The big abortion rant thread.

Remove all ads!

I don't think fairness has much of anything to do with it. And this reply isn't directed only at Shoshino, but also LKD, and anyone else who thinks the man should have a say-so. In a perfect world, yes, the man would have some say in the process. But the fact of the matter is, you can't have half of a child. It's an all or nothing proposition. If there is a disagreement over whether or not to have the child, then one person's decision must necessarily override the other's. So there are only to possible scenarios: 1) The woman gets to make the decision irrespective of the man's opinion OR 2) The man gets to make the decision irresepective of the woman's opinion. Given the two choices, I think the former is the more reasonable position given that the mother would have to go through a lot more than the father. I'm all ears if there is a 3rd possibility available.

While I can see where you're coming from if the father doesn't want the baby but the mother does - he's still on the hook for child support - I still have to say tough luck. Just like I also have to say tough luck to the guy who wants to have the baby if the woman does not. That's why I say fairness has little or nothing to do with it. In a perfect world, fairness would come into play, but we do not live in a perfect world. In this particular scenario, the law necessarily has to be set up in such a way where one person's opinion supercedes the other's. I am of the opinion that it is easier to justify the woman having the ultimate decision than the man.

Well, most 1st world countries have government provided health care (the US is very much the exception, not the rule), so the abortion is paid for. In the few countries where it isn't paid for, unless you have actually been in a position to pay for one, how would you know?

 

Almost all of your anwsers assume that they are living together. The way I took your solution, was that the male wanted to have the baby and the female did not. Acutally, he would be doing all of it, not helping, since the female would not have custody of the child, he would.

How can you tell somone who has never been married or lived with a woman in the 21st century? My wife is not my mom. Dude, I fix my own breakfast, do a lot of cleaning, and I do most of the cooking in my household, for two reasons: 1. I'm home more than my wife, who works almost 60 hours a week. Second, I'm a very good cook. Your "idea" of sacrifice isn't really much, since the average male in a home with two career partners does a large part of what you suggest as a "sacrifice" already. Now, maybe if we were still living in 1960....

 

The law is what causes most of the problems in society, in this instance, it accounts for beaten pregnant women.
I have first hand experience on the incompetance of the law writers in this instance because I know a man who went to jail for this. Same story as I described above he was out drinking, met a girl, went back to his and she got knocked up despite the fact that she told him she was on the pill.
He wanted it aborted, she wanted to keep it. He knew full well he would be tapped for child support for 18 years, despite the fact that as a plumber he could easily afford it, so he went around to her house and beat the hell out of her. She lost the baby, he got 6 months, he was delighted.

 

That is one of the horrendous stories I've ever heard. What a piece of scum.

 

No argument from me there, Barmy -- the guy is scum. They should have locked him up for a lot longer than 6 months.

Aldeth, I understand your comments about it not being a perfect world. But even in an imperfect world there is a way for people -- and societies -- of good faith to balance opposing viewpoints and rights. The courts strive to do this all the time.

 

I thought Aldeth covered that quite well in the rest of his post, actually. Unless the two parties are in agreement, the law is going to have to be "unfair" to one of the two parties, allowing the will of one to override the will of the other. Since it is the woman that will have to carry the child, give birth to the child, raise the child, suffer career setbacks as a result of having the child, etc, the "fairer" of the two options is to favor the woman. By comparison, paying for child support is getting off easy.

 

Or at least within enough proximity that the man has the ability to help out.

The Man should be prepared to do these things even if he doesn't want the baby. Even if the baby is to be put up for adoption, the man should be involved in helping the woman through the pregnancy. That way the man takes upon himself at least a portion of the risk of sex, even if his fair share of that risk is biologically impossible.

I've learned most of those skills too. I can remember my father cooking occasionally when he was home and my mother wasn't. Just because mom's not there to cook doesn't mean the rest of us are going to starve...

TBH, Men should learn to do these things for themselves anyway.

But for the guy that has sex outside of marriage and knocks her up. The guy is normally only looking after himself. In this situation it would be a sacrifice of his normally free time. He's on the hook for at least part of the extra expenses that the pregnancy would occur...

That's wrong. The charge should have been manslaughter at least, if not Murder. The rights of the most innocent are not protected under the law. Is that not the issue here?

If that had happened to a female relative of mine, I don't think the guy would have gotten off so easily. I'm not the only one in my family that would go after him...

But how many people in society are actually of good faith? I'm noticing that less and less all the time...

And the objective for a drunk driver is not to kill someone but rather to get home without having to pay for a cab or leave his car somewhere. The poor decision was made and the consequences follow. It doesn't matter what you wanted, once you've done it, the risks are taken. The question now is what to do now that the woman is knocked up. I think both the man and the woman should be on the hook to at least bring the child into the world, even if they choose adoption...

Not so fast. When they had sex, they both agreed to the risks involved in the act. If the man no longer wishes to be a party to the consequences, that should negate the consent, meaning that rape charges could retroactively be applied to the recalcitrant male...

Coerce? No, but he should have the right to plead for the life of his child.

He agreed to that when he had sex with her in the first place. Sorry, no dice.

That brings up an interesting question. If the person agreed to have sex under false pretenses, does that invalidate consent?

Nobody forced them to have sex. They made that decision and now they have to live with the consequences of their decision.

 

I'm wondering, to all the pro-choice people here, if your girlfriend or you, if you're a woman, and you/she are/is about 2 months pregnant, could I give her the ol' falcon punch? What punishment should I receive?

 

All I'm saying is that if there are responsibilities, there should be corresponding rights. It has been said that if a woman goes into sex "just for fun" becomes pregnant, then it is not right for the man to try to force her to have the baby, as she never consented to being a "breeder", she only consented to sex.

If that is the case, then the converse should also be true. The man never consented to being a father, he only consented to sex. If she has options to avoid parenthood (abortion, adoption) then so should he -- ALL decisions should not rest SOLELY with the woman. And if people (of either gender) are not negotiating / behaving in good faith, then it falls to the courts to sort it out. All I'm proposing as that they consider the man's position before making decisions if that court involvement becomes necessary.

 

There's been a few comments made about giving the child up for adoption. It's not as easy as you'd think. Carrying a child for 9 months is a massive thing, regardless of if you want it or not. To then just give it up is as much an emotional killer as having an abortion. At least with the abortion, you don't really have much time to form any kind of bond.

 

On the parental rights and responsabilities issue, the reason this doesn't actually happen (and really never will) is because the courts don't care about being fair, they care about the wellbeing of the child (when the mother wants it). This demands that the father provide some kind of support for the child. If that's the standard, I say we apply it all around. If the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, the mother legally has to bring the child to term (to be raised by its father), and may even be required to pay some kind of child support if she refuses to support the child after birth. Is that cruel to the mother? Yes. Is forcing a father to pay money for 18 years because his condom broke once cruel to him? Yes. Is it best for the child either way? Yes.

Silvery, I've never been in those situations myself, but I've talked to people who have, and they all say that abortion is far more damaging psychologically than adoption. It's an easier decision to make at the beginning, but it's much harder to live with.

 

Preaching to the choir there lover. However, I don't think I could have got over it had I gone full term and then given it up. I mean, you hear all the time about awful things happening to kids. It must be awful to sit there and think 'is that my kid?'

 

I've never heard of that. As far as I know abortion is still legal and the choice of the mother. But if you are saying that that is what you believe should happen, then, IMO, you are treating women as cattle. That has been the argument of most radical femininsts, that a lot of men "traffic" in women as if they are property. However, there are many men who refute that argument, because they are willing to respect the individual of rights of women. Unfortunatley there are still males who have the notion of women as propety, which makes the rest of us look bad.

 

and similarly...

Like I said, I think the law has to be unfair to some extent, so part of that explanation does go back to the current state of the law, which I believe is correct in this case. I also think that there is a more fundamental reason to it as well. (And I freely admit that my perspective of this may be unfairly influenced by the fact that I am a father myself.) To me, if the father were not forced to pay child support, it would bring unnecessary hardship to the child. Is that unfair to the father? In the infamous words of Sarah Palin: you betcha. But the current existance of the child (for which the father is at least partly responsible) overrides this unfairness. That the woman could have had an abortion or given the child up for adoption does not completely remove all culpability of the father. And I realize you can (and likely do) disagree. This is just my opinion that I support the law the way it is currently enforced.

 

But sex does not come without risk. Is it too much to ask that they take responsibility for the risks they take? That should be the case no matter which parent wants the child.

There's also the idea of faith. If you have faith that the people whio adopt your child could give them a better chance than you could have, then that's what you cling too. I never said it was easy, but I'm trying to plead for the lives of these children...

 

Regardless of what the reality is for the child? Sometimes, getting an abortion is the responsible thing to do. If you are not ready for parenthood, don't try it. It's way more than most people realize who have never ventured it. The consideration has to be for the child's welfare, rather than "religious" dogma or ideology.