Hey! Abortion pro(op)ponents! Wrap your head around this!

Let's see if we can't spice up these forums with a debate my wife and I had recently.

As some of you may already know I am about to be a father once more over and to be frank I couldn't be more ecstatic about it. I'm mindful of the physical, emotional and financial cost of adding another child into the mix, but I still am overjoyed at the little person who will (maybe, probably, hopefully) be our third and final child.

I have always found joy in taking a very active role as a father and a husband, so much so that my wife has yet to find another husband that she can point to and say "see so and so does whatever for/with his wife/kids". Apparently for all of her female friends, I am the "so and so" to whom they refer when griping at their respective hubbies (thankfully I'm not friends with any of those guys).

I think this is why my wife was stunned at my response to a topic that came up the other night while we were driving home from a concert.

She made the statement that while Roe v Wade was unconstitutional (she's a strict constitutionalist) she couldn't trust the individual states to protect a woman's reproductive rights and therefor saw it as philosophically wrong, but still being the right thing to do, likening it to Lincoln trampling states' rights without which the US would not likely exist today.

Agreeing I unintentionally segued into a new topic with:

Me: Though it comes down to individual rights and sometimes not all individual's end up with the same rights with or without government intervention and that one of the reasons that this is such a big issue is that we as a society haven't come to a consensus on the issues, a court came to it for us.

She asked me to clarify the bolded part.

Me: Well, take abortion as an example. We both agree that life begins somewhere before birth and that, while vague, Roe v Wade supports 24-28 weeks which we can both agree is reasonable. We both agree that after that point of viability, an infant's right to life trumps the mother's right to do what she wants with her body, unless she has a very real risk of serious injury or death. However in all of this conversation there's one person we've not addressed. There's one individual without a choice.

Her: The father?

Me: Indeed. He has no rights in this situation. While he is not and should not be allowed to have a say in whether or not the mother has an abortion, he is unfairly obligated to whatever choice she makes. She chooses whether or not the child is carried to term and she chooses what if any relationship and obligations he has to the child should she decide to carry to term.

Her: He consented when he had sex with her. He knows that there's a chance that they could have a child and so he's obligated to take care of it.

Me: That's one, albeit the current interpretation. However if that were truly representative of their choice then it wouldn't be an issue. In addition, it's inconsistent with abortion itself. I could switch this up and say, "You know that if you have unprotected sex, you could have a baby, so if you do so then you are obligating yourself to have the child should one be conceived." It's the same argument, to say nothing of the matter of say a broken condom in which case the man obviously didn't give consent to be a father, but still has no choice.

Her: So you think a man shouldn't be obligated to take care of his child?

Me: If he tells her that he doesn't want to be a father a few weeks after she's informed him and she decides to carry to term then, no I don't think he should be obligated. She has the right to do what she will with her body, but he should have the right to determine if he is going to be obligated to take care of her child. At least that's consistent and it's certainly closer to equitable, though she really would have more rights as he (correctly) could not compel her to have a child if the roles were reversed.

Her: I think we're done with this for now.

Thoughts?

Haven't posted on here in awhile but I agree with you!!!! I do not think that the man should be obligated to support a child just because the mother chooses to carry the child to term. If he is obligated to pay then he should also have a say in the right to abort or to not abort. Of course that would then turn into a lengthy legal battle and those are never fun.

I agree with you also. Women seem to only want equality when it benefits them (instead of accepting the good with the bad that being equal carries).

It takes 2 to have sex.... the man isnt the one "doing it" to her....they are doing it TOGETHER. Both adults aware of the risks. They both have responsibility and should have a say in how they want their lives to continue. If they differ in what they would like to do with their own bodies, thats fine...but they need to be prepared to accept the responsibility for that choice.

Its crazy for someone to want full control and still have someone else to pay for it o.O

I have strong thoughts on this and have actually been involved in an online debate about this. I hereby post the link to that debate.It was just as the Center for Men was promoting their "Roe for Men" lawsuit.

For those who don't want to follow links, here is my opinion (pretty much cut and pasted from my first post on the other forum). There is more but this is plenty long enough:

"I don't agree that this is a reproductive rights issue, nor a gender equality issue. First, a statement, then I'll explain.

Statement: I recognize and agree that forcing someone to be a parent against their wishes is morally wrong. I do feel sympathy for most people who were "trapped" into parenthood. If I were a man, I'd probably be much more conservative in my sex life, knowing that I had so much less control over the outcome (just like I would be if abortion weren't an option, due to its availability OR my personal beliefs). It is indeed unfair that parents (men and women) have to support, financially or otherwise, children they didn't want and weren't ready for. But it is not a reproductive rights issue. When people exercise reproductive rights (as we currently know them to be, i.e. contraception and abortion), no child is born. If the "right" these men seek becomes law, the consequence will be this: thousands (possibly millions) of born, living children growing up in poverty and pain. This, to me, goes against what we in the pro-choice movement strive for.

Many people are seeking to expand the term "reproductive rights", in many ways; most of them involve issues that, to me, are secondary to the main issue of abortion rights, which is the bodily autonomy of pregnant women. Some believe that welfare caps are a reproductive rights issue, because they coerce poor people into having fewer children than they would have liked. Some believe that insurance coverage of infertility treatments is a reproductive rights issue, because the lack of it "prevents" them from having (biological) children. I believe that these are indeed worthy issues with interesting arguments on both sides, but neither compares to the moral intensity of abortion rights on the basic level of bodily autonomy.

What this is, is a child support issue, and the question is not "should men have reproductive rights" but "who should financially support unwanted children when their primary caretaker cannot or does not". Somebody has to or you have starving kids, which is unacceptable to us (when they're in the same country as us, that is). Or you could take kids from poor families and shove them in state-run orphanages, which we also stopped a while ago. Or, there's what we have chosen; the kid stays with the parent that does want him (or a foster home) and somebody else foots the bill. We as a society want to avoid footing it if possible, so we make it the responsibility of the biological parent(s). Right or wrong, THAT'S what we're debating.

It's not a gender equality issue either. Women can and do get taken to court to pay child support to custodial fathers for children the women never wanted to have. Men can block an adoption, gain custody, and trap women in this same way. Just because it doesn't happen as often doesn't mean that this is a men's issue; it's a non-custodial parents' issue, which is not the same thing as a gender issue. I also know *women* whose unwanted children are in foster care and they have to pay support to the foster parents. And we all know that she can't always "just have an abortion"; there are so many ways that women who would have liked to get an abortion cannot. She finds out when she's too far along; her state lacks Medicaid ab. funding and she can't afford it (what is it? 1/3 according to Alan Guttmacher Institute have to carry to term against their wishes?); she's a minor and mom&dad disagree; there is no provider nearby.(I was in a radio debate where the dummy from the Center for Men actually said "women are never prevented from having an abortion by any laws", after which I tore him a new one with the facts). And even if she faces none of these legal barriers, but simply doesn't want an abortion, we as pro-choice people cannot possibly support forcing her into one - bodily autonomy, remember?

But the simple fact that not all women can have abortions in reality, whereas under this proposed legislation every man can opt out of parenthood, makes it unequal to start with. And by framing this as a gender issue, they also prevent women from availing themselves of the same "refusal" option when similarly trapped by men (or foster parents?). So this legislation, in my opinion, actually tries to reinforce gender INequality.

So let's call this what it is: a debate on who is responsible for the support of children. Is it the collective, or the biological parents? Does this equation change when the children are unwanted, and how? We all agree that it is a really crappy choice to have a kid under these circumstances, and these women are acting immorally, etc...(as do men that block adoptions to piss off their girlfriends) But that doesn't change the basic LEGAL debate at all. I, for one, believe that either or both parents should be able to relinquish parental rights at will and anytime, but ONLY if: 1) it is permanent and irreversible and 2) the state ADEQUATELY supports all children so that they are not punished for having a crappy parent."

I think this does in some ways swing more in the favour of the woman!

I am all for equal rights but they should just be that equal and they aren't.

And this subject is the classic example of where equality falls down, it is impossible to protect the rights of one whilst not infringing on the rights of the other.

example of what i am getting at:

If you give the man the right to deny the woman the right to abort his child then you would also have to give him the right to force her to abort.

But I totally disagree that if a man makes it clear prior to sex that he does not want a child, takes adequate precautions but they fail then he should not be forced to pay for the up keep of that child. It is as much her responsibility to prevent pregnancy as it is his and it is not fair that he should be made pay because she did not take those precautions.

Way too many men have been trapped by the *I'm pregnant woman*!

Scenario;

Woman becomes pregnant,  the man doesn't want the child...or any legal or moral responsibility.....but she wants the baby.

Then the man should sign away ALL rights. A legal document. That way, in 10 years when the man wants to suddenly be a part of the child's life....he simply cannot.  He should have the same rights that a sperm-donor has. None.

That's fair, right? Then the child's life would not be disrupted further on down the road if the man changed his mind.

yeah that's fair, but would have to apply to women too if she decided to give up the child to the father.

Original Post by monarch777:

Scenario;

Woman becomes pregnant,  the man doesn't want the child...or any legal or moral responsibility.....but she wants the baby.

Then the man should sign away ALL rights. A legal document. That way, in 10 years when the man wants to suddenly be a part of the child's life....he simply cannot.  He should have the same rights that a sperm-donor has. None.

That's fair, right? Then the child's life would not be disrupted further on down the road if the man changed his mind.

I think that the crux is whether or not to pursue unwilling non-custodial parents for financial support. Right now, you can't choose to sign away your responsibility toward a child (you can sign away your rights to visit or raise the child, but you can't sign away your responsibility to financially support the child, whether you're male or female). Otherwise you can get charged with child abandonment.

I explained my position: as long as there are adequate social safety net supports to take the place of parental support, I wholeheartedly support allowing parents to give up parental rights AND responsibilities, even after the children are born (remember that Nebraska thread?). And of course, as you say, you can't give up the responsibility to the child unless you also give up all rights to the child, and both of those things permanently.

Original Post by andie-joe:

yeah that's fair, but would have to apply to women too if she decided to give up the child to the father.

 Of course. But yes, if a man wanted the child, and a woman did not want to carry it...he could not make her.  That's just biology. 

And as far as women trapping men into fatherhood, I think we should give men more credit for the ability to keep control of their sperm and where it ends up. 

Original Post by andie-joe:

I think this does in some ways swing more in the favour of the woman!

I am all for equal rights but they should just be that equal and they aren't.

And this subject is the classic example of where equality falls down, it is impossible to protect the rights of one whilst not infringing on the rights of the other.

example of what i am getting at:

If you give the man the right to deny the woman the right to abort his child then you would also have to give him the right to force her to abort.

But I totally disagree that if a man makes it clear prior to sex that he does not want a child, takes adequate precautions but they fail then he should not be forced to pay for the up keep of that child. It is as much her responsibility to prevent pregnancy as it is his and it is not fair that he should be made pay because she did not take those precautions.

Way too many men have been trapped by the *I'm pregnant woman*!

The problem, andie, is that the support money is not for the woman -  it is for the child. And there is no adequate replacement for that support in the current system - and in countries where there is a stronger social safety net, the government is actually more aggressive in going after non-custodial parents in order to reimburse itself.

Children should not pay the price for the mistakes of their mothers. Once those children are here, who has the responsibility for financially supporting them if their custodial parent cannot? Do we take the children away from poor parents and place them in orphanages? Does the government support them without trying to go after non-custodial parents for money?

Original Post by trustwomen:

Original Post by monarch777:

Scenario;

Woman becomes pregnant,  the man doesn't want the child...or any legal or moral responsibility.....but she wants the baby.

Then the man should sign away ALL rights. A legal document. That way, in 10 years when the man wants to suddenly be a part of the child's life....he simply cannot.  He should have the same rights that a sperm-donor has. None.

That's fair, right? Then the child's life would not be disrupted further on down the road if the man changed his mind.

I think that the crux is whether or not to pursue unwilling non-custodial parents for financial support. Right now, you can't choose to sign away your responsibility toward a child (you can sign away your rights to visit or raise the child, but you can't sign away your responsibility to financially support the child, whether you're male or female). Otherwise you can get charged with child abandonment.

I explained my position: as long as there are adequate social safety net supports to take the place of parental support, I wholeheartedly support allowing parents to give up parental rights AND responsibilities, even after the children are born (remember that Nebraska thread?). And of course, as you say, you can't give up the responsibility to the child unless you also give up all rights to the child, and both of those things permanently.

 I was being hypothetical of course. The laws would have to change for the situation I brought up. I know that as things stand...it's not an option.

Original Post by monarch777:

Original Post by andie-joe:

yeah that's fair, but would have to apply to women too if she decided to give up the child to the father.

 Of course. But yes, if a man wanted the child, and a woman did not want to carry it...he could not make her.  That's just biology. 

And as far as women trapping men into fatherhood, I think we should give men more credit for the ability to keep control of their sperm and where it ends up. 

Actually, monarch, what you describe as "biology" is a battle fought by generations of feminists to prevent men from having legal control over whether or not women could terminate their pregnancies. The most recent of these was here in Canada in 1989 with the Chantal Daigle case. It wasn't that long ago that a woman needed her husband's permission for any medical intervention, and especially the ones involving fertility (tubal ligation, etc.)

I read up a little on that case. Wow. A woman-beater wanting to force her to have the child that she was pregnant with wilst being beaten.

But what about the instance of the mother WANTING the child...the man does not..the baby isn't born yet....(under the status of fetus until birth) and he kills his wife (along with the fetus) as in the case we had here in the US)  when she is just a few weeks away from birth? Should he only be tried in her murder? Or should he be charged with the death of both the fetus and the mother?

Original Post by monarch777:

I read up a little on that case. Wow. A woman-beater wanting to force her to have the child that she was pregnant with wilst being beaten.

But what about the instance of the mother WANTING the child...the man does not..the baby isn't born yet....(under the status of fetus until birth) and he kills his wife (along with the fetus) as in the case we had here in the US)  when she is just a few weeks away from birth? Should he only be tried in her murder? Or should he be charged with the death of both the fetus and the mother?

The murder of the woman, with aggravating circumstances. This is another debate we started having recently in Canada - the thing is, since all sentences are served concurrently here, there is no difference in sentencing between one murder and two murders, so there would be no actual extra penalty attached anyway. In the US, it would not be complicated to have the pregnancy of the victim considered an aggravating circumstance leading to an extra number of years of imprisonment or whatever, which could easily equate to the number of years currently tacked on for a second murder. Honestly, since pregnancy is a physiologically fragile state, there is a lot of justification for this even when you take the fetus out of the equation: physically abusing a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry, for instance, is easily explained as attempted murder: making someone miscarry means taking the real risk that they will bleed out right at your feet. Hell, you could even use hate-crime legislation to increase penalties (gender-based violence) though I am not a fan of hate-crime legislation in general.

You can have the desired effect - punishing men who abuse and murder women, which believe me I back 100% - without having to grant personhood to a fetus, with all the legal muddiness that this entails.

It is messed up that a fetus is considered a legal person before it is born in the US. That's not the case up here. Here is an interesting overview of the effects of fetal rights bills in the US, which are used FAR more often to prosecute women than to prosecute their abusers.

This is a creepy thing to say, but men have been known to purposefully beat or hurt a woman in order to cause her to miscarry. (My bio father kicked my mother in the stomach when she was carrying my brother, for instance) It can be a road some men take out of desperation, or in the case of a mentally ill and abusive man...the only way that they can see to control the situation. I have even seen posts on other sites mentioning that a man who was "trapped" by his pregnant girlfriend could "accidentally"  have her fall down the stairs.

 As far as I am concerned, who would WANT to carry the baby of a man who was that abusive and/or mentally ill in the first place? Hence, the man in the Tremblay v. Daigle case...a man who beats his wife and wants ALSO to force her to have his child....why? So he can abuse a child as well?

If a person is not ready to be a parent, there should be legal "outs" for them...we do not need more abused children and screwed up families in this world. People also need to think a little farther into their future than the foot of their bed..or the back seat of their car...but I do not see that really happening in our progressively selfish society.

Original Post by monarch777:

This is a creepy thing to say, but men have been known to purposefully beat or hurt a woman in order to cause her to miscarry. (My bio father kicked my mother in the stomach when she was carrying my brother, for instance) It can be a road some men take out of desperation, or in the case of a mentally ill and abusive man...the only way that they can see to control the situation. I have even seen posts on other sites mentioning that a man who was "trapped" by his pregnant girlfriend could "accidentally"  have her fall down the stairs.

 As far as I am concerned, who would WANT to carry the baby of a man who was that abusive and/or mentally ill in the first place? Hence, the man in the Tremblay v. Daigle case...a man who beats his wife and wants ALSO to force her to have his child....why? So he can abuse a child as well?

If a person is not ready to be a parent, there should be legal "outs" for them...we do not need more abused children and screwed up families in this world. People also need to think a little farther into their future than the foot of their bed..or the back seat of their car...but I do not see that really happening in our progressively selfish society.

Trying to force someone to have a baby is, in my experience as a pregnancy counselor, more common for an abusive partner than trying to force someone to have an abortion or miscarry. Once a woman has your baby (the thinking goes, as far as I understand it), she is tied to you for life. It is harder for her to support herself and her child financially without you, and even if she does leave you can always get access to her via your legal rights to the child (abusing a woman does not strip you of rights to your child, unless you also abuse the child).

And in a significant number of cases, physical abuse begins or escalates when a woman is pregnant: feeling of loss of control (something is happening in her body that he can't control) not to mention that when you are pregnant everyone inserts themselves into your life more (doctors, relatives, social workers, whatever) and can break the isolation that abusive spouses try to enforce. And a lot of men are frankly jealous of the energy and affection that a woman gives to the pregnancy, and later the child, instead of to him.

But yes, it can go both ways: the common thread being the man wanting to impose his wishes on her body. I think we should have stiffer penalties for men who abuse women, pregnant or not: but that pregnancy should be considered an aggravating factor because it is a physiologically precarious condition. Kicking a pregnant woman's belly might make her miscarry, but at the same time you run a significant risk of bleeding out (any blow that can make you miscarry can make you bleed out and go into shock).

It can also go both ways in response: I have known women who want to have an abortion to break all ties to the guy, and women who want to disappear and have their babies far far away from him, because they finally have a motivator (a wanted, loved child) to get their lives back and get on their own two feet.

I just wanted to add that there are MANY women who never should have been mothers as well, and who abuse their husbands and children.

Perhaps part of the resoloution to this problem is better mental health care.

Original Post by monarch777:

I just wanted to add that there are MANY women who never should have been mothers as well, and who abuse their husbands and children.

Perhaps part of the resoloution to this problem is better mental health care.

Yes and yes. I know a woman like that. Not physically abusive as far as I know but pretty damn nuts and makes any man who comes within 10 feet of her absolutely messed up and miserable. And neglects her kid something fierce.

Better mental health care AND more assertive children's aid services and family courts, IMO: too many kids are being left in bad situations because the system lacks the resources to provide anything better.

I think the root of the problem is that abortion is being used and thought of as a form of birth control rather than being responsible in having safe sex in the first place. I am pro-choice; surely a rape victom should have the choice if they want to carry a baby concieved, but our moral values have dropped so low that it's comon place to have abortion simply becuase the partners were to stupid/indifferent to take adequate percautions. Truely when I hear 'the condom broke' I believe that maybe 1 in 10 are actually telling the truth. Having children outside of marriage is more and more accepted. What happened to planned parenthood?

Original Post by sybil878:

I think the root of the problem is that abortion is being used and thought of as a form of birth control rather than being responsible in having safe sex in the first place. I am pro-choice; surely a rape victom should have the choice if they want to carry a baby concieved, but our moral values have dropped so low that it's comon place to have abortion simply becuase the partners were to stupid/indifferent to take adequate percautions. Truely when I hear 'the condom broke' I believe that maybe 1 in 10 are actually telling the truth. Having children outside of marriage is more and more accepted. What happened to planned parenthood?

The stupid, indifferent, and irresponsible should not be punished with forced motherhood.

I have never known anyone who said, before sex, "don't bother wearing a condom, honey, I'm going to have an abortion in four weeks". THAT would be "using abortion as birth control", i.e. intentionally neglecting other methods of contraception while intending to have an abortion instead. In reality it doesn't work that way. You have someone with a chaotic life and a chaotic mind and who has an external locus of control. They neglect to use condoms in the same way that they might neglect to file their taxes or pay their rent or call their mother or go to the dentist. Or hell, maybe they were on a bender that weekend. They aren't neglecting the condoms because of the availability of abortion: they are, instead, magically thinking "it won't happen to me". (They get judged a lot more harshly for failing to contracept than they do for that bender, however, which IMO is not fair.)

Is it better to prevent unplanned pregnancy rather than treat it? Hell, yes. How can we do that? There are a lot of theories, I like the education/health care/empowerment idea mostly. Look at what makes different countries have lower rates of unplanned pregnancy than us: usually it's the normalization of sexuality (no stigma, no shame) and birth control being affordable and accessible, as well as opportunities for all in this life (education, jobs, etc) that makes people actually work harder to have a future that doesn't consist of having kids on welfare.

all of you who are parents from an unintended pregnancy (not in a long term or committed relationship), raise your hand?  or the converse, had an abortion because of an unwilling father to be?

lets interject some reality into this situation.