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?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28438682/

Here's an answer, looks like we have a federal law on the books since 2004 as a result of the Laci Petersen murder.

Original Post by trustwomen:

Original Post by trhawley:

 Yes, but is this right?  Even in the case of a married couple, if the wife gets pregnant and doesn't want a child she can have an abortion even if the husband wants the child.  The husband has no legal recourse, is this the way that it should be?

They disagree. One of them gets the final say. If it is the man, then the woman's body is no longer her own: she has to have an abortion if that's what he wants, or go through childbirth if that's what he wants, in either case against her will.

Would anyone in their right mind argue that a man has a right to force his wife to get an abortion? No? That would violate her bodily integrity? How about forcing her to give birth, which carries much more physical risk not to mention everything else?

 Yes, when they disagree the woman gets the final say as is the case in all disagreements.  But I believe that the man should have some control over his own future as well.

Original Post by jeffmidguard:

Don't know if this one's been answered fully yet. There have been cases in the states recently where a person has been charged with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman. 

 There is a case in Indiana right now where a pregnant bank teller was shot during a robbery.  She was carrying twins.  She survived and one twin was delivered alive and the other was dead in the womb.  The twin the was delivered died a few days later.  The woman is suing the bank for not providing adequate protection and is seeking damages for the wrongful death of her child but per current law she can only claim damages for the child that was delivered alive.  There is no wrongful death in Indiana for a fetus.  There is a bill in the Indiana House this session to try and change that.

Pre-cop. Only way to go. Which means no one under the age of 18 can have sex, since minors cannot legally enter into a contract.

Honestly though, Tom. Even if the 30 year old in your story did not force support on the guy, had she fallen into hard times, the state would have.

So while you and Ig make a valid point about the inequity that exists, Ig's OP is correct  "and sometimes not all individuals end up with the same rights with or without government intervention"

There simply is no realistic way to change it.

Actually the woman in the story does receive some state assistance in addition to the child support since she was not in a position financially to raise two children.  But her situation is improving. 

But I agree that an iron clad pre-cop is the way to go.  If I had sons, I have one drawn up for them but since I have daughters the current law is all they need. 

Original Post by drea99:

I see that my comment was ignored.  Not one of you posting about these conniving sluts who hide pregnancies and induce men to get pregnant have gotten pregnant outside of a committed relationship.  Not one has had a woman have the baby that you didnt want, or vice versa.

For the record, you have a stronger case legally (which again, legal knowledge and the basic premise of why abortion is legal seems to be sorely lacking in this discussion), you have a stronger case legally (to repeat myself) if you WANT her to have the child than not.  And a single man's unfairness at having to pay a pittance to assist in the raising of his flesh and blood is a drop in the bucket compared to the state aid that goes into raising a child that a biological father refuses to support.  You accidentally crash your car into another car-- still your responsibility, seat belt or no, that person gets injured, you are going to pay.

 

edit: gross spelling mistakes.

Your comment was ignored because it wasn't relevant. I don't think anybody even approached from the angle of women having babies as a predatory practice.

It certainly wasn't part of the OP.

Original Post by trustwomen:

Do you really think the state adequately supports children right now, iggy? Again, not children unwanted by both parents (they get adopted out, if they are lucky) but those unwanted by one parent.

By the state are you referring to the Federal government, all individual states or any given state?

edit: actually my answer would probably be "I don't know" regardless of your answer, but then it doesn't really matter to my argument. In your example, the parent that wanted the child took on the obligation to do so, which is all I'm addressing.

It's a delicate balancing act between encouraging irresponsible parents and protecting children.

Original Post by trustwomen:

It's the equating of refusal to pay support to a born child to having an abortion that I just can't fathom. Like it or not, women don't always have the "right" to an abortion: if they can't afford one, if they are too far along, if they live in an area with no providers and can't travel, if they are minors and don't have parental consent, etc. But even if they did have that right, it still wouldn't be an obligation. I appreciate that you get that.

Neither parent has the right to refuse to pay support to their children. It's not a gender thing. That one gender sometimes manages to avail themselves of the opportunity to end a pregnancy and therefore avoid a potential child is simply because of bodily integrity and the fact that they happen to be the ones who are pregnant. Men also have the right of bodily integrity. Yes, women can prevent birth both before and after sex whereas men can only prevent it before sex (and both genders do so imperfectly, in any case) but honestly there is no way you can make that fair or equal. Just like you can't make it fair that men lose weight so much faster or have greater upper body strength or whatever.

bold#1 - Yet men never have the right to be absolved of an unwanted pregnancy. You're equating the minority of cases for women to all cases for men. That's hardly reasonable.

bold#2 - Because of the current system in place. I'm merely stating that the system is horribly one-sided and that there may be a solution to curbing the more onerous nature of the current system.

you never did address the fact that choosing to have an abortion is not the same type of choice as opting out of paying any child support -- do you find this to be an irrelevant consideration?

as for the status quo being anti-democratic, i thought you realized that we don't live in a democracy, this is a republic

 

say, how often do extinction events tend to happen?  are we due for one?  because if so, this is a totally irrelevant discussion

edit: lost one totally

Original Post by ignayshus:

Original Post by drea99:

I see that my comment was ignored.  Not one of you posting about these conniving sluts who hide pregnancies and induce men to get pregnant have gotten pregnant outside of a committed relationship.  Not one has had a woman have the baby that you didnt want, or vice versa.

For the record, you have a stronger case legally (which again, legal knowledge and the basic premise of why abortion is legal seems to be sorely lacking in this discussion), you have a stronger case legally (to repeat myself) if you WANT her to have the child than not.  And a single man's unfairness at having to pay a pittance to assist in the raising of his flesh and blood is a drop in the bucket compared to the state aid that goes into raising a child that a biological father refuses to support.  You accidentally crash your car into another car-- still your responsibility, seat belt or no, that person gets injured, you are going to pay.

 

edit: gross spelling mistakes.

Your comment was ignored because it wasn't relevant. I don't think anybody even approached from the angle of women having babies as a predatory practice.

It certainly wasn't part of the OP.

 Although it does happen.

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

you never did address the fact that choosing to have an abortion is not the same type of choice as opting out of paying any child support -- do you find this to be an irrelevant consideration?

as for the status quo being anti-democratic, i thought you realized that we don't live in a democracy, this is a republic

 

say, how often do extinction events tend to happen?  are we due for one?  because if so, this is a totally irrelevant discussion

edit: lost one totally

bold#1:

142 - I said yes, it's a different choice, one that may require painful outpatient surgery. But it doesn't change the logic. In addition, opting out of child support wasn't the crux, opting out of all parental rights and obligations to the child was.

bold#2:

redherring - we as a society glorify and strive for equality between all our citizens.

Original Post by jeffmidguard:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,488644,00.html

This one was at 23 weeks and probably could've survived.

You're right, if the president can bring himself to vote other than present on this issue, it won't change my mind. But articles like this one might cause some people to reconsider.

Yup, I'll never let an unlicensed medical practitioner in a poorly run clinic attempt to incorrectly dispose of medical stuff without the proper biohazard containers ever again.

In other words, this doesn't change me from being pro-choice, but it is appalling in a "someone should alert the AMA and whoever else is enforcing those OSHA guidelines" kind of way.

Twas fun, but I gotta earn my keep and things just got interesting here, I'll check on you guys at lunch or maybe in 8 or so hours.

If not, have a great weekend all, thanks for the back and forth and letting get my thoughts out.

Original Post by trhawley:

Original Post by ignayshus:

Original Post by drea99:

I see that my comment was ignored.  Not one of you posting about these conniving sluts who hide pregnancies and induce men to get pregnant have gotten pregnant outside of a committed relationship.  Not one has had a woman have the baby that you didnt want, or vice versa.

For the record, you have a stronger case legally (which again, legal knowledge and the basic premise of why abortion is legal seems to be sorely lacking in this discussion), you have a stronger case legally (to repeat myself) if you WANT her to have the child than not.  And a single man's unfairness at having to pay a pittance to assist in the raising of his flesh and blood is a drop in the bucket compared to the state aid that goes into raising a child that a biological father refuses to support.  You accidentally crash your car into another car-- still your responsibility, seat belt or no, that person gets injured, you are going to pay.

 

edit: gross spelling mistakes.

Your comment was ignored because it wasn't relevant. I don't think anybody even approached from the angle of women having babies as a predatory practice.

It certainly wasn't part of the OP.

 Although it does happen.

Somehow I think that falls well into the minority.

You know the instances of babies being thrust into the financial arms of reluctant dads without recourse would be cut down to a trickle if MEN would take responsibility for their birth control.

So there are no chemical pills for you to take...so what, skin that snake in latex every time and the likely hood of a pregnancy is slim to none dependent only on latex failure which I admit happens.

It doesn't feel natural...again, so what. If MEN are so worried about equality in choice and quality of experience than rally for more choices over your own bodies, put your time, money and efforts into the research for more acceptable alternatives, don't just expect it all to be in the hands of some ill chosen hussy or potential predatory birthing machine.

In the meantime stop casting your seed into every womb that blows your way, skin it, or STFU.

Not so sure about that Ig. I think there is a new culture of pregnancy as status symbol among some of our youth.

Original Post by ignayshus:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
you never did address the fact that choosing to have an abortion is not the same type of choice as opting out of paying any child support -- do you find this to be an irrelevant consideration?

as for the status quo being anti-democratic, i thought you realized that we don't live in a democracy, this is a republic

 

say, how often do extinction events tend to happen?  are we due for one?  because if so, this is a totally irrelevant discussion

edit: lost one totally

bold#1:

142 - I said yes, it's a different choice, one that may require painful outpatient surgery. But it doesn't change the logic. In addition, opting out of child support wasn't the crux, opting out of all parental rights and obligations to the child was.

bold#2:

redherring - we as a society glorify and strive for equality between all our citizens.

1. interesting that you think the woman is really deciding on whether to have a surgical procedure and that this is the inherent nature of her choice

 

2. yes, and unwanted children are the only ones in any of these scenarios that had zero input into whether to be born and whether to be financially supported by both parents - we would punish them in order to give fathers an opt-out. This would reveal society's true priorities if it were implemented.

 

 

The maternal extinct has been exploited in our society to the advantage of men.  Because of this wish to nurture the maternal instinct in women, a woman's decision to have or not to have an abortion encompasses a whole range of emotions and instincts with which a male is not burdened.

Women are referred to as 'good mothers' in defense of an action. Men are deemed 'good fathers' as a compliment. Clearly the norm is that women must be good mothers and men should be good fathers.

Most women are still raised to be the primary care-givers of children and the primary care-takers of the home.

Given these societal norms, and the grave imbalance of responsibility for most parents, the decision of the state to hold a man and a woman equally fiscally responsible for their biological issue, while possibly not equitable under some circumstances, is fair and just.

In answer to your concern: Doesn't matter if there are some men who suffer from unfair child support decisions. As a society we deem ourselves responsible for our offspring, period. 

And as Bagga said:  The fact is, a man as the choice to copulate or not.

I knew if I thought about it long enough.....