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?
Wrap your head around this!
If men wrapped their heads around this (thier only real place of control in this matter), there would be far less of these to argue about.
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
Original Post by monarch777:
Original Post by trhawley:
I guess what I getting from the comments is that women can't be trusted so men should always take their own precautions but the question still is when those precautions fail, and we know they do because no method of birth control is 100% effective, shouldn't the man have some rights? Men don't currently have any rights, they just have responsiblities.
Or, both sides could practice abstinance until they actually find a partner that if by chance, they happen to pro-create with, they wouldn't mind. Casual sex makes for unwanted pregnancies. For sure.
My husband had one child with his first wife who divorced him. He decided that he never wanted to put another child through the crap he went through with his parents divorce...so he had a vasectomy when she was only 5. That's pretty drastic, but I think he did a responsible thing. He did not want anymore children...so he made SURE that it wouldn't happen. In the age of freezing your sperm just in case....I do not think it's that drastic of an option. Maybe it's pretty smart.
That's what James in New Zealand suggested. I kind of agree. For those men who wish to protect themselves from financial obligations.
I'll go a step further.
Vasectomies ought to be free of charge to anyone who wants one.
Not sure. I know he spent thousands on lawyers to obtain custody. In many cases the woman claims she does not work, or works such a low-paying job that her support amount ends up being only a pittance. Or just maybe he is also afraid that since their mother has been out of the picture for a few years, that if she pops back into their life it will disrupt any emotional progress and continuing stability they have made since their dad received custody. Since she is a high-school dropout and has had a drug history, maybe he is afraid that the pursuit of a few bucks a month will not outweigh the problems.
edit: CoffinCritter: What's to stop the woman from hiding the pregnancy from the man until the baby is born?
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
Original Post by monarch777:
Original Post by trhawley:
I guess what I getting from the comments is that women can't be trusted so men should always take their own precautions but the question still is when those precautions fail, and we know they do because no method of birth control is 100% effective, shouldn't the man have some rights? Men don't currently have any rights, they just have responsiblities.
Or, both sides could practice abstinance until they actually find a partner that if by chance, they happen to pro-create with, they wouldn't mind. Casual sex makes for unwanted pregnancies. For sure.
My husband had one child with his first wife who divorced him. He decided that he never wanted to put another child through the crap he went through with his parents divorce...so he had a vasectomy when she was only 5. That's pretty drastic, but I think he did a responsible thing. He did not want anymore children...so he made SURE that it wouldn't happen. In the age of freezing your sperm just in case....I do not think it's that drastic of an option. Maybe it's pretty smart.
That's what James in New Zealandsuggested. I kind of agree. For those men who wish to protect themselves from financial obligations.
I'll go a step further.
Vasectomies ought to be free of charge to anyone who wants one.
Tying tubes too...should be free then !
Original Post by bagga:
Wrap your head around this!
If men wrapped their heads around this (thier only real place of control in this matter), there would be far less of these to argue about.
You've missed the point. We're are talking about what happens when those fail, which they do from time to time.
Original Post by monarch777:
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
Original Post by monarch777:
Original Post by trhawley:
I guess what I getting from the comments is that women can't be trusted so men should always take their own precautions but the question still is when those precautions fail, and we know they do because no method of birth control is 100% effective, shouldn't the man have some rights? Men don't currently have any rights, they just have responsiblities.
Or, both sides could practice abstinance until they actually find a partner that if by chance, they happen to pro-create with, they wouldn't mind. Casual sex makes for unwanted pregnancies. For sure.
My husband had one child with his first wife who divorced him. He decided that he never wanted to put another child through the crap he went through with his parents divorce...so he had a vasectomy when she was only 5. That's pretty drastic, but I think he did a responsible thing. He did not want anymore children...so he made SURE that it wouldn't happen. In the age of freezing your sperm just in case....I do not think it's that drastic of an option. Maybe it's pretty smart.
That's what James in New Zealandsuggested. I kind of agree. For those men who wish to protect themselves from financial obligations.
I'll go a step further.
Vasectomies ought to be free of charge to anyone who wants one.
Tying tubes too...should be free then !
i guess so, even though it's not as simple and inexpensive a procedure as a vasectomy is... but yes, to make it fair and easy for people who don't want to be parents to ensure that they won't
I am in favour of retroactive abortion. In some cases. Of my choosing.
I think the answer lies in education not legislation. I think that sex in our society is regarded much too casually. Partners should be more aware of the risks and responsibilities of their actions. Agreements should be reached before not negotiated after.
Original Post by trhawley:
Original Post by bagga:
Wrap your head around this!
If men wrapped their heads around this (thier only real place of control in this matter), there would be far less of these to argue about.
You've missed the point. We're are talking about what happens when those fail, which they do from time to time.
you're effed...
i think the answer lies in education and freely available sterilization.
Original Post by bagga:
Original Post by trhawley:
Original Post by bagga:
Wrap your head around this!
If men wrapped their heads around this (thier only real place of control in this matter), there would be far less of these to argue about.
You've missed the point. We're are talking about what happens when those fail, which they do from time to time.
you're effed...
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?
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
i think the answer lies in education and freely available sterilization.
But some people that don't want children now, might like to have children in the future.
With laproscopy, tubal ligations are much easier than they ever were, and the recovery time is about as long as a vasectomy. I guess abortions and the cost of unwanted pregnancies probably surpass the cost to our government..and society.
Original Post by trhawley:
Original Post by bagga:
Original Post by trhawley:
Original Post by bagga:
Wrap your head around this!
If men wrapped their heads around this (thier only real place of control in this matter), there would be far less of these to argue about.
You've missed the point. We're are talking about what happens when those fail, which they do from time to time.
you're effed...
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?
Yes, it's the way it should be. There are many chances with her life and her physiology that the man does not have to go through. She should not be FORCED to do so. That should be something she wants to do voluntarily. Besides, would you want a mother raising your baby who totally resents it? Birth is much more complicated than a woman being a vehicle to carry a baby to term....
Original Post by trhawley:
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
i think the answer lies in education and freely available sterilization.
But some people that don't want children now, might like to have children in the future.
for guys, bank your sperm, get the vasectomy - you're set
for girls... you've got the various pills, rings, patches, and devices that have been developed over the past 40ish years - choose one
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
Original Post by trhawley:
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
i think the answer lies in education and freely available sterilization.
But some people that don't want children now, might like to have children in the future.
for guys, bank your sperm, get the vasectomy - you're set
for girls... you've got the various pills, rings, patches, and devices that have been developed over the past 40ish years - choose one
Now you're creating economic hurdle. How many young men can really afford to do this? The same men that can't afford this are the ones whose lives are ruined by child support payments.
i'm calling for free vasectomies at will
how much does it cost to donate sperm for future use?
(that is not something i care to research on my work computer)
I don't know but I'm assuming the the technology needed to keep the sperm reliably viable wouldn't come cheap.
 |
vickramr added kisqo as a friend |
 |
New journal post I HATE MySpace by coolvending5 06:05 |
|
vickramr added picturesque_15 as a friend |
