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?

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?

You say you're pro-choice but then say it's ok for rape victims but everyone else should basically have to deal. That doesn't sound pro-choice to me. You're pro-life. I know several women who've had abortions and not one of them used abortions as a birth control method. 

I find it hilarious that people assume most women use abortions as birth control. Check the stats. 

I know several women who have had abortions.  For all but one of them, it was a heartwrenching decision made after careful deliberation.  And something they still think about and wrestle with emotionally.

For the one, it was an easy wasy out of several unplanned and unprotected pregnancies.  I think after the 6th one in 4 years, someone at Planned Paernthood should have talked to her about Tubal ligation or some other form of BC.

Original Post by trustwomen:

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."

You don't like the question so you choose to reframe it for something you prefer to answer... not something I usually go for, but I'll play along.

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?

Seeing as how adoption exists in all states and in some cases like CA where no questions asked drop-offs are available at any hospital, the it becomes obvious that the equation does change when the children are unwanted and that the state (on behalf of the collective) is willing to accept responsibility and has a system in place to do so.

Interesting discussion.

I am pro-choice and I while I feel the woman has a right to decide what happens to her body I also understand that the men do sometimes get the short end of the stick here.  Takes two the make it - but if the men don't get much of a say when the woman decides to either carry it to term or abort it. 

I do think that men should be aware  of this - and as a previous poster said "be more conservative with their sex lives". 

The way men get around this issue here, where they are pursued relentlessly to pay for kids they have fathered is:

Here the father can put the mothers name on the birth certificate (because it is easily checked) but the mother can NOT put the fathers name on it unless he is there for obvious reasons.....

So he just refuses to go to the registry office, if he does this she then would have to go to court face a load of legal issues and costs etc, very few women are willing to chase it to that extent if the name isn't on the certificate he's free from responsibility.

On the "it's the children who suffer" thing, well yes maybe they do in some cases, but my view is "If we are saying that a woman has the right to say what happens to her body then she is ulitmately responsible for letting herself get pregnant"! and she should have thought about the "Child" before being so reckless.

I know that won't wear well with some of you but a woman is responsible for what happens to her body, this does include pregnancy!

Of course men are not blameless if they are as reckless then they should be made to pay. Someone said that about men being conservative with their sex lives, this includes women after all they are the ones who can ultimately be left "holding the baby".

Both are equally responsible for taking adequate precautions against pregnancy and neither should assume that the other has taken care of it!

Note: I am not "All for the men" and anti womans rights, but I don't go for this "It's all their fault" business either!

A quote from the film Grease: "if you play, you pay".  I guess I'm lucky, I'm childfree which means that I got a vasectomy before I started having sex which could result in pregnancy (also due to my first partner having had a hysterectomy). 

IMHO more men should take more control of their fertility and bank some sperm, then get a vasectomy.  Reversal is not guaranteed (especially after a few years or so) but it's better than nothing.  Unfortunately, I don't think I'll see male contrception (and I don't believe condoms can be considered contraception) in my lifetime, but when it happens, it will be a great day for men.

This whole abortion issue will be solved I think when abortion is not fatal for the fetus.  Lots of other issues will be created of course, but I think it will be a step in the right direction.

By the way, in my country (New Zealand) previous to about 1978 women had to go to Australia to get abortions.  Then there was this big political blowup and they changed the law, and you could get an abortion due to medical grounds, and that includes depression.  30 years later, you guessed it, abortion is about as free as you can get, although 98% of women asking for one give depression as a reason for wanting one.  It's too much of a hot potato, so politicians won't touch it, I can't see it being touched in the next 15 years.

Original Post by ignayshus:

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.

I agree with this point more than anything else you said.

If a woman and man have a child, both having CHOSEN unprotected sex, and then the woman gets pregnant and decided that, despite his wishes otherwise, she's going to keep the baby, than I think she's responsible for the baby. Period. She's choosing to keep the baby despite his wishes otherwise.

Really, though, I think in ANY case where I can think of this entire argument being valid at all, I think we run into one problem. Sex.

I don't think many people take Sex seriously. I don't think people seriously consider the IMPLICATIONS of Sex.

FACT: IF you have unprotected sex, you run the risk of having a child. That means that if you are not interested in having a child, you should not be having unprotected sex! Period!

I think that's where this entire thing keeps hitting me. You need to understand the implications of having the unprotected sex. If you don't... then there'll be hardship and pain. Whether you're mom or dad. Whether you abort the baby, keep the baby or adopt the baby.

Don't just Have Sex/Make Love/Whatnot. Have Sex Responsibly.

Original Post by hkellick:

Original Post by ignayshus:

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.

I agree with this point more than anything else you said.

If a woman and man have a child, both having CHOSEN unprotected sex, and then the woman gets pregnant and decided that, despite his wishes otherwise, she's going to keep the baby, than I think she's responsible for the baby. Period. She's choosing to keep the baby despite his wishes otherwise.

Really, though, I think in ANY case where I can think of this entire argument being valid at all, I think we run into one problem. Sex.

I don't think many people take Sex seriously. I don't think people seriously consider the IMPLICATIONS of Sex.

FACT: IF you have unprotected sex, you run the risk of having a child. That means that if you are not interested in having a child, you should not be having unprotected sex! Period!

I think that's where this entire thing keeps hitting me. You need to understand the implications of having the unprotected sex. If you don't... then there'll be hardship and pain. Whether you're mom or dad. Whether you abort the baby, keep the baby or adopt the baby.

Don't just Have Sex/Make Love/Whatnot. Have Sex Responsibly.

 I agree with this! Too many people have casual sex without thinking of the consequences. This holds true for both the man and woman.

If you will pass the equal rights amendment and guarantee equal pay for equal work, then we can legislate legal abdication of parental rights & responsibilities.

Seems like a sorry deal to get less pay AND absorb all of the costs of raising the next generation of americans.

I actually kind of agree with you Ig. It is simply inequitable. There's no way around it, men are getting shafted.

And there's no ready solution either. Your idea of giving the man the right of denial would be useless. A woman could simply go off and have the baby without his knowledge and then force support on him.

Trust, while not truly addressing your point, makes a perfectly good one. It's the children that would suffer, and we already have far too much of that.

Please someone explain to me why we can't come up with oral contraceptives for men?

 on edit: nevermind. with a rudimentary understanding of male plumbing - it's probably not possible to make a man temporarily infertile.

Agree that they should have oral contraceptives for men, but would you trust a man to take it every day (or as prescribed) when YOU are the one that will bear the burden?

No. Not suggesting the woman should  relinquish her responsibility to protect herself. But it would certainly stop the Baby Mamma syndrome, if men could control their own fertility the way women can.

While I agree there is unfairness at the contraception level. I do think the court system can no longer continue to deny full parental rights of contact in cases where parents are paying. Equal time for both.

I do agree with you as well.  I tend to lean more pro-life anyway...I just can't get around the "when does life actually start" portion...one day it's fine to abort, the next it isnt...doesn't make sense to me...  slam me if you want...just doesn't make sense to me.

But I have often thought that it wasn't equal in "choice"  why don't the father's have a say...they should.

I am a HUGE advocate of placing your baby up for adoption in these situation, but I know that isn't overly popular either...but if the 15 year old biological mother of my nephew didn't, my life would be void of an amazing little boy!  yes, she had to sacrifce 9 months of her life and the father didn't...no it isn't fair, not at all, but I am so grateful that she did!

(let the bashing begin)

Interestingly.. they're actually beginning to deal with father's rights when it comes to adoption. But adoption isn't the hot-button issue with so many that abortion is. Sadly, it'll probably be a long time until they started dealing with father's rights with abortion.

it's easy to say that this is right and this is wrong...but it really isn't as cut and dry as that.

being responsible and doing more to prevent pregnancies is better for the mom, dad AND especially the baby!

Original Post by kae03:

I do agree with you as well.  I tend to lean more pro-life anyway...I just can't get around the "when does life actually start" portion...one day it's fine to abort, the next it isnt...doesn't make sense to me...  slam me if you want...just doesn't make sense to me.

But I have often thought that it wasn't equal in "choice"  why don't the father's have a say...they should.

I am a HUGE advocate of placing your baby up for adoption in these situation, but I know that isn't overly popular either...but if the 15 year old biological mother of my nephew didn't, my life would be void of an amazing little boy!  yes, she had to sacrifce 9 months of her life and the father didn't...no it isn't fair, not at all, but I am so grateful that she did!

(let the bashing begin)

 

 No bashing where someone has given such a gift, Kathy.

Ignayshus put it very well when he made the argument that evidence of brainwaves is probably the delineation.

Two people consent. A baby is conceived.  First thoughts are selfish, "What about me"?  Let's get past that. We are a society of very selfish, self-absorbed people. Get outside of yourself for a moment and think about the baby that exists. If you are pregnant, then you are carrying a life, a human being. Life has begun for that child and you know it is there.  If neither parent wants "(the child) aka the responsibility" adoption is the unselfish thing to do. However, so many of us don't think about being unselfish, we want what is easy.  Whatever happened to doing what is morally right. Morals have fallen by the wayside.  "Life isn't fair" so what? You made a choice, live with the consequences. If you don't want the consequence, take precautions with your own body before there is a child involved.  People are inheritantly selfish by nature. It takes a mature individual to think of others first and that includes a fetus. 

We should start teaching children about reproductive responsibility at 7 or 8, before the hormones kick in.

I agree with you Kathy...

technically I am in the pro life, abstinence camp, but "we" have done such an injustice in not teaching properly and responsibly.  I personally think that safe sex, sex ed AND waiting should all be taught.  why doesn't it need to be one or the other?  I have talked to my kids about sex since they were young...telling them that it is wonderful and (in our opinion) should be reserved for marriage...but we also taught them about birth control, protecting yourself from diseases and condoms and all that other stuff...when the time comes and they decide what they are going to do...they need to have the answers AND have protection handy. 

again...I really should rule the world.

Original Post by misskady:

  Whatever happened to doing what is morally right. Morals have fallen by the wayside.  "Life isn't fair" so what? You made a choice, live with the consequences. If you don't want the consequence, take precautions with your own body before there is a child involved.  People are inheritantly selfish by nature. It takes a mature individual to think of others first and that includes a fetus. 

Not everyone has the same set of morals, misskady. And that's where you need to step off your high horse and let everyone else decide what to do with their lives.