Abortion

[Diogenes]

No one is disagreeing that, ideally, they should talk with each other and decide together what to do. The question I have is, what happens when they can't? You've yet to sufficiently answer this.

[Nepenthe]

 

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.

 

None of these actions you named are actually equivalent to pregnancy. They are responsibilities whose primary owner can change on a whim depending upon the circumstances. Both men and women can lose their jobs or change their careers which will impact the amount of money one makes. Both men and women can also equally share the cooking and the bills. Once a woman is pregnant however, she can't just hand over the biological burden over to the man. That responsibility is hers to bear and hers to bear alone.

 

It is also illogical to assume that a conflict of interest cannot arise from these actions which would result in one partner needing to dictate the actions of another. If you're stealing my money or using it in an irresponsible manner simply because I make more than you, or if you're eating all of the dinner I made and leaving me with little to eat, or if you are sucking up so much pay-per-view that it is having an impact on the way I am able to pay the cable bill, I then actually do get the right to dictate how you use these functions.

 

And of course you don't care about the biological burden of pregnancy as a variable in who has more right to the decision to terminate a pregnancy; you can't get pregnant. 

 

Personally, I really don't want men forcing me to be pregnant if I don't want to, because if something happens to me, like rape or even contraceptive failure, I refuse to personally suffer because a group in society who cannot biologically empathize with the process made a moral judgement call without that empathy in play.

 

No one is disagreeing that, ideally, they should talk with each other and decide together what to do. The question I have is, what happens when they can't? You've yet to sufficiently answer this.

 

Also this.

[DarkOverord]

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.

Yes, and as I've said multiple times that this would be the case.

But what if we end up on a stand off, Ogilvie. Who should have the final say on whether or not the mother wants to keep the child? It should be the mother.

Or does implanting one's genetic material in her womb suddenly grant you equal rights to it? Does getting a woman up the duff, be it on purpose or by accident, suddenly give the potential father a greater say over someone else's body?

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.

You've missed my point though. While yes, in an ideal world, no child would ever be aborted, poverty wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be a plethora of reasons not to bring life into the world. However it's not, and won't be for a long time. The point of the matter is that the issue is now, and not some dream of the future that we can work towards to.

So are you saying that because your testicles won't ever grow life, therefore partners have an equal decision on the ability of one's body? Or should the male have a greater right to his body and what happens to it than his partner?

[Frogging101]

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.

There's no point in making it illegal, especially not after the problems that push people to do it are solved. If people don't have a reason to anymore, then they won't do it. There's no need to make it illegal at that point. All that does is restrict people's freedom of choice for no reason. I don't believe that governments have a right to decide what reasons are okay and what reasons aren't on the subject of abortion.

 

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.

Sorry, but I don't think that's your call. You're not in a position to tell a woman "Oh pregnancy isn't that bad". And besides, pregnancy is only the beginning. Then there's the sleepless nights that follow for a couple of years, and the breastfeeding, and everything else. Edited March 24, 2013 by Frogging101

[Tani Coyote]

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.

 

Well I just wanted to establish sex doesn't even enter the equation in many pro-life individuals' minds. The concern's overwhelmingly for an unborn child, not what the rights of one sex over another are.

 

No one is disagreeing that, ideally, they should talk with each other and decide together what to do. The question I have is, what happens when they can't? You've yet to sufficiently answer this.

 

Well, really it's the same as any other proposal that'd require a majority to pass: if the two can't agree, it's only 50% in favor, which basically equates to a "no." As ties normally are considered when there's only a yes or no option.

 

Yes, and as I've said multiple times that this would be the case.

But what if we end up on a stand off, Ogilvie. Who should have the final say on whether or not the mother wants to keep the child? It should be the mother.

 

I'm inclined to think that if an agreement can't be reached it should be considered what lawmakers call "died in committee." If a measure doesn't get 50%+1, it doesn't pass, so between equal partners a tie will mean "no."

 

As for the rest of it: it really comes down to the fact I don't see a fetus as part of the woman's body. The sex organs are most definitely part of a woman's body, but a fetus is no more part of the body than the food we eat; it is something that temporarily takes up residence in our bodies, not something fundamental akin to the heart, lungs or brain.

 

Once a woman is pregnant however, she can't just hand over the biological burden over to the man. That responsibility is hers to bear and hers to bear alone.

 

Even if so, she also has to bear the responsibility of what decision she makes. If her partner suddenly is very cold and distant (or even leaves her) after she does it despite his protests, she can't exactly claim he's being unreasonable. I view abortion without the other partner's consent as a serious betrayal on the same level as adultery or lying.

 

As for the decisionmaking processes, in any healthy relationship such problems will not arise as such partnerships are based on mutual respect and mutual trust. Each partner has their own areas where they clearly have more say but they pool it equally regardless. Presumably a pregnant female will likewise respect if her partner isn't exactly comfortable with an abortion.

 

With regards to rape, I can see where that angle's coming from; that child was born from trauma and duress, not anything remotely resembling compassion. On the other hand, contraceptive failure isn't a valid excuse to me; I think people should take responsibility for their actions. If one really doesn't want a child they should simply practice abstinence rather than being irresponsible. To me using an abortion to avoid the consequences of one's personal behavior is the same principle as dine and dashing: one enjoys the benefits without any of the costs.

[Badnik Zero]

People focus on this extreme "Oh it's just treated as another form of contraception" when it really isn't.

 

Well no not by everyone, but I think it happens enough to say people shouldn't abort irresponsibly. When I can find girls in the clinic having their third abortions, I'm gonna say people are being stupid with it.

 

I don't think it's really an issue to politicize either. "Don't be stupid with abortion" is a pretty agreeable statement.

 

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.

 

Compromise is essential to relationships, but that doesn't always mean 50-50. Compromise means you'll give your partner 80-20 too because you love her, and like you said before, it's good for the two of you. I can't think of any situations where a man insisting his wife remains pregnant will contribute to their well being as a pair. If you can convince her that a child's a beautiful thing then that's great, but otherwise there's not much to do. Even on a practical level. The child's inside her, its life is her life. Also consider the examples you give, money or food. In these situations if I'm the breadwinner, it doesn't make sense to insist we buy a car if I'm the only one making money. Likewise if I make the dinner every night, please don't insist on eating a certain thing all the time. Compromise is not 50-50, it's giving and taking. If I agree to things just because you want them, it's my gift to you. A child is like that too, it's her gift to give, and she's changing her life to give it. Also, taken outside the context of a relationship your example is kind of twisted, Ogilvie. If I sleep with someone with no serious intentions, and she becomes pregnant with a reaction like, "Oh my god I can't have a baby with you", then I would have no right to even ask her to. There's no compromise here to speak of - She would not like to give me a baby, and really that's her option because really, without her the baby ain't going nowhere. It's funny, this analogy of giving. If a girl says to a man "Give me a child", he does that in one night. If a man says to a woman "Give me a child", it's a much longer commitment. There's no equality in it. She has the choice.

Edited March 24, 2013 by American Ristar

[DarkOverord]

I'm inclined to think that if an agreement can't be reached it should be considered what lawmakers call "died in committee." If a measure doesn't get 50%+1, it doesn't pass, so between equal partners a tie will mean "no."

 

As for the rest of it: it really comes down to the fact I don't see a fetus as part of the woman's body. The sex organs are most definitely part of a woman's body, but a fetus is no more part of the body than the food we eat; it is something that temporarily takes up residence in our bodies, not something fundamental akin to the heart, lungs or brain.

I'm assuming your bias of no is "No you can't have an abortion"? Not "No, it's the woman's choice as it's in her body".

 

I would like to point out not once have I stated that the potential child is part of the woman's body. I've instead focused on what it causes to the woman's body. Of which you seem to repeatedly consider unimportant.

 

Contraceptive Failure is a perfectly valid excuse. On the other hand you seem to be of the opinion that just even a 0.1% chance of pregnancy (Plucked from thin air, just a hypothetical figure) then they've consented to it I guess. So there's no point even trying to argue that one out.

 

I have to be curious though. What of the flipside Ogilvie. There's plenty of cases where it's actually the father insisting that the woman undergoes an abortion, is the matter still equal? Or does it sway in the mother's favour purely because she's harbouring the child?

 

Or does the mother have a stronger opinion because it's her body that has to house this child? And as such, it's her final say?

 

This is the matter at hand here. No relationship has perfectly equal decisions. I hate the fact my boyfriend smokes, he knows this, however I've compromised to leave him to it as in the end it's his body, and his decision in the end. The same is the case here, the father can protest, and if they've spoken properly about it, then they'll have reached an agreement, however he doesn't have a 50/50 opinion as in the end he doesn't have to bare the problems other than issues that had there been no pregnancy, could be shifted around all the time.

 

The problems a father faces are quite inconsequential in the end, unlike the mother who has to deal with so many months of problems that her own body causes from carry a child.

[Nepenthe]

Even if so, she also has to bear the responsibility of what decision she makes. If her partner suddenly is very cold and distant (or even leaves her) after she does it despite his protests, she can't exactly claim he's being unreasonable. I view abortion without the other partner's consent as a serious betrayal on the same level as adultery or lying.

 

As for the decisionmaking processes, in any healthy relationship such problems will not arise as such partnerships are based on mutual respect and mutual trust. Each partner has their own areas where they clearly have more say but they pool it equally regardless. Presumably a pregnant female will likewise respect if her partner isn't exactly comfortable with an abortion.

 

With regards to rape, I can see where that angle's coming from; that child was born from trauma and duress, not anything remotely resembling compassion. On the other hand, contraceptive failure isn't a valid excuse to me; I think people should take responsibility for their actions. If one really doesn't want a child they should simply practice abstinence rather than being irresponsible. To me using an abortion to avoid the consequences of one's personal behavior is the same principle as dine and dashing: one enjoys the benefits without any of the costs.

 

 

Abortion without the father's consideration is morally repugnant because you're completely going behind his back to do so. Abortion without the father's consent, as in, the woman didn't go crawling to him to get his express permission to do it- even despite their having a conversation about is- is not so. Again, he doesn't hold a monopoly on the situation. So if he wants to be cold towards the mother in the latter instance, that's certainly his choice, just as it's mine and hers to call him an asshole over it.

 

And how is contraceptive failure an "excuse" for terminating a pregnancy when the point of using a contraceptive is not to get pregnant in the first place? Using any number of contraceptive methods implicitly means you do not want to pregnant while having sex. Any man who would force a woman he had sex with to go through with a pregnancy that resulted through contraceptive failure, or even have the audacity to blame her for it by saying that "she must take the responsibilities of her actions," is then being a victim-blaming shit stain of the highest order. This is like saying I should pay someone's insurance premiums for a car accident even though the accident was their fault, simply because I consented to the possibility of getting in an accident by driving a car in the first place. No. Just no.

 

And what I personally don't get is the rape exception. How is rape an excuse to commit what pro-lifers believe to be infanticide? I can't kill my rapist after he has raped me (only legal leeway would be during the act as it would fall under self-defense), and he's the one who actually did it! So why can I murder my baby after the rape has happened when the baby has done nothing? Simply because it would be traumatic? The rapists' actions were more so, so where's this exception that would allow me to bash his skull in? The rape exception is the biggest logical inconsistency of the pro-life ideology because it justifies crime with crime (and only adds credence to my belief that a lot of it is just misogynistic bullshit disguised as moral outrage). Anyone who believed in the gall of the ideology wouldn't have any exceptions whatsoever. The moment you start making exceptions, I feel you're pro-choice, but to merely a different extent than others.

 

Also, abstinence-only is the useless rhetoric of people who want to claim the moral high-ground. It has not worked, it will never work, and we have mountains of evidence and real-world outcomes to prove as such.

[Diogenes]

Well, really it's the same as any other proposal that'd require a majority to pass: if the two can't agree, it's only 50% in favor, which basically equates to a "no." As ties normally are considered when there's only a yes or no option.

To which question? "Do we continue this pregnancy" or "do we abort"? It would seem to me they both have equal grounds to be rejected. Also it's pretty ridiculous to talk about needing a majority when there's only two "votes" in play.

As for the rest of it: it really comes down to the fact I don't see a fetus as part of the woman's body. The sex organs are most definitely part of a woman's body, but a fetus is no more part of the body than the food we eat; it is something that temporarily takes up residence in our bodies, not something fundamental akin to the heart, lungs or brain.

I'm pretty sure being pregnant has a bigger effect on a woman's body than eating a cheeseburger.

Even if so, she also has to bear the responsibility of what decision she makes. If her partner suddenly is very cold and distant (or even leaves her) after she does it despite his protests, she can't exactly claim he's being unreasonable. I view abortion without the other partner's consent as a serious betrayal on the same level as adultery or lying.

And what do you think of forcing someone to carry and raise a child that they don't want?

As for the decisionmaking processes, in any healthy relationship such problems will not arise as such partnerships are based on mutual respect and mutual trust. Each partner has their own areas where they clearly have more say but they pool it equally regardless. Presumably a pregnant female will likewise respect if her partner isn't exactly comfortable with an abortion.

And conversely a guy should respect when a woman does not want to have a child.

Also, protip: you may want to avoid using "female" in place of "woman", because it sounds really fuckin' skeezy. 

On the other hand, contraceptive failure isn't a valid excuse to me; I think people should take responsibility for their actions. If one really doesn't want a child they should simply practice abstinence rather than being irresponsible.

Using contraception is the part where they are being responsible. This only serves to punish the parents with a child they don't want and the future child with parents that didn't want it...it isn't helping anyone.

[Badnik Zero]

There's plenty of cases where it's actually the father insisting that the woman undergoes an abortion, is the matter still equal?

 

I knew I had another point to make. Sometimes a man decides for himself he doesn't want a child. Does he have a right to say "Stop being pregnant"? Him terminating the pregnancy without her consent is not the same as her aborting without his. The first example is an invasion of her body against her will! The man's not equal here either.

Edited March 24, 2013 by American Ristar

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

And what I personally don't get is the rape exception. How is rape an excuse to commit what pro-lifers believe to be infanticide? I can't kill my rapist after he has raped me (only legal leeway would be during the act as it would fall under self-defense), and he's the one who actually did it!

Er...pardon me for breaking in, but I thought the pro-lifers were willing to take off rape as an exception allowing you to get an abortion?

[Nepenthe]

Er...pardon me for breaking in, but I thought the pro-lifers were willing to take off rape as an exception allowing you to get an abortion?

 

They are. I'm positing it's logically inconsistent. If the mother can't kill the rapist for actually raping her, why should she be allowed to get an abortion because the baby resulted from rape?

[Tani Coyote]

I'll just clarify my position somewhat: I am actually pro-choice. If the child's the result of a relationship I just feel it should be equally decided. If the child's the result of rape, promiscuity, etc. then logically it's entirely up to the mother. I still will find it pretty despicable to abort a child due to irresponsible personal behavior, but they're within their rights.

 

Then there's the sleepless nights that follow for a couple of years, and the breastfeeding, and everything else.

 

The father has to deal with the stress of the baby as well. No matter where you're sleeping, unless your house is gigantic, you're going to hear its cries pretty darn well.

 

Breastfeeding is increasingly obsolete due to formula. Feeding a baby is no longer something that only the mother's capable of doing. The only real perk to breastfeeding is the temporary immunities it gives. Otherwise it's a practice that's value is entirely due to tradition and nothing of its own merit.

 

Also, taken outside the context of a relationship your example is kind of twisted, Ogilvie. If I sleep with someone with no serious intentions, and she becomes pregnant with a reaction like, "Oh my god I can't have a baby with you", then I would have no right to even ask her to. There's no compromise here to speak of - She would not like to give me a baby, and really that's her option because really, without her the baby ain't going nowhere. It's funny, this analogy of giving. If a girl says to a man "Give me a child", he does that in one night. If a man says to a woman "Give me a child", it's a much longer commitment. There's no equality in it. She has the choice.

 

Addressed at the start of my post; my desire for equal say is pretty much only in the context of relationships. If you're going to be providing care for the child in its future you should have a say in its life from the very start.

 

Abortion without the father's consideration is morally repugnant because you're completely going behind his back to do so. Abortion without the father's consent, as in, the woman didn't go crawling to him to get his express permission to do it- even despite their having a conversation about is- is not so.

 

I don't see why the double standard at all. The fact of the matter is the father clearly states he can't wait to have a child, will be there to raise it, and as such he clearly votes against it. If she goes and does it anyway, it's a serious breach of trust; it's not exactly a small decision, and I'd think any caring partner would respect what their significant other wants.

 

He's not being an "asshole" for growing cold as a result his former lover clearly violating something he felt strongly about. Is my partner an "asshole" for dumping me when he clearly states he wants a closed relationship whereas I want an open one, and I go and be promiscuous anyway? No, he is fully within his rights; he laid down the rules and I broke them.

 

The downside to a relationship is you have to take the other person's opinions into account, especially on big decisions. I don't care if it's her body, it's their child.

 

 

And how is contraceptive failure an "excuse" for terminating a pregnancy when the point of using a contraceptive is not to get pregnant in the first place? Using any number of contraceptive methods implicitly means you do not want to pregnant while having sex.

 

Because it could have been avoided entirely through abstention. The people involved were being reckless hedonists instead and ended up having to pay the consequences.

 

And what I personally don't get is the rape exception. How is rape an excuse to commit what pro-lifers believe to be infanticide?

 

I would presume because many people are of the opinion children are a natural extension of a loving relationship. Logically rape does not qualify. Never mind every time the mother looks at the child they will be reminded of what was probably their worst experience in their entire life. The worst wounds are those of the mind. 

 

 

Also, abstinence-only is the useless rhetoric of people who want to claim the moral high-ground. It has not worked, it will never work, and we have mountains of evidence and real-world outcomes to prove as such.

 

Only because people generally don't have the willpower. You don't have sexual relations, you don't have kids. That's scientific fact. Unless your name is Mary and you're in the New Testament, you're not going to have children without engaging in the necessary behavior.

 

Abstinence has failed because of the individual, not the principle. While from a legal perspective we should consider alternatives, morally? Oh heck no, I'm not going to yield on that front.

 

To which question? "Do we continue this pregnancy" or "do we abort"? It would seem to me they both have equal grounds to be rejected. Also it's pretty ridiculous to talk about needing a majority when there's only two "votes" in play.

 

Well the discussion would be on the actual abortion procedure; for the "continue the pregnancy" discussion, well that's ultimately part of the previous question. We will end up with gridlock going by your standards, and then it will be up to the mother to act.

 

When there are only two votes, the majority is two votes.

 

Also, protip: you may want to avoid using "female" in place of "woman", because it sounds really fuckin' skeezy. 

 

It's my English student acting up; I prefer to use synonyms. I don't see the terms as being charged in any way, and do not mean for them to be such. To me they are just alternative ways to say the same thing, that is, one of the two sexes.

 

Using contraception is the part where they are being responsible.

 

Didn't disagree on this point. I'm merely stating I consider people who take the chance and end up with a child trying to claim they are victims is ridiculous. They consented to it the same way you consent to a search when you enter private property.

 

This only serves to punish the parents with a child they don't want and the future child with parents that didn't want it...it isn't helping anyone.

 

You can argue they can just give it up for adoption. If they were considering abortion then giving them up would probably be doable as well. They're both ultimately painful choices.

[DarkOverord]

Well the discussion would be on the actual abortion procedure; for the "continue the pregnancy" discussion, well that's ultimately part of the previous question. We will end up with gridlock going by your standards, and then it will be up to the mother to act.

Clarification please. Upon gridlock. Who has the final say? Father or Mother? This is in both mother wanting rid of the child or keeping it.

 

Also Adoption isn't a great alternative at the moment. Have you seen how bad that system is at the moment

[Diogenes]

I don't see why the double standard at all. The fact of the matter is the father clearly states he can't wait to have a child, will be there to raise it, and as such he clearly votes against it. If she goes and does it anyway, it's a serious breach of trust; it's not exactly a small decision, and I'd think any caring partner would respect what their significant other wants.

Are you not getting that this goes both ways, and if the woman doesn't want a child, the man should respect that?

He's not being an "asshole" for growing cold as a result his former lover clearly violating something he felt strongly about. Is my partner an "asshole" for dumping me when he clearly states he wants a closed relationship whereas I want an open one, and I go and be promiscuous anyway? No, he is fully within his rights; he laid down the rules and I broke them.

If you agreed to those rules, then yes, I would say that is on you. But you are not obligated to abide by them simply because they want you to, you are not bound by them simply because they have been stated.

Because it could have been avoided entirely through abstention. The people involved were being reckless hedonists instead and ended up having to pay the consequences.

Having occasional protected sex=reckless hedonism. Riiiight...

I would presume because many people are of the opinion children are a natural extension of a loving relationship. Logically rape does not qualify. Never mind every time the mother looks at the child they will be reminded of what was probably their worst experience in their entire life. The worst wounds are those of the mind.

But these people believe that abortion is the same as murdering a child. Is it okay to murder an innocent child just because it was created by rape? Is the child less innocent, less deserving of life, for being the product of rape? If not, how do they justify it?

Abstinence has failed because of the individual, not the principle.

Abstinence fails because of human nature, and that's about as close to "the principle" as you can get.

Well the discussion would be on the actual abortion procedure; for the "continue the pregnancy" discussion, well that's ultimately part of the previous question. We will end up with gridlock going by your standards, and then it will be up to the mother to act.

These are your standards. This gridlock is a direct consequence of your insistence that their "votes" count as equal.

And are you now saying that the final decision is up to the woman?

It's my English student acting up; I prefer to use synonyms. I don't see the terms as being charged in any way, and do not mean for them to be such. To me they are just alternative ways to say the same thing, that is, one of the two sexes.

Well, trust me on this: lotta creepy people use "females" and it ends up sounding really dehumanizing, like they're talking about some weird bug and not a person.

Didn't disagree on this point. I'm merely stating I consider people who take the chance and end up with a child trying to claim they are victims is ridiculous. They consented to it the same way you consent to a search when you enter private property.

This is a bit like saying driving a car carries an inherent risk, therefore if someone crashes and is injured they don't deserve any sympathy.

You can argue they can just give it up for adoption. If they were considering abortion then giving them up would probably be doable as well. They're both ultimately painful choices.

This still entails 9 months of pregnancy and an unwanted child entering the world (and placed into, from what I've heard, a severely broken system), all for the sake of punishing people. It's pretty fucked up dude.

[DarkOverord]

Are you not getting that this goes both ways, and if the woman doesn't want a child, the man should respect that?

This is exactly why I brought up vasectomy. If your partner kept pestering you get a vasectomy and you didn't want it, are they not doing the same as a potential father not respecting his partners wishes?

 

It's not a case of apples and oranges. It's a case of respecting someone, their body and their rights.

[Tani Coyote]

Clarification please. Upon gridlock. Who has the final say? Father or Mother? This is in both mother wanting rid of the child or keeping it.

 

Logically the mother has the final action since she can still go to the clinic either way and request the procedure. Though morally I'd say she had no right to do so at this point since her partner was against it.

 

Also Adoption isn't a great alternative at the moment. Have you seen how bad that system is at the moment

 

Using the status quo as an argument isn't good practice; instead of acknowledging a problem to support another, we should work to solve both.

 

Are you not getting that this goes both ways, and if the woman doesn't want a child, the man should respect that?

 

Sure I get that, but how's that any more morally superior to the man wanting the child?

 

We've ended up with gridlock and it really all becomes dependent on the woman's actions, since ultimately the child is inside her and the man can't really stop her if she goes to the hospital.

 

If you agreed to those rules, then yes, I would say that is on you. But you are not obligated to abide by them simply because they want you to, you are not bound by them simply because they have been stated.

 

If it's established that it's a prerequisite of the relationship, though, you can't fault the other partner for not wanting anything to do with you if you break them.

 

But these people believe that abortion is the same as murdering a child. Is it okay to murder an innocent child just because it was created by rape? Is the child less innocent, less deserving of life, for being the product of rape? If not, how do they justify it?

 

Hell if I know, I'm not in that camp.

 

These are your standards. This gridlock is a direct consequence of your insistence that their "votes" count as equal.

 

Indeed it is. Which means it shifts to an entirely personal decision on the part of the mother whether to acknowledge the other party's opposition or go ahead anyway.

 

Main problem is that there's no third option here, really. Women doesn't want the child, the man does. They can't respect eachother's decisions, because it's impossible to continue being pregnant AND have an abortion.

 

And are you now saying that the final decision is up to the woman?

 

Not from a moral perspective, but a practical one, yes. Regardless of whether she's in the right for going ahead with the procedure or not, ultimately she's the one making the choice.

 

This is a bit like saying driving a car carries an inherent risk, therefore if someone crashes and is injured they don't deserve any sympathy.

 

This is different though given that a car is pretty much a necessity for life at this point; sex is not. You can go just fine through life being celibate, but god help you get a job, go shopping, etc. without a vehicle due to how spread out everything is. Whereas it'd take quite a lot of physical conditioning to be able to walk back and forth between all these places (never mind it'd be a huge waste of time and such should be discouraged), it takes a simple decision to remain abstinent, the same way it takes a simple decision to control your portion size.

 

This still entails 9 months of pregnancy and an unwanted child entering the world (and placed into, from what I've heard, a severely broken system), all for the sake of punishing people. It's pretty fucked up dude.

 

More reason to work on reforming the system.

 

This is exactly why I brought up vasectomy. If your partner kept pestering you get a vasectomy and you didn't want it, are they not doing the same as a potential father not respecting his partners wishes?

 

It's not a case of apples and oranges. It's a case of respecting someone, their body and their rights.

 

There is not a fetus within my privates. The situations are NOT comparable.

 

I have not disputed that the woman has the rights to her ovaries or other organs, which are most certainly part of her body. A fetus has only taken up temporary residence within her and is not comparable to an organ.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Badnik Zero]

I don't care if it's her body, it's their child.

 

If a girl says to a man "Give me a child", he does that in one night. If a man says to a woman "Give me a child", it's a much longer commitment.

 

And a much larger commitment. The arrangement by nature is not equal, so the compromise doesn't begin equally. They share the child when it's born. But the woman has the child until then.

 

It's not that I think what you're saying is wrong Ogilvie, I just don't think it's practical. Even if the man wants the child, he's not recognizing his woman's needs if he insists she go through with it.

 

He's not being an "asshole" for growing cold as a result his former lover clearly violating something he felt strongly about.

 

I'll completely agree to this however. If one partner is adamant about not having babies it's probably grounds for a divorce or split. It's really important for couples to discuss this. But I disagree on individual cases.

 

... For the "continue the pregnancy" discussion, well that's ultimately part of the previous question. We will end up with gridlock going by your standards, and then it will be up to the mother to act.

 

If no decision can be reached the mother will have to do something. Why?

 

Regardless of whether she's in the right for going ahead with the procedure or not, ultimately she's the one making the choice.

 

Okay you answered this just now. But that's why in the end, her opinion holds more weight.

Edited March 24, 2013 by American Ristar

[Nepenthe]

I don't see why the double standard at all. The fact of the matter is the father clearly states he can't wait to have a child, will be there to raise it, and as such he clearly votes against it. If she goes and does it anyway, it's a serious breach of trust; it's not exactly a small decision, and I'd think any caring partner would respect what their significant other wants.

 

He's not being an "asshole" for growing cold as a result his former lover clearly violating something he felt strongly about. Is my partner an "asshole" for dumping me when he clearly states he wants a closed relationship whereas I want an open one, and I go and be promiscuous anyway? No, he is fully within his rights; he laid down the rules and I broke them.

 

You call it a double-standard because you are still approaching the argument as if the pregnancy affects both the mother and the father equally in all matters (it does not; again, men can't get pregnant), even going so far as to compare it to paying a cable bill as if it is that paltry. Until you understand that this is completely false, until you stop ignoring how pregnancy effects women, you're going to continue arguing from a pretext I consider misogynistic that the father has the actual moral authority to force a woman he has slept with to undergo a grueling biological process for nine months just because he wants her to. To be disappointed and act cold then that the mother disagrees that he has this authority does indeed make him an asshole of the highest order, and it's not a man I want in my life.

 

The downside to a relationship is you have to take the other person's opinions into account, especially on big decisions. I don't care if it's her body, it's their child.

 

As I said before, of course you don't give one iota of a shit about my body. Biology has already dictated that- because you can never get pregnant- you have far more room to actually be apathetic and lack empathy. Your self interests are not on the line here. Mine are.

 

Because it could have been avoided entirely through abstention. The people involved were being reckless hedonists instead and ended up having to pay the consequences.

 

Only the woman is paying the consequences here, not the man. The basic biology of this is what you're not getting. Pregnancy only overwhelmingly effects one individual, not two.

 

I would presume because many people are of the opinion children are a natural extension of a loving relationship. Logically rape does not qualify. Never mind every time the mother looks at the child they will be reminded of what was probably their worst experience in their entire life. The worst wounds are those of the mind.

 

More arbitrary utopian moral drivel. If a child is conceived through "love," it's right to life must be respected (and "not love" as well, because you're actually arguing against birth control and emergency contraceptives too). If a child is conceived through rape, it's right to life means nothing. This is nonsense because you have failed to follow through logically for why rape waives away the ideal that abortion is murder. "She's going to suffer;" Boo hoo, so do women in many other instances of pregnancy, but as you admitted, you don't give a shit about my body so actual suffering is not proper reasoning. And again, if it did follow that rape trumps one's right to life, you would allow me to be able to kill my rapist myself. After all, he's the one who did it.

 

You're making an exception just to make an exception, to look a little bit more gentle, as it were, but it's not logical or rational at all, and it's just one of the reasons I'm dismissive of your entire argument.

 

Only because people generally don't have the willpower. You don't have sexual relations, you don't have kids. That's scientific fact. Unless your name is Mary and you're in the New Testament, you're not going to have children without engaging in the necessary behavior.

 

Abstinence has failed because of the individual, not the principle. While from a legal perspective we should consider alternatives, morally? Oh heck no, I'm not going to yield on that front.

 

Abstinence has failed because it makes an inherently stupid assumption about human nature, that we are somehow not animals and have some magical perfect free will that will allow us to control every single one of our base urges all the time. What makes us human is not this fanciful belief, but the ability to use reasoning and technology to be able to counter the negative effects our baser instincts. Like contraceptives, for example! Or the medical profession in general of which its vastness has allowed women access to care previously unheard of! Or even laws, like Roe vs. Wade! These things work, not assuming we have the capability to be automatons.

[BlazingTales]

I don't see why the double standard at all. The fact of the matter is the father clearly states he can't wait to have a child, will be there to raise it, and as such he clearly votes against it. If she goes and does it anyway, it's a serious breach of trust; it's not exactly a small decision, and I'd think any caring partner would respect what their significant other wants.

 

He's not being an "asshole" for growing cold as a result his former lover clearly violating something he felt strongly about. Is my partner an "asshole" for dumping me when he clearly states he wants a closed relationship whereas I want an open one, and I go and be promiscuous anyway? No, he is fully within his rights; he laid down the rules and I broke them.

 

The downside to a relationship is you have to take the other person's opinions into account, especially on big decisions. I don't care if it's her body, it's their child.

In the same way that you consider a woman going behind her partner's back to get an abortion against his wishes a violation of trust, I consider a man imposing on the use of his partner's own body a sign that she's with an over-controlling jerk. A woman in a good relationship faced with an unanticipated/unwanted pregnancy should certainly consider the wishes of her significant other when making a choice, but whether she continues the pregnancy or not should ultimately be her decision. And while a supportive partner might not have to be happy with her choice, he should respect her on the grounds that it is not his body the child has to grow in. He has absolutely no right to force her to continue the pregnancy, just as he has no right to force her to abort a fetus. It is not his body to control.

The genetic makeup of a child may be a 50-50 split between both parents, but the process of getting a child into the world is absolutely not. It's the woman who is forced to deal with the physical demands, health risks, discomfort, pain, hormonal shifts, and long lasting effects pregnancy and childbirth has on the body. Yes, a good partner will stay by their pregnant loved one and support them through it, and doubtlessly will have to survive through the cravings, health difficulties, hormonal bitchiness, and perhaps temporary loss of additional income, but the brunt of pregnancy as a biological fact is not his burden to bear. As theoretically nice it is to think all decisions and struggles are shared and subtracted evenly, life and relationships are not a zero-sum game, and neither is pregnancy.

[Tani Coyote]

It's not that I think what you're saying is wrong Ogilvie, I just don't think it's practical. Even if the man wants the child, he's not recognizing his woman's needs if he insists she go through with it.

 

What I'd be really interested in is what exactly might cause the disconnect in opinion between the two, or exactly what is it that motivates an abortion.

 

I don't think a woman just randomly thinks she should go kill what could very easily grow up to be a child she and her partner would love and care for dearly. I assume the decision is made after much careful consideration, such as what life it will have. Normally both parents have the child's best interests at heart, so if they reason it wouldn't have a good life they normally can reach a consensus that an abortion is best.

 

So now that I think about it, I'm actually interested in what sorts of situations would cause a disagreement between two parents. If two people can barely afford to pay the rent and job opportunities are dull, I think both of them are going to agree that it's a tragic necessity that they get rid of it.

 

On the other hand, as I recall, some people regret the procedure once they have gone through with it. My cousin made the choice to abort her first child because she was living with us at the time and didn't feel it would make for a proper environment; she ended up getting pregnant again some months later, but decided to keep that one even if she was living with us. I can only presume she felt she too hastily rushed into the decision, and indeed, I think she did; she loves her daughter enormously, and her recently born son as well.

 

I suppose, if anything, that would be the best reason to support two voices instead of one on the subject; it lessens the chance one will make a hasty decision. I can only presume how many women would naturally panic if they found themselves to be suddenly pregnant, as all people ultimately have their focus on the short-term. But if the mother sits down and thinks about it, preferably with the help of her partner and her family, she can make a better final judgement on the matter.

 

Or even laws, like Roe vs. Wade! These things work, not assuming we have the capability to be automatons.

 

Said legal decision's wording has also left abortion open to being rendered fully illegal at some point in the future, when technology is adequate enough. If abortion is seen as a natural right, then Roe v. Wade is not something that should be supported. Roe v. Wade states a fetus can't be aborted if it would be viable outside the womb; this is shifting the focus of abortion to practical considerations rather than moral. If a zygote could be safely removed from a mother and mature in a tube, it would mean a woman has zero right to abort whatsoever under the ruling.

[DarkOverord]

Logically the mother has the final action since she can still go to the clinic either way and request the procedure. Though morally I'd say she had no right to do so at this point since her partner was against it.

So she should bend to his whims then? Likewise if he wants rid of the child and she wants to keep it?

Edited March 24, 2013 by DarkOverord

[Nepenthe]

Said legal decision's wording has also left abortion open to being rendered fully illegal at some point in the future, when technology is adequate enough. If abortion is seen as a natural right, then Roe v. Wade is not something that should be supported. Roe v. Wade states a fetus can't be aborted if it would be viable outside the womb; this is shifting the focus of abortion to practical considerations rather than moral. If a zygote could be safely removed from a mother and mature in a tube, it would mean a woman has zero right to abort whatsoever under the ruling.

 

If the language is that abortion cannot be made illegal until a fetus is viable outside the womb, it could not apply to zygotes anyway without a complete revision of the language because a zygote isn't a fetus. It's a zygote, and no amount of technological advancement will turn a zygote into a fetus, just like anti-aging measures won't stop babies from being babies and not adults.

 

Anyway, you may have a point that Roe v. Wade may have some holes that will allow it to be rendered useless in the future. However, that is something I imagine will come up in the law when the applications of such technology make the arguments relevant, and as such it will be revised as necessary. If I live to that point in the future, I will be fighting to ensure the law is not made crippling to women's health. But this is a hypothetical. I'm only concerned with the practical applications of the law today of which I accept it as basically a federal compromise to pro-lifers: I do not get the right to abort in the United States if I reach the third trimester. Fine. But before that, pro-lifers can fuck off.

[Indigo Rush]

Hate to revive such a hot topic, but this is definitely relevant:

 

 

 

What are your guys' thoughts about this?

 

EDIT: Okay, this is actually really gruesome. Viewer discresion advised.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Indigo Rush

[KittyNakajima]

Hate to revive such a hot topic, but this is definitely relevant:

 

 

 

What are your guys' thoughts about this?

 

EDIT: Okay, this is actually really gruesome. Viewer discresion advised.

 

This makes me cringe for two reasons. One, because I can easily see pro-lifers jump on this and use this horror as an example of "ABORTION IS EVIL", and two because this scenario goes way beyond the legally defined term of abortion. That's just excessively gross and massive negligence right there.

 

When you're operating a clinic of that nature with severely under qualified staff (i.e. hiring teenagers to administer pain medication/assist in procedures), following piss poor sanitary protocol, and inducing labor/killing fetuses that are viable/possibly able to live outside the womb (i.e. breathing) - that's malpractice, negligence, AND murder all rolled into one.

 

I am as pro-choice as you can get, but this makes me cringe. I can only wonder what was going through the heads of these women as they stepped into this clinic, and saw the conditions within before deciding to stay and have the procedure done. Or even wait past the first trimester.

 

 

Then again, I figure that this horrible occurrence also comes from the fact that this clinic seems to be smack in the middle of a low-income area.  People who don't know what other options are out there or are just generally in a bad spot seem more inclined to take the risk if gets the desired result.

 

All in all, it's really sad. This doctor should not have been allowed to perform these type of procedures on as many patients as he did, and the system majorly fucked up in preventing what might be the countless deaths, infections, and maiming of both patients and their unwanted offspring alike.

 

Personally, I'm a bit of a stickler for practicing birth control religiously, because the way I see it, a lady has to be 100% on top of it. Guys can be too, but at the end of the day - you're the one carrying the baby around for nine months.

Edited April 13, 2013 by KittyNakajima