You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 02:41:23 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Yet Another Abortion Thread  (Read 6917 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #50 on: November 23, 2012, 01:07:00 PM »
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.

Offline Lux12

  • Eccentric Occult Glam Agent of The Unknowable.
  • Lord
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #51 on: November 23, 2012, 02:42:25 PM »
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.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #52 on: November 23, 2012, 03:43:10 PM »
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.


Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #53 on: November 23, 2012, 03:51:07 PM »
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.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #54 on: November 23, 2012, 03:57:58 PM »
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.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #55 on: November 23, 2012, 04:22:24 PM »
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.

Offline Serephino

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #56 on: November 23, 2012, 04:29:59 PM »
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.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #57 on: November 23, 2012, 06:12:44 PM »
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...

Offline Stattick

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #58 on: November 23, 2012, 06:36:53 PM »
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.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #59 on: November 23, 2012, 06:49:49 PM »
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.


Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #60 on: November 23, 2012, 07:41:08 PM »
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?

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #61 on: November 23, 2012, 07:41:24 PM »
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?

Offline Kythia

  • Noooo-one Fights like Kythia no-one bites like Kythia
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • No one chain smokes Marlboro lights like Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #62 on: November 23, 2012, 09:38:59 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2012, 09:43:34 PM by Kythia »

Offline Stattick

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #63 on: November 23, 2012, 10:23:27 PM »
*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.

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #64 on: November 23, 2012, 10:27:05 PM »

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.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #65 on: November 23, 2012, 10:30:43 PM »
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.)

Offline Stattick

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #66 on: November 23, 2012, 11:11:30 PM »
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.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #67 on: November 23, 2012, 11:13:44 PM »
I am not honestly comfortable with comparing having a kid with having a tattoo, truth be told...  Sorry, that's just..

Offline Stattick

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #68 on: November 23, 2012, 11:19:24 PM »
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?

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #69 on: November 24, 2012, 12:09:46 AM »
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.

Offline Stattick

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #70 on: November 24, 2012, 01:08:47 AM »
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.

Offline ulthakptah

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #71 on: November 24, 2012, 03:30:37 AM »
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.

Offline Silk

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #72 on: November 24, 2012, 04:38:36 AM »
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.

Offline vtboy

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #73 on: November 24, 2012, 05:00:34 AM »
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. 
« Last Edit: November 24, 2012, 05:06:07 AM by vtboy »

Offline ulthakptah

Re: Yet Another Abortion Thread
« Reply #74 on: November 24, 2012, 06:10:55 AM »
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.