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?

Not to mention the cost associated with creating a pregnancy with banked sperm.

it can't be that difficult

sperm banks routinely accept donations from men willing to donate - those samples are stored and sold to women or couples who need them

doesn't seem like it's that difficult...  remember those 2 lesbians who used a turkey baster?

Original Post by canuckabroad:

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". 

 

 

This is basically blaming the victim, nor does it take into account responsible sexual partners (ie. using a condom, but it doesn't function properly).

Or to put it in a few other contexts:

I'm sorry, but you knew abortion is illegal in this country and that condoms aren't always 100% effective. You should have just kept your knees together.

or

Hey I recognize that sharia law is oppressive, but you live in a very conservative islamic area; did you really expect them to do nothing when you walked out without a hijab?

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?

 Time to create a process for removing a fetus from a womb and emplanting it elsewhere. Think of all the problems that would solve.

Quick Google says $1500.00 will keep sperm for 5 years, an annual storage fee's required but I don't know how much but it could be as much as $300 a year based on the information.  Then it would cost around $500 per attempt for a pregnancy.

Now if the government is paying?  But why would the taxpayers want too?

I do not think banking sperm is as cost-prohibitive as you think. And creating a pregnancy with it is a matter of thawing and injecting it. Lesbians using turkey basters? It's not as complicated as in-vitro. A good basal thermometer and some charting of ovulation and it IS possible.

But yeah, lets be real, young horny people do not THINK..they just act. They aren't using their logic at that point. If people did, we wouldn't have the problems that we do have. Then everyone whines about their choices being taken away after things happen.

Original Post by trhawley:

Quick Google says $1500.00 will keep sperm for 5 years, an annual storage fee's required but I don't know how much but it could be as much as $300 a year based on the information.  Then it would cost around $500 per attempt for a pregnancy.

Now if the government is paying?  But why would the taxpayers want too?

it might still be cheaper than paying for unintended pregnancies and aid to families with dependent children (aka welfare)

I think it's funny that men are calling themselves the victim here.

Women have had rights over their person and destiny for such a short period of time. Whereas before men called all the shots, now they have to bow occasionally to the will of a woman's choice.

Equality, isn't always fair when applied to choice, yet we choose and in this there will always be winners and losers.

It is how it is.

Original Post by trhawley:

Quick Google says $1500.00 will keep sperm for 5 years, an annual storage fee's required but I don't know how much but it could be as much as $300 a year based on the information.  Then it would cost around $500 per attempt for a pregnancy.

Now if the government is paying?  But why would the taxpayers want too?

 Okay, I guess paying possibly 100,00.00 in child support over a span of 18 years plus is more cost effective.  The government will not pay THAT for you.

And another PLUS is that if you did bank your sperm, it would be a more logical and thought out process than the one you might have in a heated tryst with a virtual stranger. The child would indeed be wanted one would hope.

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

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.

An important, but entirely separate issue.

Though if you we were inclined to meander, Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act last week and your points are actually the Secretary of Labor's agenda so....

Original Post by bagga:

I think it's funny that men are calling themselves the victim here.

Women have had rights over their person and destiny for such a short period of time. Whereas before men called all the shots, now they have to bow occasionally to the will of a woman's choice.

Equality, isn't always fair when applied to choice, yet we choose and in this there will always be winners and losers.

It is how it is.

 I guess the answer is for men to request a pre-grope agreement. Although as we have seen with pre-nups - even those wouldn't be 100% foolproof.

or would that be pre-cop?

Original Post by kathygator:

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.

If I were king, my solution would be (based on my wife's and my recent experience):

The first thing they ask is, "Do you know who the father is?" (even though I was standing right there :p )

If the answer is yes, they get a form with the father's name on it requesting his consent to be a parent. (Could be part of the current Birth Certification process)

The biological is assumed to not consent unless completing and signing the form consenting to becoming a parent.

If no they get another form allowing anyone to opt-in to being the child's legal father.

Original Post by bagga:

I think it's funny that men are calling themselves the victim here.

Women have had rights over their person and destiny for such a short period of time. Whereas before men called all the shots, now they have to bow occasionally to the will of a woman's choice.

Equality, isn't always fair when applied to choice, yet we choose and in this there will always be winners and losers.

It is how it is.

Oh, so two wrongs make a right?

Or is it that only a person who's gender/race/whatever has experienced historical discrimination can speak on social injustice?

Original Post by monarch777:

Original Post by trhawley:

Quick Google says $1500.00 will keep sperm for 5 years, an annual storage fee's required but I don't know how much but it could be as much as $300 a year based on the information.  Then it would cost around $500 per attempt for a pregnancy.

Now if the government is paying?  But why would the taxpayers want too?

 Okay, I guess paying possibly 100,00.00 in child support over a span of 18 years plus is more cost effective.  The government will not pay THAT for you.

And another PLUS is that if you did bank your sperm, it would be a more logical and thought out process than the one you might have in a heated tryst with a virtual stranger. The child would indeed be wanted one would hope.

 I was attempting to point out how absurd the notion of having a government program to provide mandatory vacestomies and sperm banking service to all pubescent males is but I guess I failed.

i like that idea kathy

perhaps courts would uphold legal agreements signed prior to commencement of sexual relations, in which a woman would make it clear that she does or does not intend to have an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and in which a man would make it clear that he will or will not bear any costs, financial or otherwise, should an unintended pregnancy result

this would be helpful to women

then she'd know that she's on her own, should she be in the 1-3% of failed contraception cases

then she could decide not to sleep with him if she didn't want to a) have an abortion or b) bear the costs of raising a child on her own

informed decisions are the best decisions! (but monarch is right - most people wouldn't do this anyway)

and btw, a lot of men get around child support enforcement by changing jobs every month or two, and this includes men who were married and fathered children during their marriage and then left the marriage, not men who hooked up with a random woman and knocked her up because she lied to him about her fertility statu

Original Post by bagga:

I think it's funny that men are calling themselves the victim here.

Women have had rights over their person and destiny for such a short period of time. Whereas before men called all the shots, now they have to bow occasionally to the will of a woman's choice.

Equality, isn't always fair when applied to choice, yet we choose and in this there will always be winners and losers.

It is how it is.

 This is a thinly veiled attempt to make men think that have the power when women know that they always have had the power and always will have the power.

@95 - We could capitalize on existing technology by utilizing dairy farm equipment... 0.o

Oral contraceptives for men.

Original Post by trhawley:

Original Post by monarch777:

Original Post by trhawley:

Quick Google says $1500.00 will keep sperm for 5 years, an annual storage fee's required but I don't know how much but it could be as much as $300 a year based on the information.  Then it would cost around $500 per attempt for a pregnancy.

Now if the government is paying?  But why would the taxpayers want too?

 Okay, I guess paying possibly 100,00.00 in child support over a span of 18 years plus is more cost effective.  The government will not pay THAT for you.

And another PLUS is that if you did bank your sperm, it would be a more logical and thought out process than the one you might have in a heated tryst with a virtual stranger. The child would indeed be wanted one would hope.

 I was attempting to point out how absurd the notion of having a government program to provide mandatory vacestomies and sperm banking service to all pubescent males is but I guess I failed.

i didn't call for them to be mandatory

just want to make that clear

i called for them to be free to anyone who wants one

big difference