generally seen as harmful.

No, I can tell you, it is not dying.  It's just not reported that often, because it's now EXPECTED.  Back in '88 it was 'new' and shocking.  Now, it's par for the course.

It's like the American comedian who married Canadian and moved to Canada once said about murders.  In Canada we still report all the murders on the news channels.

Oh, and one more 'unfairness', women reporting sexual harassment at the work place typically (not always) get taken more seriously than when a man does it.

[Mithlomwen]

Oh, and one more 'unfairness', women reporting sexual harassment at the work place typically (not always) get taken more seriously than when a man does it.

I'm not really sure I'd believe that so much these days.  If you have some sort of data to support that, I would very much like to read it. 

Though I think the whole sexual harassment thing is probably best for another topic as it would probably derail this thread from it's original point. 

[Chris Brady]

I'm not really sure I'd believe that so much these days.  If you have some sort of data to support that, I would very much like to read it. 

Though I think the whole sexual harassment thing is probably best for another topic as it would probably derail this thread from it's original point.

I'm not saying that incidents are always in the woman's favour, just that they're more likely to be investigated if a woman claims it.  There's also an incorrect perception that's still among some men that any sort of that instance, that they should 'suck it up'.

[Mithlomwen]

I'm not saying that incidents are always in the woman's favour, just that they're more likely to be investigated if a woman claims it. 

No, I did understand what you were trying to say.  But in today's day and age, I find it very hard to believe that ANY form of harassment isn't taken very seriously and investigated.  That's why I wondered if you had info to show that's not the case.  As many classes as people are required to take today, to learn about all forms of harassment, I would be hard pressed to believe that one gender was believed more than another.

[Chris Brady]

No, I did understand what you were trying to say.  But in today's day and age, I find it very hard to believe that ANY form of harassment isn't taken very seriously and investigated.  That's why I wondered if you had info to show that's not the case.  As many classes as people are required to take today, to learn about all forms of harassment, I would be hard pressed to believe that one gender was believed more than another.

Part of the problem, is that after a while is it stops being reported to the public.  After the 50th time it stops being interesting, and the news and reporters are always after something new.

That doesn't mean that the incidences stop, it also doesn't mean they increase, either.  It just means less people now, or even care about them.

[Mithlomwen]

Part of the problem, is that after a while is it stops being reported to the public.  After the 50th time it stops being interesting, and the news and reporters are always after something new.

That doesn't mean that the incidences stop, it also doesn't mean they increase, either.  It just means less people now, or even care about them.

Which is why I'm asking if you have some sort of report, or article that you can link me to?  I would be interested to know if that is truly the case or not.  If it is in fact the case, then that is a sad thing indeed and it needs to be brought to the forefront again.  But if it's just personal opinion rather than an actual fact, that's a different kettle of fish.

[Torch]

Part of the problem, is that after a while is it stops being reported to the public.  After the 50th time it stops being interesting, and the news and reporters are always after something new.

That doesn't mean that the incidences stop, it also doesn't mean they increase, either.  It just means less people now, or even care about them.

Not everything is reported the "public".

Not everything is fodder for the nightly news.

You only know what you see. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Most companies will operate under a non-disclosure agreement when it comes to sexual harassment, which means NO ONE, not the perpetrator, not the victim, not bystanders....NO ONE is allowed to speak publicly about any alleged incidents.

Unless you have some facts to back up your statements, please stop with the conjecture.

[LunarSage]

All that aside (and I'm not going to get into the sexual harassment debate), I feel that as a man I have to be very careful about how I am perceived around children and women due to the stigmas that may or may not be outdated.  It's very unfortunate, but if I see a child crying and obviously lost in a store, I will hands down never approach him or her.  I may get the attention of an associate at the store to try and help the kid, but people could very easily misconstrue the help I would try to give, so I don't do it myself.  For the most part, a woman doesn't have to worry about that.  That's really my major point.

[Stattick]

"But think of the men!" is just a distraction. The vast majority of discrimination, sexual harassments, rapes, and so forth are crimes against women. For instance, in 2010, only 16% of sexual harassment cases were filed by men, and most of those were men claiming to have been harassed by OTHER MEN. So being charitable, maybe as many as five or six percent of harassment cases were being filed by men against women. CITE As far as women raping men... that accounts for only around half of a percent of all reported rapes. CITE

If someone wants to go and post a thread about male victims of harassment or rape, go ahead. But here, in an abortion thread, it's just a distraction. And not only is it distracting from the topic of abortion, but it ensures that the serious topic of male victimization doesn't get a fair discussion either.

[LunarSage]

Stattick is correct... we are off track for the topic.  My apologies.

[Trieste]

No, I can tell you, it is not dying.  It's just not reported that often, because it's now EXPECTED.  Back in '88 it was 'new' and shocking.  Now, it's par for the course.

It's like the American comedian who married Canadian and moved to Canada once said about murders.  In Canada we still report all the murders on the news channels.

Oh, and one more 'unfairness', women reporting sexual harassment at the work place typically (not always) get taken more seriously than when a man does it.

Except the research didn't just stop; it evolved. There is clearly still ongoing research in the area, so if it weren't dying, there would continue to be papers about it. Please please please understand the difference between peer-reviewed research and the nightly news before you try to comment on said research!

[Serephino]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-cdc-abortions-fall-5-largest-drop-in-a-decade-20121121,0,3890778.story

Getting back on topic...

Hey, better birth control is actually reducing the number of abortions.  How about that...

[Stattick]

I think the reduction in the number of abortions might actually be a result of Republicans closing and/or cutting off funding for clinics. I'm... not sure. The article seemed rather vague on the causation for the reduction.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

"Mississippi had the lowest abortion rate, at 4 per 1,000 women of child-bearing age. The state also had only a couple of abortion providers and has the nation's highest teen birthrate. New York, second to California in number of abortion providers, had the highest abortion rate, about eight times that of Mississippi."

This section from the article makes me think you might be right Stattick.

[Stattick]

I've lived in Mississippi. The amount of poverty there is staggering. There's also a lot of people there that don't have reliable transportation.

[Torch]

I think the reduction in the number of abortions might actually be a result of Republicans closing and/or cutting off funding for clinics. I'm... not sure. The article seemed rather vague on the causation for the reduction.

It's possible, although the birth rate in the US has been falling for years now, so it stands to reason that the abortion rate would follow suit (i.e. fewer pregnancies overall, so fewer live births along with fewer abortions).

[Serephino]

The article says there could be a lot of factors, so yeah, part of it could be access.  But they're saying there was an average of 227 abortions for every 1000 live births, which is a lower ratio then in years past.  Population would also have something to do with it.  I don't know what the population of Mississippi is, but probably less than California.  But, we're not just talking about Mississippi, but the national average.  The article does say reduction in unwanted pregnancies will lead to fewer abortions, which I very much agree with.

[ulthakptah]

Yes abortions are bad and should be something one tries to avoid. Thats why things like birth control and sex education are needed. You would think that people in this day and age would know that anal sex is not a substitute for birth control.

[Stattick]

Oh, that must be why there's fewer abortions these days. Anal has gotten very popular.  :D

[ulthakptah]

Oh, that must be why there's fewer abortions these days. Anal has gotten very popular.  :D

Didn't I just say anal sex can still lead to pregnancy?

[Callie Del Noire]

Oh, that must be why there's fewer abortions these days. Anal has gotten very popular.  :D

couldn't POSSIBLY be the access to the procedure is getting harder and hard.. no.. not at all...

[Cyrano Johnson]

Didn't I just say anal sex can still lead to pregnancy?

Good lord. What good are emoticons if people still can't detect a joke after it's been flagged with one?

[Caela]

Didn't I just say anal sex can still lead to pregnancy?

Anal sex, in and of itself, cannot lead to pregnancy. Now anal sex that ends up leading to unprotected vaginal sex, that can lead to pregnancy.

[LunarSage]

I suppose if semen leaked out and got in the vagina it could... maybe.

[Caela]

I suppose if semen leaked out and got in the vagina it could... maybe.

That would be quite the trick, not only are the angles wrong, but (speaking in relative size) the trek from anus, to the vagina, and up through the cervix, into the uterus and then, possibly, into the fallopian tubes is a LONG DAMNED WAY for your average sperm. It's possible one could make, it but I think it's more likely for me to win the lotto...without buying a ticket. :D

[Stattick]

Didn't I just say anal sex can still lead to pregnancy?

It's a joke, bloke.

[ulthakptah]

That would be quite the trick, not only are the angles wrong, but (speaking in relative size) the trek from anus, to the vagina, and up through the cervix, into the uterus and then, possibly, into the fallopian tubes is a LONG DAMNED WAY for your average sperm. It's possible one could make, it but I think it's more likely for me to win the lotto...without buying a ticket. :D

Sperm can live for 48 hours and it only takes them 10 hours to move from the vaginal canal to the fallopian tubes. Thats still 38 hours left to travel from the anus to the vaginal canal, they have the time. So I would say the odds are higher than you think. But if you just must have that creamy sensation in your butt, there are still contraceptions other than condoms available.

[Caela]

Sperm can live for 48 hours and it only takes them 10 hours to move from the vaginal canal to the fallopian tubes. Thats still 38 hours left to travel from the anus to the vaginal canal, they have the time. So I would say the odds are higher than you think. But if you just must have that creamy sensation in your butt, there are still contraceptions other than condoms available.

Please tell me you aren't serious? And just how do you propose that sperm get out of the anus and into the vagina in the first place? Even laying down the angles are entirely wrong. If there was leakage the curve of the body would carry it away from the vagina, not toward it. And if it did somehow carry toward it, it would end up on the outer labia, not actually in the vaginal canal. And this assumes that once outside the body it stays warm enough to actually get there instead of dying.

You don't get pregnant from anal sex.

[LunarSage]

I for one was mostly being facetious.  >.>

[Callie Del Noire]

You know, I know of at least one kid born on the 'Rhythm' technique (Ironically named 'Chance').

While you can't get pregnant from anal sex.. guys DO drip. So be aware that point that 'left overs' can get close to 'the right side' when you cuddle.

[Caela]

I for one was mostly being facetious.  >.>

I know you were Lunar! :D

Callie, +1

[Torch]

Sperm can live for 48 hours and it only takes them 10 hours to move from the vaginal canal to the fallopian tubes. Thats still 38 hours left to travel from the anus to the vaginal canal, they have the time. So I would say the odds are higher than you think. But if you just must have that creamy sensation in your butt, there are still contraceptions other than condoms available.

I....have no words. Really.

The physiological inaccuracies in your post would almost be amusing if I thought you were joking.

[Callie Del Noire]

I know you were Lunar! :D

Callie, +1

My friend told me that he SUSPECTED was his name.. but it took him getting his dad ROTTENLY drunk to admit it. (The old guy also admitted on the same drinking binge that he was a 'miracle' that his mom and dad were profoundly happy for.. put them on the path to fixing their lives, it was a GOOD story to hear.)

[ulthakptah]

Well I can't help if I was lied to as a kid. It seemed reasonable to me at the time. What I was told is that there is still a chance that the sperm can find it's way out of the anus and swim through any fluids that dripped to get into the vagina. In retrospect maybe this was ploy to ensure I always use protection.

[Serephino]

It would be extremely unlikely.  I mean, if you had vaginal sex first...  I was told the 'leaking' is pure sperm without the rest of the fluids, and that's why pulling out doesn't always work.  Sperm can live 3 days so I'm told inside the human body, but only a few minutes outside.  It's too cold outside the body or something.

[Nadir]

I hate to dredge things back when they've already been discussed, but there's something that's been bothering me.

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.

Lunar, actually, the reason why women get the kids in most of the cases is because the father doesn't want them. Almost every time the man has wanted the kids, he's gotten them, even when he is guilty of abusing his wife, even when he is guilty of abusing his children.

Again, sorry for bringing this back up, it just didn't sit right with me.

[Callie Del Noire]

I hate to dredge things back when they've already been discussed, but there's something that's been bothering me.

Lunar, actually, the reason why women get the kids in most of the cases is because the father doesn't want them. Almost every time the man has wanted the kids, he's gotten them, even when he is guilty of abusing his wife, even when he is guilty of abusing his children.

Again, sorry for bringing this back up, it just didn't sit right with me.

Uh... My friend wanted his daughter. He was an honorably discharged Vet and she was a convicted felon with nearly six figures of fraud under her belt. She literally had to insult the judge in the last hearing for him to get custody of her for the last year. Now I'm waiting to see how the final hearing goes this week. Apparently she owes her old lawyer about 10 grand in back pay. So hopefully she'll lose custody.

[Chris Brady]

Uh... My friend wanted his daughter. He was an honorably discharged Vet and she was a convicted felon with nearly six figures of fraud under her belt. She literally had to insult the judge in the last hearing for him to get custody of her for the last year. Now I'm waiting to see how the final hearing goes this week. Apparently she owes her old lawyer about 10 grand in back pay. So hopefully she'll lose custody.

I also know of three Canadian men who wanted their kids, but did not get.  Thing is BOTH the parents are not criminals or have any abusive tendency, I know for a fact that one man, doesn't disparage his ex-wife in any way.  He would have rather have shared custody (in fact, according to him, that's what he went for during the divorce proceedings.)  For whatever reason, she decided that she couldn't be near him and moved away.  Which is her right, should it cause mental 'pain' for her.  But seeing as she takes his son with her, and by law the courts do not have to tell him where she moved to, he now has no means to see his son, nor pay alimony.  Worse, he had to sell most of his stuff to pay it in the first place.

People say that most men can, with their increased paychecks, pay alimony easily.  One thing that gets me about this argument is how 'white room' it is.  I mean, yes, in general a basic 30K-45K a year paycheck should easily cover a few extra hundred dollars a month, right?  That's of course assuming things like not having to pay income taxes, property taxes, car insurance, power bills, mortgages (which by the way don't always end when the family splits), former school loans and any medical emergencies that may crop up that isn't covered by any sort of national or privatized insurance, which is also ANOTHER payment that most people have to do, including life insurance as well, premiums don't go down just because you're not together anymore.  Not to mention that when they were married, there was effectively twice the money they have after a divorce.

That's not saying that should a woman have to pay alimony she'd get it easy.  More often than they TOO have the exact SAME bills as men do.  She'd be as badly screwed as the men are or worse.

The other two guys I know, are classified as 'deadbeats', mainly because they don't know where their ex-wives are.  And they have no tools to find out where she is because by law, no one has to tell them here.  Especially if the woman claims she's moving away due to potential emotional harm she's feeling.  Which is totally legit.  Discomfort, memories and associations, just by smells or seeing something can do a lot of psychological damage, or create aversions to what would be normal behaviours.  And as we all know, even the whiff of something mentally 'wrong' can get you canned.  But that means that the man is effectively screwed.

One of the ex-coworkers I know has been fighting that.  He's even set aside a relatively decent sum of money for his daughter to claim, it's under her name, and he's notified both a law agency and government agency to let the child know that on her 18th birthday, she'll have funds to continue her education.  But he was accused of being a deadbeat because he could find his Ex-Wife, and it was claimed that he did 'look hard enough' to find her.  Don't know about any of you, but any sort of tracking down could be seen as stalking and get him to lose his rights.

And Dim Hom, outside of the law journal site, the rest of those are opinion pieces and potentially as anecdotal as what we've all been discussing, and I know for a fact that the Phyllis Chesler site is a self-promotional one (and is about 16 years out of date.)  Also, why don't we see these things on the news?  It's usually how the woman gets the child, rather than men getting them, often celebrity families too.  And I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure most national news agencies would absolutely LOVE to get their hands on an abusive man getting his kids after divorcing his wife story.  Where are they?

[Trieste]

And Dim Hom, outside of the law journal site, the rest of those are opinion pieces and potentially as anecdotal as what we've all been discussing, and I know for a fact that the Phyllis Chesler site is a self-promotional one (and is about 16 years out of date.)  Also, why don't we see these things on the news?  It's usually how the woman gets the child, rather than men getting them, often celebrity families too.  And I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure most national news agencies would absolutely LOVE to get their hands on an abusive man getting his kids after divorcing his wife story.  Where are they?

You... just made a post entirely comprised of anecdotal evidence and you're pointing at Dim Hon for doing it? Did I really just read that?

[Nadir]

Here is a collection of gender bias reports for your perusal. Some are dated, but several are current. Justice Denied has a lot of sources to back up the stats.

[Stattick]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-cdc-abortions-fall-5-largest-drop-in-a-decade-20121121,0,3890778.story

Getting back on topic...

Hey, better birth control is actually reducing the number of abortions.  How about that...

I just read another article on this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/23/surprise-the-abortion-rate-just-hit-an-all-time-low/

Per the article, it seems likely that the abortion rate is down due to more effective types of birth control being used, like IUDs, long term implants and so forth. Of course the article points out that the statistics can only point to a correlation, and it doesn't indicate causation. Still, a likely thing, IMO.


Or maybe people are just having more gay sex and butt sex. >.>

Or, to quote ulthakptah:

[Y]ou just must have that creamy sensation in your butt...

I should sig that.

[Serephino]

It would be easy to point to the wave of abortion restrictions that swept through state legislatures in 2011 — except that this data come from 2009, when those new laws weren’t yet in place.

And everyone was being all negative and saying it was because of recent laws; laws that didn't exist when this data was collected.  I'm happy about this.

[Callie Del Noire]

http://world.time.com/2012/12/19/irelands-historic-abortion-shift-and-the-tragedy-that-shadowed-it/

Well it seems that Halappanavar Savita's death will have some effect. To even HEAR that the Irish government is considering.. much less present/propose changes to avoid this sort of tragedy is .. well.. stunning.

[Caela]

http://world.time.com/2012/12/19/irelands-historic-abortion-shift-and-the-tragedy-that-shadowed-it/

Well it seems that Halappanavar Savita's death will have some effect. To even HEAR that the Irish government is considering.. much less present/propose changes to avoid this sort of tragedy is .. well.. stunning.

I remember reading about this. It is truly disgusting. There was no reason for this woman to die!

[Strident]

Thought I'd offer some comments on the "Can you get pregnant from Anal sex" debate on this thread:

First a quick primer on how conception actually works.

A woman ovulates once a month roughly halfway through her cycle (give or a take a few days.

An egg is released from an Ovary, and travels into the fallopian tube.

It remains in a viable state for only about 24 to 48 hours.

That's right...a woman is only actually fertile for 24 to 48 hours a month.

So how in hell do so many babies get born?

Simple. Sperm live for a week.

"What? " I hear you say.."I heard they only live for 48 hours?".

No the half life of sperm in the female is between 24 to 48 hours. That means to say, that a typical ejaculate containing 300million sperm 150million are still alive after 24 hours, and the number drops by a reasonably consistent 50% over the following few days.
do the math. There's still likely to be a couple of million sperm kicking around after 7 days.

In reality therefore, copulation occuring at any point in the 7 days prior  to ovulation can cause a pregnancy if there are still live sperm kicking around in the female reproductive tract waiting for an egg to show up. However, sex even a fairly short time after ovulation (anything more than just a couple of days) is very unlikely to cause pregnancy.

How does this relate to pregnancy from Anal sex?
Well, in warm contact with the female body,  which is really *anywhere* in the inner thigh/ genital region, Sperm will lurk around quite happily for some time. As a result, it's very difficult to say with absolute certainty that unprotected anal sex would definitely not lead to pregnancy, as you can never rule it out for sure.

And to state what should be obvious: Sperm are microscopic. Just because there is not visible leaking semen, there could still be a stray sperm or two.

Imagine for example, woman has anal sex, later touches her anus, gets a couple of sperm on her fingers, and then performs a solo sex act on herself penetrating herself with her fingers. It's perfectly plausible a microscopic quantity of sperm could be transferred and result in fertilisation IF she happened to be fertile at the time.

[Torch]

First a quick primer on how conception actually works.

I believe we're all adults and well aware of how conception takes place. Some of us have actually conceived babies, for that matter.

Simple. Sperm live for a week.

Under certain circumstances, it is possible. Not probable. Possible. Most reproductive specialists agree that healthy sperm can live in a woman's cervical mucus or upper genital tract for three to five days. Sperm in semen ejaculated outside the body may only live for a few hours.

Well, in warm contact with the female body,  which is really *anywhere* in the inner thigh/ genital region, Sperm will lurk around quite happily for some time.

As I stated above, this is incorrect. Unless your definition of "some time" is a few hours.

[Rogue]

Also, while you might get leakage (for whatever possible reason) ejaculation is at such a high velocity because the sperm needs that extra help so it can eat into the egg. So even considering how long they may live the chances are so tiny it's almost impossible to even think the sperm could fertilize the egg. Also I believe we're getting off topic... Unless you consider all of the potential reckless abandonment caused by anal sex. (Ten points if you get the reference. I'll even help a bit and ask why this specific sperm is important.)

[Strident]

Hmm, I really dont think there is any reason to think the verocity of ejaculation is important at all. provided ejaculation places semen in contact with the cervix, that's as much as it can do. Fertilisation takes place  higher up.

And in response to Torch, I was speaking only about what was possible. I never said it was probable, of course fertilisation under suboptimal conditions is enormously unlikely, but it's still possible. That's the point.

[Torch]

For heaven's sake.

Let me put things another way: There is not one case in all of medical literature of a woman conceiving a viable pregnancy solely from anal sex.

NOT ONE.

If anyone knows of a case and would like to reference it along with citations from the proper peer reviewed medical journals, I'd love to see it.

Otherwise, this whole discussion is ridiculous and off topic.

[Lilias]

As I stated above, this is incorrect. Unless your definition of "some time" is a few hours.

And excluding the occurrence of a shower during that time, to boot.