Abortion

[Conando]

When it comes down to it, I'm the type who figures we should just mind our own business when it comes to this issue. That's not to say I can't understand the issues brought up by pro-life supporters but, they take it rather overboard with their demand for no abortion period, and claiming that they know when a bundle of cells actually becomes a baby. I don't know but, a zygote to me, isn't a person.

[Roarey Raccoon]

If we say that a fetus is a person to be equated with anyone else currently alive and not a collective of cells undergoing uterine development then a woman should also have the right to evict that person from her property; ie her own body. It's an unwanted squatter so it needs to get out there and fend for itself like everyone else is expected to do. But then when a child is born the parent is responsible for taking care of it, so I guess it's okay to expect a mother-to-be to have no say in whether or not she is willing to give birth to this huge responsibility in the first place.

Of course, there's the whole issue of a fetus having very little in common with a developed human being like a newborn that can feel pain and respond to stimuli, that can learn and be expected to survive outside of the womb. All this argument ends up doing is becoming one of semantics and wordplay. The issue is the birth of another person on this planet, a person who is not yet fully formed (hence why they aren't yet born). That birth has huge ramifications bearing on the woman who gives birth and anyone else expected to oversee the welfare of that person once they are born. I think that those expected to be responsible for that welfare should have the authority to decide if that life should occur in the first place. You're not getting a person with memories and feelings and shooting them in the face, you're stopping a life before it can happen in the first place. Given the fact that once you are born the whole world gives less than a fuck, I give less than a fuck about a fetus.

If you bring a person into this world you are bringing them here to live and eventually die; one day, if you die before your offspring, they will have to mourn your corpse. Considering abortion BEFORE a person can be on this earth to suffer and go through whatever life can throw at them is a merciful consideration. We can pretend life is really special and sacred all we want but until men, women and children aren't being blown into bits and pieces all over the world (warning, uncensored war photos), don't talk to me about how precious we fucking are.

Abortion is disgusting, the results are disgusting, it's a fucking shame that it ever has to happen, it really is. However, there are worse things out there: the way we are, as a species, treated and the way we treat each other need to be worked on first, not attacking mothers who can't bear to or don't want to give birth. This is reality though, for so many of us life is a short and shitty thing and until that changes and until we can really look after each other and ourselves, I will be in favour of abortion.

[SoniClub]

I have quite an easy way of looking at issues like these.

'Pro-Lifers' are trying to prohibit rights and force women to not have abortions/

'Pro-choicers' are trying to give these rights and the choice of whether or not you can have an abortion.

So personally, i'm always going to go with the side that offers freedom and liberty to those involved. Pro-choice isn't forcing people to have abortions, it's not forcing people to do anything. It's simply allowing those that need to do something that, let's be honest, isn't pleasant for anyone involved, most definately the woman.

Pro-life I have a problem with; they are trying to restrict choices. And we're not talking about which candy bar you want, we're talking about a child, the biggest responsability a woman can take on. If she doesn't want it, why should she or let alone the child have to go through such an un-loving, un-wanted relationship that could turn nasty?

One argument that pro-lifers use that really irritates me though is this idea that your child could become some amazing person, so don't abort!

By the same measure, your child could become the next Anders Behring Breivik and happily murder 70 people. It's a stupid argument that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

And after all, it's not exactly as if the world is starving for talent or even humans at the moment. We need to start seriously looking at population figures or life's gonna get a lot harder, very quickly.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Wordy

[Emmett L. Brown]

your child could become the next Breivik and happily murder 70 people.

[-Robin-]

Massive bump to link that North Dakota's House today passed a law that defines life at conception, and bans any and all abortions. The ND Senate passed the bill a month earlier.

 

In effect, that makes ND the first state in the U.S. to pass an abortion ban in the full legislature. The bill now goes to Republican governor Jack Dalrymple, who has not stated whether or not he will sign it.

 

North Dakota lawmakers moved Friday to outlaw abortion in the state by passing a bill defining life as starting at conception.

The bill is one of a series of anti-abortion measures the Republican-controlled Legislature has passed this year despite critics' insistence that they are unconstitutional and violate the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion until a fetus considered viable, which is usually at 22 to 24 weeks.

The North Dakota House approved the bill 57-35 Friday, sending it to the Republican governor, who has not yet said whether he will sign or veto it. The Senate approved it last month.

The so-called personhood measure bestows human rights on fertilized human eggs. Efforts to pass similar measures in other states have failed, but anti-abortion legislation has had strong momentum in North Dakota this year with lawmakers introducing a slew of measures aimed at closing the state's sole abortion clinic in Fargo and challenging Roe v. Wade.

North Dakota Republican Sen. Margaret Sitte was the primary sponsor of the bill that would essentially ban abortion by defining human life as beginning at conception.

Before the House voted on the personhood bill, the Legislature had already passed measures that would ban abortion as early as six weeks, or as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, and because of genetic defects such as Down syndrome. Together, those bills would give North Dakota the strictest abortion laws in the nation.

Abortion-rights activists have said that if Gov. Jack Dalrymple signs any of them into law, they will fight them in court.

The threat of costly litigation may be less of a deterrent in oil-rich North Dakota than in other states, however. Booming oil production has helped the state avoid the kind of budget cuts seen elsewhere and left it with comfortable surpluses.

Lawmakers Friday also passed a bill outlawing abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the disputed premise that at that point, fetuses feel pain. Lawmakers also approved another measure that requires a doctor who performs abortions to be a physician with hospital-admitting privileges.

Many of the North Dakota bills are modeled on legislation from other states.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-lawmakers-define-life-starting-conception-article-1.1296467

After multiple tries over the last few years to get a personhood amendment passed, the personhood advocates got one. Whether the governor signs it, or if this gives personhood advocates enough momentum to carry this through to other states is yet to be seen.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Joshua

[Emmett L. Brown]

Massive bump to link that North Dakota's House today passed a law that defines life at conception, and bans any and all abortions. The ND Senate passed the bill a month earlier.

 

In effect, that makes ND the first state in the U.S. to pass an abortion ban in the full legislature. The bill now goes to Republican governor Jack Dalrymple, who has not stated whether or not he will sign it.

 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-lawmakers-define-life-starting-conception-article-1.1296467

After multiple tries over the last few years to get a personhood amendment passed, the personhood advocates got one. Whether the governor signs it, or if this gives personhood advocates enough momentum to carry this through to other states is yet to be seen.

 

By their logic, if the woman's body happens to reject the fertilised egg in a flood of unusually heavy menstruation, then it's time for a funeral.

 

This is so dumb it's offensive.

[Vertekins]

By their logic, if the woman's body happens to reject the fertilised egg in a flood of unusually heavy menstruation, then it's time for a funeral.

 

This is so dumb it's offensive.

 

Um, no. That's a miscarriage. Not an abortion. Miscarriages happen for a reason and are certainly not considered one and the same as abortion.

 

I don't like abortion most particularly when it's mid-to-late term yet even I'll admit that this is bullshit. A freshly-fertilised embryo is not a human. It is a clump of cells. It is POTENTIAL human life. Assigning it personhood is ridiculous.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Vertekins

[Blue Blood]

Um, no. That's a miscarriage. Not an abortion. Miscarriages happen for a reason and are certainly not considered one and the same as abortion.

 

I don't like abortion most particularly when it's mid-to-late term yet even I'll admit that this is bullshit. A freshly-fertilised embryo is not a human. It is a clump of cells. It is POTENTIAL human life. Assigning it personhood is ridiculous.

 

I think he was joking, still I agree with what you say though. Abortions are allowed to happen too late in some places (like right here in the UK). But I'm totally in favour of allowing them up to a certain stage in pregnancy and would hate to see that right taken away from any women. This law in ND really is nothing short of ridiculous.

[Emmett L. Brown]

Um, no. That's a miscarriage. Not an abortion. Miscarriages happen for a reason and are certainly not considered one and the same as abortion.

 

I don't like abortion most particularly when it's mid-to-late term yet even I'll admit that this is bullshit. A freshly-fertilised embryo is not a human. It is a clump of cells. It is POTENTIAL human life. Assigning it personhood is ridiculous.

Did I call it an abortion? My post was solely devoted to mocking the notion of a fertilised egg being a person, which as you agree is ridiculous.

[Tani Coyote]

Hmm. I've always been kinda iffy on the subject. On the one hand, bringing more children into the world with all its misery, poor social services, and shortage of parents to adopt kind of makes me feel that maybe it's for the best.

 

On the other, I don't care if it was only just fertilized; left on its own and barring complications it's going to develop into a human life. It just strikes me as somewhat wrong that one will terminate it like that.

 

Now, while I don't mind the pro-choice arguments related to the quality of life the child will have, the one that always makes me puke is the "part of the mother's body" one. No, let us lay down some ground rules: if you and I are going to have a child and you go get rid of it without my permission, we're going to have some serious problems. It is my child as much as yours, and I should have equal say in its future.

 

What makes me sigh is that abortion is sometimes construed as a sexist issue; sex has not once entered the equation in my argument. This is about my ability to decide whether a child I fathered has the right to live, just like I have a say in where it goes to school, whether their boyfriend/girlfriend is trashy or acceptable, or what they can and can't do in the confines of my home. And just like all of these, I will make the decision jointly with my partner. If the pro-life argument was sexist, it would say the mother (or father) has no choice at all in the matter.

 

Never mind, where do we draw the line? Is a child still part of the mother's body right up until it's born? Can you be due the next day and just get rid of it because it's not a person yet by some definitions? That's ludicrous.

 

For the individual sperm and eggs, who cares what happens to them, they die off and are recycled by the body anyway. But the zygote itself? Now that's not so clear cut.

 

The good news is that Roe v. Wade has made it so abortion will one day be rendered illegal naturally. As technology improves the ability to have a zygote remain viable outside the womb improves; eventually we shall be able to extract the zygote right after it's created, eliminating this issue entirely so we can focus on bettering the livelihood of those who are already around.

[MamboCat]

Ehh, difficult subject. I can see where you're coming from there; in the context of a functional relationship there should be discussion and eventually agreement on said child, but ultimately the option for women should always be there. I think making it absolutely illegal is ludicrous.

 

On the subject of whether a zygote is part of the mother; well yes it is to an extent. It's a ball of cells, and is completely dependent on being embedded and attached to the mother. Even the processes which drive the initial development of the zygote are of maternal origin, it's not until later than the zygote's own cell replication machinery kicks in.

 

Eh, anyways... from a human perspective the choice should always be there.

[DarkOverord]

ow, while I don't mind the pro-choice arguments related to the quality of life the child will have, the one that always makes me puke is the "part of the mother's body" one. No, let us lay down some ground rules: if you and I are going to have a child and you go get rid of it without my permission, we're going to have some serious problems. It is my child as much as yours, and I should have equal say in its future.

 

What makes me sigh is that abortion is sometimes construed as a sexist issue; sex has not once entered the equation in my argument. This is about my ability to decide whether a child I fathered has the right to live, just like I have a say in where it goes to school, whether their boyfriend/girlfriend is trashy or acceptable, or what they can and can't do in the confines of my home. And just like all of these, I will make the decision jointly with my partner. If the pro-life argument was sexist, it would say the mother (or father) has no choice at all in the matter.

 

Never mind, where do we draw the line? Is a child still part of the mother's body right up until it's born? Can you be due the next day and just get rid of it because it's not a person yet by some definitions? That's ludicrous.

To be fair in a healthy relationship any choice on weather a woman has an abortion would have been discussed by both potential parents and would not be on a whim. As if your relationship is stable, both potential parents would be, hopefully, rational enough to actually talk about pros and cons. Especially to be fair, it's more than likely that if you're having unprotected sex then you will be both making the choice to have a kid already. However contraception can fail, no matter what kind outside of actually removing sexual organs, and perhaps it's a discussion on keeping what was an unplanned child.

 

Now, the other end of the scale comes from an unhealthy relationship and honestly your argument about "fathers rights" essentially mirrors a lot of men who honestly either are abusive, care little for their spouse, or just outright don't care till they find out a girl they shagged had an abortion. If who you had sex with went and had an abortion without even talking about it with the father-that-was-to-be then I'm sorry but there's clearly something very unhealthy in your relationship for her to have been so secretive in the first place.

 

However, ultimately yes, it should be the woman's decision, as in the end it's easy for a man to say "Keep the child/Get rid of the thing". However last I checked, men don't have to go through a minimum of 22 weeks, in Britain, to around just over 9 months with a creature that rapidly shifts ones metabolism, a creature that sucks nutrients out of it's parent, hormonal swings, that gradually impairs her ability to move, and towards the end actually starts compressing the woman's organs. Plus men don't have to go through childbirth. Talk all you like about it, but if you're an unlucky lass, your childbirth could last over the average of 8 hours of continuous pain.

 

The above factors are seriously something that rarely comes to a man's mind as they don't have to go all of that, they just have to deal with the end results of mood swings, cravings, and doing a lot more physical work towards the end as the woman can't. And then have to deal with their spouse crushing their hands, or if they're induced like my mother was, in the case of my sister, my stepfather had to endure inane babble of green buses. Whether you as a father to be like it or not. Because there's so little in comparison you have to endure, other than at most emotional trauma from your potential child not being born, to suffer through. And that's not even talking about the effects of what abortion does to a woman's body. I haven't begun to delve into why it isn't a light decision.

 

Though as I said, if it's an unplanned child, or the mother changing her mind early on, then as a reasonable couple you should have honestly have sat down with her about it, as well as sitting down with her and a doctor about it.

[Diogenes]

On the other, I don't care if it was only just fertilized; left on its own and barring complications it's going to develop into a human life.

"Left on its own" isn't really an accurate way of putting it. It's reliant on the mother to survive.

Now, while I don't mind the pro-choice arguments related to the quality of life the child will have, the one that always makes me puke is the "part of the mother's body" one. No, let us lay down some ground rules: if you and I are going to have a child and you go get rid of it without my permission, we're going to have some serious problems. It is my child as much as yours, and I should have equal say in its future.

You aren't the one who has to carry it for 9 months, so no, it really isn't equal. Ideally you would both come to an agreement on it, but if you can't, it's her choice that wins out, not yours.

What makes me sigh is that abortion is sometimes construed as a sexist issue; sex has not once entered the equation in my argument. This is about my ability to decide whether a child I fathered has the right to live, just like I have a say in where it goes to school, whether their boyfriend/girlfriend is trashy or acceptable, or what they can and can't do in the confines of my home.

I will take this seriously as soon as the fetus is within the confines of your body.

Never mind, where do we draw the line? Is a child still part of the mother's body right up until it's born? Can you be due the next day and just get rid of it because it's not a person yet by some definitions? That's ludicrous.

The unfortunate truth is that reality doesn't like to line itself up into nice clean categories the way we'd like it to. That means where we decide The Line to be is up for debate. That doesn't mean we screech about the most extreme case as an attack on the whole thing.

[Badnik Zero]

My position on this is the same as my first post like a year ago - the girl's say is at least twice that of the man's, because she's gonna live with it, and it is attached to her health and well being for 9 months.

 

I'm not sure the fetus is only just a part of the mother, because at some point it becomes a baby, BUT the mother is the child's everything because it will not survive without her. If the mom were to die, it would die. If the mom were to drink, the baby would be damaged, you get me? It's growing in there. Until that point where it will survive outside the mom, I believe the baby belongs to that mom. She is fostering it with her actual body and health. If you care about the mom, if you're her family or the dad, feel free to talk it out with her and offer her support or alternatives - but in the end she will carry it so her word should be final. And what I'm about to say is very personal, but I did have to lose a baby last year (I'm a guy) and it's not something I'd do again. I believe many people hold by this opinion of abortion, that it's probably not for them, but for the desperate out there it should absolutely be legal. Let me also say that anyone using abortion as a "plan C" contraceptive is disgusting and is probably damaging herself from a medical standpoint.

Edited March 23, 2013 by American Ristar

[Tani Coyote]

Chances are very high that the father will adjust his lifestyle to accomodate the mother's. The many demands of pregnancy will ultimately render the mother in increasing need of assistance, and during this time the father's support is most definitely crucial. For example, he will most likely be the one who is putting food on the table and thus, nurturing the fetus. To say he is not likewise shouldering extra responsibilities as a result of the pregnancy is just fallacious.

Most fathers will step up to the plate if they find out their loved one is pregnant. Just because he's not the one carrying it doesn't mean he's not taking on some responsibilities as well. He has to do more work so the mother can take it easy. He has to go get her anything she may need. He has to deal with all the stress that comes from preparing for parenthood. It may not be physical, but it's still stress. The mother isn't the only one who's going to be suffering hardships those nine months.

The responsibilities may have shifted some but I am still thoroughly convinced that as a couple they are in this together and should have equal choice. Unless the mother's life is in danger from giving birth, I see no reason why she should have the sole decision in the matter.

This of course doesn't apply to the fathers who run off, naturally, but those who are actually staying with their partner and helping them get through the nine months (that is, most) most certainly deserve equal say.

==

As an aside I'll add here that like American Ristar, I dislike how the procedure is sometimes used as a get out of jail free card. That it's used as an alternative to contraceptives by some just disgusts me; people should be responsible for their behavior.

 

Anyway, I think it's better to focus on alleviating poverty and improving medical technology rather than focusing on the procedure itself. Between the two of these we can eventually render the procedure almost always unnecessary (and with sufficient advancements in both, illegal entirely).

Edited March 24, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[DarkOverord]

but those who are actually staying with their partner and helping them get through the nine months (that is, most) most certainly deserve equal say.

Again, no, they don't. Until the father has to go through everything a pregnant woman has to, be it pregnancy, or termination of pregnancy (Because neither are particularly great for a woman, one just takes longer and ends with a baby, usually), then there is no way that there can be an equal say. Because to imply that the father has an equal say when he has to go through no where near as much as the woman does in either outcome is actually rather imbalanced. Now, if a guys dick came off whenever he ejaculated and had to regrow or something daft, then I kinda would be more inclined to say that yes they should have an equal say =P

 

I'd also like to point out that a woman only has a limited number of eggs, unlike a male that's constantly producing genetic material that's ripe for fertilising (Unless you're unlucky).

 

As for "As another form of contraception". I think only an idiot would use abortion as such considering it cumulates in similar effects to suffering a miscarriage (Which in itself is considered a spontaneous abortion as opposed to induced). The majority of pregnancies are unplanned, as contraception isn't 100% efficient other than altering parts of the body, male or female. In fact, in 2000-2001, (^{_{Source: Jones, Rachel K., Jacqueline E. Darroch, and Stanley K. Henshaw, Nov./Dec. 2002, "Contraceptive Use Among Women Having Abortions in 2000-2001," Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (34:6), on line at AGI [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html].}}), over 50% of abortion cases were from protected sex over unprotected. People focus on this extreme "Oh it's just treated as another form of contraception" when it really isn't. It's an extreme that people seem to hinge onto.

 

Now as for legality? The worst thing you can do is make it illegal. Especially with this lovely plan of growing babies outside the womb.

 

While legal, abortions are usually safe and clean. There's proper care and you are treated by someone with verified medical experience. If you make abortion illegal, then what? Well women with enough money will just fly overseas, or hop borders, to shadier countries where there will always be someone willing to cash in, it'll be unsafe, it'll be unclean, and there's no proof that who is doing it even has any medical experience. Or the other case is back-alley abortions, or just women who don't want the child and cannot afford to keep it, or genuinely cannot keep the it, will take more extreme measures.

 

It's all well and nice this idea of "We'll eventually be able to raise babies outside the womb making abortion illegal!", however riddle me this. At what cost? The American Insurance system certainly won't price such a process cheaper. And I doubt it would ever appear on Britain's NHS (If it was still around, but this isn't a topic for that) due to it's cost.

 

You'll essentially leave three choices under your idea. Keep the baby, pay lots to have the baby grown elsewhere, shady unclean abortion/forced miscarriage. Of course you may also be considering that money isn't an issue, well wouldn't that be lovely.

Edited March 24, 2013 by DarkOverord

[Diogenes]

The responsibilities may have shifted some but I am still thoroughly convinced that as a couple they are in this together and should have equal choice.

What if they disagree.

What if the woman does not want to have the child, and the man does.

What if, no matter how much they discuss it, they can't come to an agreement.

[Tani Coyote]

Again, no, they don't. Until the father has to go through everything a pregnant woman has to, be it pregnancy, or termination of pregnancy (Because neither are particularly great for a woman, one just takes longer and ends with a baby, usually), then there is no way that there can be an equal say. Because to imply that the father has an equal say when he has to go through no where near as much as the woman does in either outcome is actually rather imbalanced.

 

I wonder how effectively an expectant mother will fare if her partner leaves her during the pregnancy. My guess is not very well.

 

They are in this together, and the father is just as much part of the pregnancy as the mother. He will provide for her and acquire for her whatever she may need. He will have to deal with all the increased stress of preparing for it right alongside her. The principle of a partnership is one of equality, whether it's discussing how to pay the bills, what home to get, or whether they should have a child.

 

Let's change the angles here: normally one partner raises more than the other in a household. Should they get extra say? The common answer is no: partners share the decision.

 

Until death do you part.

 

I'd also like to point out that a woman only has a limited number of eggs, unlike a male that's constantly producing genetic material that's ripe for fertilising (Unless you're unlucky).

 

How is this relevant though?

 

 People focus on this extreme "Oh it's just treated as another form of contraception" when it really isn't. It's an extreme that people seem to hinge onto.

 

I'm not focusing on it, merely pointing out my great disgust at people who would use it as such. If having a child is something they don't want to deal with, there are other procedures to render one infertile.

 

Now as for legality? The worst thing you can do is make it illegal.

 

While legal, abortions are usually safe and clean. There's proper care and you are treated by someone with verified medical experience. If you make abortion illegal, then what? Well women with enough money will just fly overseas, or hop borders, to shadier countries where there will always be someone willing to cash in, it'll be unsafe, it'll be unclean, and there's no proof that who is doing it even has any medical experience. Or the other case is back-alley abortions, or just women who don't want the child and cannot afford to keep it, or genuinely cannot keep the it, will take more extreme measures.

 

Yes this is all true but I'm talking about making it illegal only after all the problems that make abortion justifiable in the first place are gotten rid of. Too poor to raise it well? Better social services. Don't want it anymore? Better medical technology and more widespread adoption.

 

In fact, I'm staunchly opposed to making abortion illegal unless the same bill has a proviso allowing gay adoption and better benefits for children.

 

It's all well and nice this idea of "We'll eventually be able to raise babies outside the womb making abortion illegal!", however riddle me this. At what cost? The American Insurance system certainly won't price such a process cheaper. And I doubt it would ever appear on Britain's NHS (If it was still around, but this isn't a topic for that) due to it's cost.

 

This is assuming we can't reform the healthcare system or that medical technology won't one day make it all affordable. Everything gets cheaper over time with better research.

 

What if they disagree.

What if the woman does not want to have the child, and the man does.

What if, no matter how much they discuss it, they can't come to an agreement.

 

I'd presume it's going to be a la the Roman consulate in that each side can veto the other unilaterally.

 

Really unless the mother's life is in danger I see no reason why the father can't have a say in it.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Nepenthe]

I don't think anyone's arguing that the father cannot have a say at all, rather that he is generally left with less bargaining power because the pregnancy is a significantly more taxing strain on the mother than it is the father. The baby is growing inside her body, not his, and arguably no amount of working overtime or moral appeals about a partnership will manage to compensate for the weight gain, the morning sickness, the hormonal changes, the dietary changes that need to be instated, the changes to movement and working, the risk of temporary diabetes and other illnesses, actual delivery, post partem depression, and of course the very real risk of death in the process. Pregnancy is not an inherently equal process for both the mother and father from a biological and sociological standpoint, so where does it come in that the father gets half of the bargaining power in determining the outcome of the child? That is not fair.

[Diogenes]

I'd presume it's going to be a la the Roman consulate in that each side can veto the other unilaterally.

How exactly does that work out. There are only two options here--continue the pregnancy or end it. If they veto each other...which is it?

Really unless the mother's life is in danger I see no reason why the father can't have a say in it.

He can have his say but he does not have the final say.

[\gunther]

It's amazing how much my viewpoint on abortion has changed over the years. I used to be in the "it shouldn't be legal unless there's medical issues or a rape took place" side of the spectrum, but now I'm totally pro-choice. I'm going to mirror American Risar's statement and say that the woman at least has double the say as the man, and certainly other people shouldn't pressure the woman into it. They'll pester and guilt women and make picket signs saying how it's sinful, yet once the little rugrat is out, it ain't their problem, even if she's a young single mother and cannot support a child. It's disgusting. 

 

I mean, if I got my girlfriend pregnant, I'd probably want to keep it, but ultimately it's her body and her choice. It would suck for me, but if a girl can't handle a baby emotionally or financially, she should not be forced to have one. This world is overpopulated as is, and early on in the pregnancy, a clump of cells should not constitute a human life, nor should it take precedent over someone who already has their own shit to deal with.

 

What makes me sigh is that abortion is sometimes construed as a sexist issue; sex has not once entered the equation in my argument. This is about my ability to decide whether a child I fathered has the right to live, just like I have a say in where it goes to school, whether their boyfriend/girlfriend is trashy or acceptable, or what they can and can't do in the confines of my home. And just like all of these, I will make the decision jointly with my partner. If the pro-life argument was sexist, it would say the mother (or father) has no choice at all in the matter.

This is a sexist issue because politicians (mainly middle-aged white men) think that they know what is right for all women when it comes to abortion and are trying to define what should constitute a legal abortion or just ban the practice altogether. Saying what a woman should and should not do as far as her body, life, and health are concerned is pretty dang sexist.

[Tani Coyote]

I don't think anyone's arguing that the father cannot have a say at all, rather that he is generally left with less bargaining power because the pregnancy is a significantly more taxing strain on the mother than it is the father. The baby is growing inside her body, not his, and arguably no amount of working overtime or moral appeals about a partnership will manage to compensate for the weight gain, the morning sickness, the hormonal changes, the dietary changes that need to be instated, the changes to movement and working, the risk of temporary diabetes and other illnesses, actual delivery, post partem depression, and of course the very real risk of death in the process. Pregnancy is not an inherently equal process for both the mother and father from a biological and sociological standpoint, so where does it come in that the father gets half of the bargaining power in determining the outcome of the child? That is not fair.

 

What I'm not liking is setting the precedent that a relationship is like a corporation in that each person has a varying amount of say in it. By the logic we're creating, if one partner makes twice as much income in a relationship, they should have twice as much say. If one partner cooks dinner, they should have the right to determine how much the other gets to eat. If they pay for the cable they should be able to deny the partner access to it. I do not like any of this at all: I want both partners in a relationship, whether it's same sex or opposite sex, to be equal in everything. Each one gives up their high ground on each particular issue for the good of the relationship. For me the discussion on whether or not to have an unborn child should be no different from every other cooperative decision they make.

 

Also, given that it's a nine month process and the issue here is debating the worthiness of a life that could last up to 70+ years... well, I'm not really seeing pregnancy alone as giving good reason for a monopoly on the decision.

 

This is a sexist issue because politicians (mainly middle-aged white men) think that they know what is right for all women when it comes to abortion and are trying to define what should constitute a legal abortion or just ban the practice altogether. Saying what a woman should and should not do as far as her body, life, and health are concerned is pretty dang sexist.

 

There are pro-life women.

 

That is all.

[DarkOverord]

He can have his say but he does not have the final say.

This is exactly it. The father can have a say, like I said multiple times in my first post. In a healthy relationship ideally they would come to an agreement together with the advice of a doctor. However inherently as the person who has to deal with a minimum of 22 weeks of their life being turned upside down, unlike the other half which generally just ends up in a small tilt, the final decision is theirs.

 

 

I wonder how effectively an expectant mother will fare if her partner leaves her during the pregnancy. My guess is not very well.

 

They are in this together, and the father is just as much part of the pregnancy as the mother. He will provide for her and acquire for her whatever she may need. He will have to deal with all the increased stress of preparing for it right alongside her. The principle of a partnership is one of equality, whether it's discussing how to pay the bills, what home to get, or whether they should have a child.

 

Let's change the angles here: normally one partner raises more than the other in a household. Should they get extra say? The common answer is no: partners share the decision.

 

Until death do you part.

Aha! But he isn't! You've just pointed how during a pregnancy the father isn't equal to the mother. At any point he can walk out and just go "fuck this shit". After 24 weeks in Britain it's actually illegal for the mother to receive an abortion unless it's for a truly medical emergency, or just miscarriage. After 24 weeks that's it, she has to bore the brunt of another 18 or so weeks, 8 hours average of agony and then a couple of months while her body readjusts to not having a baby in there.

 

You may dislike this view but it's a matter of fact. Why should the father get an equal say if he's not the one who has to go through what can potentially kill her giving birth?

 

Say your partner turned round to you and said "We don't need more children, you should get a vasectomy". Again, in a healthy relationship you'd talk the pros and cons out, see a doctor etc. But as it's his body, does the father not have a greater say?

Edited March 24, 2013 by DarkOverord

[\gunther]

What I'm not liking is setting the precedent that a relationship is like a corporation in that each person has a varying amount of say in it. By the logic we're creating, if one partner makes twice as much income in a relationship, they should have twice as much say. If one partner cooks dinner, they should have the right to determine how much the other gets to eat. If they pay for the cable they should be able to deny the partner access to it. I do not like any of this at all: I want both partners in a relationship, whether it's same sex or opposite sex, to be equal in everything. Each one gives up their high ground on each particular issue for the good of the relationship. For me the discussion on whether or not to have an unborn child should be no different from every other cooperative decision they make.

 

Also, given that it's a nine month process and the issue here is debating the worthiness of a life that could last up to 70+ years... well, I'm not really seeing pregnancy alone as giving good reason for a monopoly on the decision.

A good relationship is built upon equal say and cooperation, yes, but not everything is black and white. There are very situatonal issues where one partner rightfully deserves more of a say than the other, and this happens to be a biggie. The father should offer his input and passion about it, but, as explained, it's the woman's body that's being compensated. The decision should ultimately be hers if an unexpected pregnancy is thrust upon them, since her life will be affected most.

 

I'm stressing again that this is situational. Maybe the father should get more of a say, if, for example, the couple is financially secure and has the means to take care of a child, but the fact remains that it's more likely than not going to be harder on his partner.

 

There are pro-life women.

 

That is all.

There definitely are, yeah. If a woman doesn't like the idea of abortion, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion if you've given it a lot of thought. This doesn't change the fact that it's mainly old farts lacking a vagina that are opposing womens' rights to have choices as far as their bodies are concerned. It's not even just abortion itself; Access to birth control pills, for example.

Edited March 24, 2013 by shimapun

[Tani Coyote]

Aha! But he isn't! You've just pointed how during a pregnancy the father isn't equal to the mother.

 

You may dislike this view but it's a matter of fact. Why should the father get an equal say if he's not the one who has to go through what can potentially kill her giving birth?

 

Because decisionmaking is shared in a relationship. Period. One person cooks more than the other. One works more than the other. One has to bear kids. One does more shopping than the other. One will spend more time with children. There are many areas in which one partner clearly has the better bargaining position, and yet they always agree to come together to make decisions. That's the beauty of a relationship.

 

Say your partner turned round to you and said "We don't need more children, you should get a vasectomy". Again, in a healthy relationship you'd talk the pros and cons out, see a doctor etc. But as it's his body, does the father not have a greater say?

 

Apples and oranges. There is no life within me that will develop into a person if left alone. The child is only within the mother to a point that it is capable of surviving without her. As it should be; the female body has a higher amount of fat and is thus better built for survival.