The big abortion rant thread.

Remove all ads!

I don't think you are a "refugee," LKD.

 

Holdout? Throwback? Unreconstructed sonofahore? Regressive? I'll have to keep thinking of better adjectives for what I was trying to express

But I appreciate the comment, Chandos my friend.

You know, I can't tell a lot of things here as openly as Silvery and Dragonfly did. But after my first marriage I had a "little adventure" that gave me a whole new insight into the issue, believe me. I told her that I would support her and the baby financially and emotionally to the best of my ability, as that is what I believe the moral thing to do is. It wasn't easy, believe me. Sadly, she was forced to end it due to medical complications. It wasn't an easy time for me and probably less so for her.

 

Chandos, the man may not know what it's like, but men form pre-birth emotional bonds to their children, too. My problem with that whole arguement is that it misses the point, though. It assumes the issue is who has the right to decide, the man or the woman. The truth is that neither one does, because both would be choosing their convenience. Life trumps convenience any day. If a mother of three is on life-support after a car accident, but getting better and has a good prognosis, does the father have the right to pull the plug on her just because it's inconvenient? Young mothers who give birth and then toss the child (because it's inconvenient) are thrown in jail all the time. Unless there's something medically wrong with the pregnancy which makes it more than inconvenient for the mother, her preference isn't an issue.

Dragonfly, I'm sorry if you took my comments as an attack. I wasn't intending them to be such. I was simply seeking to define my position. It seemed to be that your abortion was something you had accepted as killing a (potential) child already and you would not be offended by me re-itterating that. I'm sorry if I was wrong.

The point you make about quality of life seems like a good one, but everywhere else that it comes up in life, the fact of life is given presidence over the quality of life. Why should it be different here?

 

It is true though.

if a woman wants the child and the man doesnt, likewise the man has no rights, and he is lumbered with a child he didnt want, he has to financially carry that child until it is 18 it is ruled that he has to take responsibility for his actions, he had sex, ergo he is responsible. But once again the law always protects women from their ignorance, they can do away with the child eventhough the man wants it.

from that perspective, the child is joint property, possession laws dont apply.

Why? I disagree, when she had sex with that man, she gave up those sole rights, and consented to her body being used for childbirth, she knows full well that she can get pregnant, and technically 'mating' is carried out for the purpose of procreation, if you ask me, she made her decision. Im not saying that she shouldnt have rights, but there are 2 peoples rights to be considered, it should go to court and if it can be confirmed that the man has the ability to take care of that child or is willing to learn then she is bound by the contract they made when they "lay together" and if she takes action against that, she should be charged.

interesting that you need a licence to drive a car, but you dont need anything to have a child..... hmmm

 

Shoshino, You have to pass the practical exam but not the theory!

 

NO, she did not. She consented to have sex. Sex for pleasure is not the same as sex for "mating" as you claim. You are making your own definitions, and those definitions are not what is "agreed upon" by all the parties. Your view makes women who have sex, consenting to be merely "breeders." I find your point of view not only sexist, but revolting.

 

I think that both Shoshino and Chandos have valid points... but at the same time I am willing to say that both are wrong. To me, there are two separate things as Chandos suggests, sex for pleasure, and sex for procreation, but at the same time they are of course connected. One must realize that when engaging in sex for pleasure there is a chance of pregnancy... This is where I tend to agree with Shoshino that some right must be given to the man involved. Not necessarily equal right, but some say in the matter both ways should be in law. Of course I cannot fathom how this would work out as I haven't given it much thought... but it's just the basis of my thinking.

 

Actually, you are free to choose your actions, but not the consequences of those actions. In the case of sex, pregnancy is a potential consequence. No matter the precautions used, pregnancy is always a possibility. When you have sex, you must be aware of that risk. To deny this is foolishness. Both participants then gain some responsibility for these results. That means that if the child is carried to term and not given up for adoption, then the man maintains responsibility for the support of the child.

But to deny the father the right to plead for the life of his child is also torturous and wrong. The Mother of the child may take the lion's share of the risk, stress and difficulty, but she is not the only one that will have feelings for the child...

 

Ok, so we are agreed on this. And how is this resolved? I still say it is best resolved between the couple. To say that the woman must be legally coerced into breeding is servitude, IMO.

 

That's where the problem is... resolving it. A decision between the couples is certainly the best, but if they disagree the situation can get dicey.

I still can't think of a legitimate solution for this. The best off my head is what Chandos is saying, but it doesn't solve the "joint" rights problem.

 

'Why is it that the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't wanna f*ck in the first place? Huh?'

'How come when it's a person it's an abortion, but when it's a chicken it's an omelette?'

- RIP George Carlin

 

lol barmy. It's very true

 

Actually, the hardcore Pro-Life crowd will still insist that an abortion is murder. I'm trying not to hop on the soap box here, but that bottom line is inescapable. Nobody wants to hear it when I try to be more reasonable and find a solution...

The woman had the choice* to have sex. Once the act has happened, the consequences are not hers to choose. If she was not prepared to have the child, she should not have had sex.

*I'm not talking about rape. If a woman becomes pregnant as a result of a rape, then I stay the f--- out of the decision. Mind you I wouldn't shed any tears for the rapist if he got killed too...

I know quite a few people that oppose abortion that I would love to, um, well you get the picture (whether you want to or not). Unfortunatly, most of them are either married or not interested in me...

Off Topic: Whether you want to admit it, most humans eat animal products. Breaking a few eggs for an omlette is no greater evil than killing a few chickens for a bucket of KFC and a box of McNuggets...

 

Normally, it takes two to have sex. Too bad you are not willing to extend those "consquences" you keep harping about to the male as well. Gee, I wonder why? I could just as easily argue that the male knew the "consequences of having sex," and now it's too bad, since it's really the woman's choice of whether or not to carry the fetus to term. If he doesn't like her choice then he never should have had sex with her in the first place.

 

really? I like shooting things, I find it very stress relieving and often pleasureable.
now, im going to compare 2 situations from this 'hobby'

1: shooting inanimate objects, compared to masturbating, pleasure, no risk.

2: shooting a living thing, compared to intercourse, shooting a moving object is much more pleasureable, I dont really want to kill it... but I could.
That is a consequence of my action, if Im not prepared for that consequence (which Im not) I dont shoot living things- I have a choice. I shot it... but I didnt agree to kill it... that was an accident, not my fault.

If your not prepared to be pregnant, you dont have sex.
Im all for aboration ,but it should require 2 signitures

What are you talking about? weve all agreed that a man has consequences, only he doesnt have a choice in those consequences only a woman does - thats the problem

 

Really.

We will just have to disagree over the first point, since that is just a matter of personal opinion (but most people do have sex for pleasure). I don't think that getting pregnant is often the objective.

As to the second point, we've already covered that. The day a man has to carry the baby for nine months, is the day his signature should be required. Until that day, it should be the woman's decision. But my advice to you is to settle the issue with your sex partner before engaging. That way you both will have a clear understanding. Explain to her that you want it to be your decision whether or not she has to carry your baby to term. But, having done that, you may end up with your first option....

 

I can agree with the basic point, though Chandos. It's a question of consequences. Pregnancy may not be the objective, but it can be the result. To put it another way:

If you're not prepared to be a fatass, you don't eat cheeseburgers. (Objective: Mmmmmm.)
If you're not prepared to OD, you don't shoot heroine. (Objective. Weeee.)
If you're not prepared to be pregnant, you dont have sex. (Objective: Oh, oh, oh, oh. Zzzz.)

In all cases, the result can be (and often is) decidely different than the objective. But you're right, most people do consider sex recreational first and reproductive second. It's a question of responsibility and precaution.

 

The Bunny has it. I know for a fact that when I have sex, I am doing it for fun. I mean, I've had a vasectomy -- I do not go in looking to reproduce. Been there, done that, still paying the child support.

That said, though, the 1 in a 1,000,000 chance exists that my vas deferens will reconnect. Then, regardless of my intentions going into the sex, there is a situation ahead that is gonna be difficult. HOWEVER, . . . .

as Chandos said, it takes two people to have sex. I firmly believe that the responsibilities extend to both the man and the woman. As such, so do the rights -- he was just as much in on the creation of the baby, so why not at least take into account what he has to say? And while in an ideal world, the couple could hash it out themselves, in the real world, there is often serious disagreement. The courts get involved in such delicate cases in other matters, I fail to see why they cannot be involved in such a way that protects the rights and enforces the responsibilities on both parties.

In other comments, I'd like to experience some consensual ABNORMAL sex, using Chandos' above definition. Alas, my religion prohibits such fun, and my wife would slice off my twig and berries if I even suggested such a thing.

 

DR - You know in our society most men who have sex would let out a huge sigh of relief to hear a woman say that she's not going to carry a fetus to term that was the result of sex for the sake of having sex. However, there are those who may want to become dads, like Shoshino, (I guess) even if that was not the objective.

So walk me through this. I have a lot of experience with this, but I'm not quite sure of where the argument for the "guy's equality" is placed in the process. So let's say that some judge requires "two signatures," as has been suggested, for a resolution regarding whether or not to have the child.

So let's begin: We can have any of four combinations:

1. Both parties agree on an abortion. (unhappy choice, but may be necessary)

2. Both parties agree to keep the child (good choice).

3. The female wants an abortion but the guy wants to keep the baby. (difficult choice, but I guess the guy will walk home with a nice bouncing baby)

4. The female wants to keep the baby and the guy doesn't and wants the abortion. (does that mean that a woman is forced to have an abortion that she does not want in this scenario?)

Are we agreed on that? Or am I missing something in what you are suggesting?

 

I wasn't disagreeing with you on the whole, Chandos - just what appeared to be your dismissing of the notion of "if you don't want a baby, don't have sex" concept out of hand. It does make sense on a basic level.

In terms of sharing the difficult decision, I'm not sure we can say difinitively if both parties should have an equal say. In my mind it depends on the people involved. That said, it would seem fair to give the woman more of a say than the man for obvious reasons. He will not risk his life, his health, potential of a miscarriage, stretchmarks, pain of childbirth, etc. If the woman does not want to keep the child and he does, that's one hell of an imposition. However, my way of thinking is, she should have thought about that before having unprotected sex. They both should have. Their mistake created human life and terminating that life is not a solution to their problem, it's a perverse form of a get out of jail free card.

Unlike LKD, mine ain't loaded with blanks*. Yet I have a perfect track record of not slipping one past the goalie in all my years. It's really not that difficult to prevent pregnancy, so I have very little sympathy for anyone considering an abortion. You have to take responsibility for what you do. Since giving the baby up for adoption will bring incalculable joy to someone else's life, think of it as 9 months of community service.

* Though, having yet to attempt to conceive myself, I have no way of knowing this. But I'd like to think my boys are excellent swimmers.