Printable View
Okay, so I am initiating this topic with the idea of discussing the role of the male/spouse/boyfriend/whatever in a new pregnancy. What rights do you feel that the man should have? Should he have any? Should the man have say in the decision to abort the pregnancy, or is it entirely the females decision? These are just the few questions I have off the top of my head, but feel free to bring up other points in line with the ethics of abortion.
In my opinion the male should have some kind of say if it was a result of consensual intercourse. If it was rape then the man should have no say in the matter. It is ultimately the woman's choice since it is her body and health, but it takes 2 to tango and that baby wouldn't even be possible without the man. But it is a tough issue since it is hard to justify giving another person rights to your body, so it ultimately would never happen. I believe women have every right to an abortion, I just wish woman would take the man's opinion into consideration before making a decision.
I don't think a woman should ever need any sort of consent from the man to get an abortion; there should be absolutely no legal requirement for the man to have any role in that decision-making process. That said, if a woman is impregnated by a man with whom she is in a relationship of some sort, my personal opinion is that the decent thing for her to do is to talk it over with the man before getting the abortion (I've been in this situation and greatly appreciated that we talked it over instead of her getting one without mentioning it to me). But, legally, his desire in the matter should be irrelevant; if they talk it over and he's adamantly against the abortion and she still wants one, that shouldn't make any difference in her ability to get it done.
I am very conflicted on this issue.
On the one hand, I believe that it is a woman's right to choose and it is her body and it is entirely her decision. It would be unethical and immoral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. Just as it would be to force a woman to get an abortion when she wanted to have the child.
On the other hand though, I think it is also immoral for the woman to have it done without even speaking to the man about it given that they are in a healthy consensual relationship. I would be hurt and angry if a girl I was in a relationship with had an abortion without my knowledge and I would be resentful that she didn't feel that it was a decision to be made as a couple.
But ultimately it is her body and she can do with it as she pleases. But actually this brings up the issue of pregnant women doing things deemed unsafe during their pregnancies. Such as drinking, smoking, abusing drugs, or any other action deemed unsafe for the child. When does that embryo cease to be a thing and become a person?
On topic though, while it is the woman's right to choose, I suppose I personally feel that it is selfish and immoral for her to make the choice without even hearing the feelings of her partner. It's a difficult issue especially because there is nothing to compare it to. There is no thing that a male can do that is anything like giving birth. So it's hard to relate, and I'm just not sure where that line is.
I don't see many females posting in AI, but I really feel like it would be great to get a female perspective on the subject, so ladies, please feel free to jump in.
I am with Syme on everything he said (except it has not, thankfully, happened to me).
However, perhaps interestingly, I think it's worth questioning if the man should have any say in whether the baby is allowed to come to term.
I think it's more morally relevant to the man if he doesn't want a kid and she wants to keep it than if he does want the kid and she doesn't.
Well, that goes both ways gwahir, I don't think that you could have any regulation for one side of that issue without equal regulation on the other.
On the topic of this thread specifically, I agree with Mr. Troy, both on my opinion on the issue and on the fact that no matter what I think nothing is ever going to be done about it.
I'm with Mr. E and MrTroy in that this is one issue where I'm just glad I don't have to make a binding decision on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTroy
But I would think that abortion is considered by a couple, the decision reached is one that both members have reached together.
Of course, it also goes without saying that if the man runs out and has no desire to have anything to do with the mother's life or the baby's potential life, he loses his say in the matter.
Ideally, we are talking about two partners who are planning on having kids and will consult with each other about their desires for children. Part of this issue stems from (well what I've seen in poorer parts of Oshawa) is girls refusing abortions because they want to: draw the father closer in their life (never works), because they just really want a baby (regardless of the father's feelings about it) or they start breeding to exploit social services. In all of these cases, I would want the father to be able to step in and veto but considering the breakdown in workload between the two, it's not really fair to give the father a deciding choice in the matter, but that isn't to say he shouldn't have a voice.
Oddly enough, though, a lot of the burden of children still rests on the father after the child is born, who suddenly has three mouths to feed with one paycheque, which is no mean feat. We make a lot of fuss about how the physical burden is ridiculous, and I'm not here to demean that role at all, but to put it in perspective, that period lasts for 9 months + recovery time. A lot of the young fathers (not all) I know are the sole earners in their household, and will continue to be for an indefinite period of time, which can place a lot of strain on him, situations depending. My supervisor from my last job (not for anecdotal evidence as proof, but as an illustration of such a situation) is a year older than myself, but had a baby at 20. They both decided to keep it, but his girlfriend didn't have a job (and still doesn't have one), and he started earning $8/hr just before the baby was born. When I saw him last, he was up to $11 (three years later), paying for every bill with that cheque and never having any money when the new cheque was to come in. That's a hell of a burden to place on a young man.
Coqauvin brings up a very valid point. Even though nearly all arguments are for the woman, since it is her physical burden, her body, and her life, the man is just a responsible for that baby legally as she is. That is an 18 year financial burden. Having no control in a choice that will affect you financially (at the VERY least) for the next 18 years is huge.
What if there was enacted a situation where a man took proper precautions (wore a condom, woman said she was on the pill etc.), and pregnancy occurred. Then the man, not able to legally influence the coming of term or abortion of the child, legally says, this child was unwanted and unintentional (just as a woman would for an abortion or adoption), and then be cleared of all legal responsibilities to that child?
The only glaring hole in this, is even if the dad didn't care if the child existed or not (deadbeat dad), he could say that it is unwanted just to get out of his requirement to assist with the baby. So a quasi "male abortion" deal, where he can separate himself from the baby just like a woman would in legal terms. If a woman can have an abortion or give it up for adoption, why can't a man disclaim a child in the same manner? I'm still mulling it over on how I feel about that concept, what do you guys think?
mrtroy that's not entirely correct. in some cases, that will be true, as it was with my supervisor's story. I think the majority are going to be double-income families though, which is what's going on with my sister, and in that case, what right does the man really have, as he is a contributor rather than Atlas bearing the world on his shoulders?
Well, he may not be the sole contributor, but in the united states, we have child support. So even if I didn't want to have any hand in the raising of the child, and the mother didn't want me in the life of her or the child, I am still required to hand over a rather large portion of my earnings each month to help financially support the child. They can take up to 50% of your check.Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
Oh, that's completely true and I never thought of it. Does that create grounds for allowing a potential father to call for an abortion? I mean the idea of the father saying 'no' to the pregnancy and forcing a woman to carry a child that she doesn't want to seems pretty monstrous in my eyes, on a personal and social level. Ultimately, it could end up being for the best because I advocate population control and that fits the bill for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTroy
And vice versa perhaps? His forcing a woman to terminate a child she wants to keep?Quote:
Originally Posted by coqauvin
Neither prospect seems conscionable to me.
I'm of the opinion that the choice of the male ends at the point of sexual intercourse. If you do not wish to raise a child or and/or don't wish to pay child support, then the solution is don't get her pregnant.
I think this position best reflects the sanctity of personal sovereignty; a person's right to control their own body and actions AND a person's responsibility over their own body and actions.
If the woman does it while in a healthy consensual relationship, she should tell the partner, but he should still not have any say on the matter. It is her body.
The male and the female are both equally responsible for the creation and well being of the child. Why shouldn't they both have an equal say in an abortion.
While equally responsible, the baby, by scientific terms, is part of the mother's body up until a certain point, regardless of religious rhetoric, which should not apply due to lack of evidence.
I think if the mother wants to abort and the father doesn't she should have the right to abort because she will have to deal with carrying it and it's her choice too. If the father wants to abort and the mother doesn't she should have to or make it so that the guy is not held responsible. Why should she be able to choose to abort but be able to force her partner to have a child he doesn't want? It's ok when the woman doesn't want it but its not when the guy doesn't?
If the guy didn't want it he should not have ejaculated inside of her. He makes his decision beforehand whether to take the risk or not. Saying "I thought she was on birth control" is no excuse (always use a condom with a hookup and make sure you can trust someone before going bareback). The law is biased towards women in this part of the law, and men have to deal with it and be smart.
You say its biased towards women and that's what I disagree with. Make it fair. A woman can tell a guy she's on birth control when she isn't and trap him into having a kid with her. He is then fucked and has no control over the situation. If a girl wants an abortion and a guy doesn't he can't make her have it and by your logic then she should not have let him ejaculate in her. The obvious exception is rape. This kind of shit is done by girlfriends not just on random hookups when the guy thinks she is on birth control. How is that not fucked up? That is holding a guy to a much higher standard then the girl and that's bullshit.
Considering the overwhelming amount of cases where males are the liars, the law will never change its bias on this subject matter, so men will have to deal with it by being careful. Condoms should be required with hookups anyways considering current STD statistics. Finally, women typically do not have the muscle strength to stop a man from ejaculating in them during a last moment decision.
I agree that the law can be bullshit at times, but generally it is for the common welfare of women who are taken advantage of by males who's sex drive is naturally more aggressive.
I'm not saying the laws will change because they won't, at least not until religion changes fundamentally. I said it wouldn't apply in the case of rape and if the woman has consensual sex then how are the men taking advantage of them with their more aggressive sex drive. Also what the fuck are you talking about with women not having the muscle strength to stop them in a last minute decision. So if they are having sex and trying to have a baby(which would be the only situation where this would apply under the rules I said) and the woman said wait no I don't want you to cum inside me the guy is just like no fuck you I'm not going anywhere. That is what you are saying? First of all if the woman says no stop and he says no I'm going to continue against your will, that's rape. If the woman says no wait but it's too late and he is already ejaculating then it's her fault for waiting too damn long. No do overs.
You say that in the overwhelming amount of cases males are liars? How can it ever be determined who is lying in a case where it's just one persons word against the others? Women are automatically given more sympathy so it would make sense that in most cases men would be found to be liars more often. Your argument is baseless and biased.
I think the law is somewhat unfair to men, but I've racked my brain and I can't think of a better one. We can't allow ourselves to accept our government choosing what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. I just can't think of a solution that holds water, they all have some holes, the current law just has fewer than most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinysides
How is this unfair to women though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
Your post is a bit convoluted, so I will try to make the best of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
Religion does not affect how biased the law is in regard to sex. The reason judges are biased in favor of women (in the case of sex) is because of the overwhelming majority of rape cases being the male's fault and due to hormonal and innate behavioral differences. My argument is based upon common sense and High School Biology. I'm saying that in 99% of the cases, if a man ejaculates in a woman, she can twist it however she wants if she is smart enough to keep her story straight, because 99% of the time the man is the true perpetrator. If you really think more women rape than men, or that women are more sexually aggressive than men please, stop posting and spare us your idiocy. Instead, go back to basic human behavioral articles and learn what most of us know already.
Why are you talking about rape? If a woman is raped she has every right to do whatever she wants with the fetus no matter what the rapist says. I mentioned that several times already.
You said that my argument stating that men are typically liars in Rape cases was baseless. I elaborated and filled in the "base" for you, even though I thought it was a bit obvious. If you for any reason thought I was arguing something different, you should probably re-read all of my posts more carefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killuminati
I was never talking about rape read my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens!
Honestly your entire post does not make much sense and it doesn't infer anything tangible from my earlier posts. You will have to reword it. I continued in the direction I did because you said my previous post's argument that most men lie in rape cases was false and biased. I proved you incorrect. I don't understand what you want me to elaborate on.
I assumed you were saying that this bullshit statement
was what you were referencing when you said this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens!
I shouldn't have made that assumption but you didn't clarify at all what "cases" you were talking about and since I had already said how rape is obviously an exception I thought you meant that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens!
a) How is that bullshit? Statistically men are stronger than women. Common sense and High School Biology. A man is hardwired to ejaculate in a girl, and if they want to do it, they typically can. Yes, it is rape, but I was just backing my point up that men rape women 99% of the time, not vice versa.
b) I should have clarified that, even though I thought it was obvious.
No shit but what I was saying was that if a man and woman are having consensual sex trying to conceive and she changes her mind at the last minute, she either decided it too late and the guy already ejaculated or she would be able to stop in time. If the guy physically restrained her then its rape and no longer is relevant. All I'm fucking saying is that as long as it was consensual that's all that matters and both parties are then equally responsible and there is no reason for a woman to have an unfair position just because they are a woman and carry the baby. Both parties are responsible for the welfare of the child and both should have an equal choice in whether or not to abort. If the woman doesn't want to and the guy does and it was consensual sex then the child is just as much the father's as the mother's. If she still wants to raise this child for whatever reason then she should be forced to take full responsibility over the child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens!
edit: Now that I saw your edit it just shows me how stupid you are. I have never said anything about rape why do you keep talking about it. I never argued about rape it's wrong and any rapist deserves jail and a terrible death and they obviously have no say in abortion. Yes men are the rapists the vast majority of the time and it's because they are physically stronger and they don't need women to be aroused to rape them.
So we are back to where we started. Debate!
"The baby is not considered to be a human life until brain activity develops, therefore the baby is part of the woman's body, therefore she can do as she wishes up until brain activity begins."
If you say that the baby is life from conception (belief in a soul, which is irrational anyways), then you must also be completely pro-life by default. Just letting you know. And believing that the baby is a life from conception is the only way you could say you have responsibility for it too.
If you disagree with the existence of the soul, Saying you are equally responsible for the baby is equivalent to saying "Look, I gave you these boob implants, now you will allow me to have them removed if I wish to do so in the future." It would be equal to having unfair control over the woman's body.
You can't force a woman to have an abortion, period. You can't force her not to, either.
Killuminati, as a pro-choice woman, I believe that a man who does not want a child carried to term should not be held legally responsible for the child as long as he makes this decision within a timely manner (I think something analogous to a woman's timeframes to make her decision about aborting). There is no turning back from that legal decision - he cannot claim any visiting rights or custody once the papers are signed. A legal-only "abortion". That's not likely to ever happen, but I think it's the most fair. Manipulative women having children to trap men is a fairly heinous thought but happens all too commonly.
Thank you, I think that's the only fair way as well. That's all I have been trying to say this whole time. Unfortunately the odds of something like that happening are extremely low and I won't ever expect the law to work like that. This means that I just have to be extra careful and make sure my girl isn't a snake who tries to trap me.Quote:
Originally Posted by solecistic
I'm kind of confused, I come to the same basic conclusion as her, but you argue and attack me, but thank her? You make no sense whatsoever.
imo man should be the one to decide fuk da bitchez
MODERATOR EDIT: USER RECEIVED AN INFRACTION FOR THIS POST
I really don't believe in abortion but that's my opinion. However some of you are making me doubt myself. In all honesty it takes two people to create a child (willing participant or not) and only one of you to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. If between the two of you somebody can't manage this simple task and you both agree on not wanting the child then adoption is an alternative. Killing an innocent human being due to your lack of responsibly is horrendous and should come with consequenses.
See, that is the problem. It is a religious view that a fetus without brain activity or a heart beat is life. You cannot impose your religious views upon the rest of the country, even though you are entitled to your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fectual~
Actually, that doesn't have to be a religious view. I'm pro-choice and I'm an atheist and I don't believe in souls, but scientifically speaking, we haven't actually written down a concrete definition of what, precisely, it means to be alive. If someone believes that life begins at a certain point, their moral imperative seems to be the protection of that life. You or I would certainly take issue with the abortion of babies post-birth, presumably because we can definitely say a baby who's been born is alive, even if it can't breathe on its own or if it's mentally retarded enough to have little brain activity, even if its heart needs help to beat on its own.
I don't know when life begins. I know what sounds reasonable to me, but I'm hardly qualified to impose that argument on others.
It is an assumption that the baby's alive/dead status is the decider of moral permissibility of abortion.
Well.
Most people are not going to rally behind the idea of ending actual life. Most pro-choice camp members consider abortion permissible because it occurs before life begins (and the debate over when that is rages on!), and most pro-lifers oppose abortion because they believe life has begun and it is being ended, which is murder (a colorful word they like to throw around in captions beneath photographs of mutilated fetuses).
It's a harder argument to win if you say that a woman's right to convenience is greater than the right of her child to live. Again, we wouldn't feel comfortable ending the lives of children who have already been born but couldn't breathe alone, for example. Or even healthy children who have been born. It wouldn't be okay, because that's a life and to end it would be murder, which is the most vile act we can commit against one another. If you truly believe that life begins in that same manner and on that same level at conception, I can understand why you'd vehemently oppose abortion. I think you'd be wrong about that definition of life, however.
Well, the life of an individual being certainly starts at conception, but of course the conceived foetus is at that point no more alive than a tree.
(Also, once again, you are merely claiming that murder is the most vile act we can commit against one another; I completely disagree.)
There doesn't seem to be a satisfcatory point post-conception but pre-birth at which we can say that the foetus is now alive. One point is viability -- i.e. the point at which it could survive outside the womb as an independent being -- but as time and technology march forward, the line of viability becomes earlier and earlier and indeed foggier and foggier.
The only point that is satisfactory, to me, is personhood. Personhood -- as opposed to being-a-human -- makes a being's life valuable, and the potential for personhood is why the killing of foetuses and babies is unideal (but not impermissible).
Please tell me WHERE I stated said it was a religious opinion.. I said it was MY opinion I didn't say DUE TO RELIGOUS BELIEFS. However I will state once again that the lack of responsibility for one's sexual activities should not mean death to another human life for ANY reason. Religious or otherwise. :sycld:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens!
Does it begin at conception? At conception, two gametes are swapping DNA and forming into a zygote. Is that the beginning of an individual life? This is a rhetorical question, really. In my view, to call something "life" when one means "alive like a tree/skin cell/bacterium" is a little misleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
(Fine, ignore that part of my post. Murder isn't good and is to be avoided. That's the social contract. I happen to think it makes very good sense. Are there more vile things? Who knows - you're welcome to your opinion, but it's not really the point of what I was saying. Forgive me for using the phrase "most vile"!)Quote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
So you think it's "unideal but not impermissible" to kill any child under the age of three? Supposedly that's around the age we start to become self-aware, which is the closest thing to "personhood" I can imagine. I realize I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, and it's hard to put much heart into it because it's not that important to me, but I just don't see how this argument for the pro-choice camp works. When is someone a person?Quote:
Originally Posted by gwahir
Well, perhaps, but there doesn't seem to be another one that holds up to any scrutiny. Heartbeat is arbitrary, brain activity is speciesist.Quote:
Originally Posted by solecistic
Hah, I'm actually not nitpicking. I think murder has no impact on the person you're murdering.Quote:
Originally Posted by solecistic
Radical, no? But a subject for another thread.
Someone's probably a person at about three. When they have an idea of who they are, who other people are and some kind of conception of time (so that they are able to have preferences -- the ability to have preferences, I think, makes you a person). Killing a child of under three -- assuming it was instantaneous and painless -- doesn't hurt the child, but the people who are attached to it. It is an incredibly vile thing because of the inconceivable pain it'd cause those people, not because it is ending the life of a being who, after the act, would not be around to suffer for it afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by solecistic
All right. This is going into the direction of a very different topic and I'd probably really enjoy it, but let's not derail the thread. Since I think it's just supposed to be about paternal rights and whatnot.
*spanks everyone*
Back on topic, thx.
GOD DAMMIT well can we all just agree that the man probably knows best ok.
I think that if a baby is concieved and the mother wants an abortion but the father does not that the woman should have the baby and let the father raise the child. She should sign over parental rights and not be held liable for child support etc. I feel this way because no matter how you slice it a human life is still a human life regardless of which stage of life it's in. If you don't want a baby then take the proper steps to prevent it instead of "killing" it after the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fectual~
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fectual~
Quote:
Originally Posted by solecistic
Sorry to derail the thread again, but I need to respond to the earlier post. I assumed you held religious beliefs because that would be the only rational reason to believe that life begins at conception (even if religion is technically irrational). Logic would dictate that human life begins when the conscience forms in the brain, because a conscience is the main factor that separates us from animals. However, the issue of dictating it upon others is messier, but there has to be a point where we draw the line and define what the right definition of something is. Just like we can pull young Mr. Houser from his parents so he can receive chemotherapy...there has to be a point where the government intervenes. If a man believes that the baby he accidentally had with a woman is life at conception, he will be pro-life. However, if she is pro-choice and does not want to go through with motherhood (AKA Plan B or Abortion), what happens then? You can't just say that the mother should give the baby up to the man, the paternal instinct might have severe psychological consequences that she may not want to deal with. I almost cringe to debate about this issue. Scary stuff.
No, that's faulty logic. The consciousness of a foetus is nowhere near advanced enough to distinguish it as "human". Human life begins when a creature that is of the species homo sapien can be considered "alive", which is really either conception or first heart beat (take your pick) -- the human person's life begins when it becomes a person, which is when it can distinguish time and has an idea of itself, as Solecistic said, at about 3 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittens!
A human foetus is less sapient than a crab. There is no meaningful reason why the life of a foetus (or a baby) is more valuable than the life of a crab EXCEPT inasmuch as it has far more potential.
A Complete Epiphany on Abortion - Casual Discourse
I'd love to hear you elaborate on your views in the above thread, they sound very interesting.