0
grue

Define your view on abortion?

Recommended Posts

GeorgiaDon

You could also look at it this way:

Case 1: demand responsible behavior from an adult who chose to engage in sex without taking adequate provision against pregnancy, despite claiming he doesn't want to be responsible for a child,

vs

Case 2: victimize a child who had absolutely no choice in the circumstances of their conception, likely condemning that child to an upbringing in poverty (considering that single parenthood is the single best predictor of poverty).

Don't want kids? Take responsibility for birth control yourself. Sure you don't want kids? Get snipped.

Don



bumper sticker response, Don. But you write "adult who chose to engage in sex", but then followup with single gender references the entire time. The 1950's wants your attitude back.

yet I still hold an analogy for you to consider that takes it into account - despite your male dominated, patriarchal bias on the subject

Do you hold the woman and the man to equal expectations? AND you want to protect the child that either adult chooses to raise?

Then my analogy is the question for you - if you hold the man responsible for the upbringing of the child (scenaro where the woman chooses to bear the child but the man doesn't want it) - will you hold the woman equally responsible for the upbringing if the man adopts a baby (scenario where the woman gets an abortion, but the man still wants a baby).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

bumper sticker response, Don. But you write "adult who chose to engage in sex", but then followup with single gender references the entire time. The 1950's wants your attitude back.

It seems every time anybody raises the abortion issue you trot out your "poor oppressed men" schtick. Yet, somehow, I cannot recall a single instance in which you have acknowledged that the child (should the mother choose to carry the pregnancy to term) is a human being with actual needs, needs that we as a society have decided have to be met by the adults responsible for that child's existence.

Perhaps my attitude is from the 1950s. On the other hand, American society is rife with problems (crime, poverty) in large measure directly related to fathers walking away from their responsibilities.

Why should I (as a taxpayer) have to pay to support your kid so you can move on to the next woman, and the next, and the one after that? You may say "let the mother shoulder the whole burden", but I'm sure you're aware that juggling caring for a child with holding down a job that pays well enough to meet everyones needs is a balance that eludes the vast majority of single mothers.

Quote

Do you hold the woman and the man to equal expectations? AND you want to protect the child that either adult chooses to raise?

Then my analogy is the question for you - if you hold the man responsible for the upbringing of the child (scenaro where the woman chooses to bear the child but the man doesn't want it) - will you hold the woman equally responsible ...

If the question is, should the mother be able to drop the child with the father and walk away, leaving him alone to meet the costs and needs of the child, my answer would be no. Both parents need to take responsibility for their child. Ideally taking responsibility would involve actually raising the child, but at a minimum it would need to be providing financially for the child's needs.

Quote

will you hold the woman equally responsible for the upbringing if the man adopts a baby (scenario where the woman gets an abortion, but the man still wants a baby).

I honestly don't get this question. If the woman gets pregnant, and chooses to have an abortion, and the guy who got her pregnant decides he really wants a child and goes out on his own and adopts a child, should she be forced to raise that adopted child? Is that what you're asking? If that is your question (which I think I must have misunderstood, because it's a ridiculous question and you're not a ridiculous person), then no, she should not be bound by his decision, which he made on his own.

You seem to be worked up over some sense that it is unfair that child bearing is not perfectly symmetrical between males and females. As I am sure you are aware, though, it is a simple fact of biology that females can bear children and males cannot. If you, as a male, wish to have a child you must find a cooperative female, or else adopt. You cannot force a woman to carry your child, without violating her right to determine what happens to her own body. Producing a child is a much greater burden on the mother than it is on the father, and since her body (but not the father's) is intimately involved in the process she bears greater risks, and also has more opportunities to make decisions.

My position is that men must make the decision about creating a child in advance: only have sex with people you trust absolutely when they tell you they are on the pill/IUD, whatever; actually have that discussion in advance of sex; know what the risk of failure of each method of birth control is; use multiple methods; and so on. Balancing risk with fun shouldn't be out of the question for a skydiver. Taking responsibility for your actions shouldn't be an outrageous concept for a libertarian, either. On the other hand, the woman has all of those options, plus an additional option to terminate the pregnancy. That's not unfair, it's just biology.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the vast majority of those laws were proposed and/or championed by pro-life factions, hoping to start up a slippery slope. Before legal abortion, I don't believe it was 2 counts in any state (but I'm not sure about that)

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

IMO - hijacking the father to provide and raise for a child he doesn't want is analogous to forcing the mother to carry to term a baby she doesn't want.



But forcing the mother into an abortion because the father can absolve himself from any responsibility is fair?

And when 25 years later the father decides that he now wants to have a relationship with his child, does he have to pay up, with interest? Or does the father just get to disappear for the expensive and tough years and then come back?

What about a married couple? Can the father waive his parental rights, but not force a divorce? I mean, why should he have to bare any of those costs for her decision to keep the baby? The whole idea is that it wouldn't cost him anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And the vast majority of those laws were proposed and/or championed by pro-life factions, hoping to start up a slippery slope.



With the overall voting base in the US, as reports say, why can't these hypocritcal laws be deleted from the books since abortion is the law of the land?

It appears as though as in many other counties that the politicians want to have the little people argue about politically instituted controversies in order to manipulate a voting base for either political party's agenda. Too often whenever a law is passed for the good of the people a politician gets re-elected to the detriment of the people.

Most always the abortion debate/discussion falls into name calling rather than an intellectual exchange of opinions, ideas or philosophies that could be productive.

Abortion has been the law of the land in the US for more than two generations and nothing will change that. Tax payer funded abortion on demand (for convenience sake), mandates for abortion coverage in insurance policies, etc., probably are legitimate issues for debate.

This abortion issue is not new. Did a little research several years ago and found that in southeastern Pennsylvania during the early 1900's it was rather easy to get an abortion via one's local doctor. I was rather shocked to learn that. I interviewed a retired doctor about this subject for my paper, 90 years old at the time, who had also been my family doctor as child. He said that he had performed several abortions for his patients and members of the community for reasons ranging from a real threat of death from childbirth, rape/incest, and the humiliating "oops" for the unmarried and the married involved in hanky-panky.

It seems we are beating a dead horse with this subject unless both sides of the argument are willing to hear each other and work together.


That is my 3 1/2 cents worth.
www.geronimoskydiving.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon

If the woman gets pregnant, and chooses to have an abortion, and the guy who got her pregnant decides he really wants a child and goes out on his own and adopts a child, should she be forced to raise that adopted child? Is that what you're asking? If that is your question (which I think I must have misunderstood, because it's a ridiculous question and you're not a ridiculous person), then no, she should not be bound by his decision, which he made on his own.



Really? - I mean, seriously, your words "then no, she should not be bound by his decision, which he made on his own" switch the genders "then no, he should not be bound by her decision, which she made on her own"

perhaps not so ridiculous if the focus is on making sure that child isn't impoverished (your main argument for supporting the disparity) - there is plenty of case law where a man has been forced to provide support to a child that isn't his biological child with just this rationalization. Why wouldn't the reverse be true? Heck, why couldn't someone just pick any stranger off the street and make them support their child - for the sake of that child. It's about who makes the decisions vs who has to own those decisions.



As for any argument about a man being proactive about avoiding pregnancy - they ALL are applicable to both parties. What we are getting at is where it's different and looking at turning the logic around just to see if there's a fairness about it, or a true bias.

I hate to pick on you, we have good discussions, so this is just for the debate, not persoanl, is that the verbage here is very male dominated when the arguments imply, essentially: the male is the 'adult', the female is the victim, or, even worse, just an incubator. Very male-dominated thinking is the basis for many of the discussions here. Unusual when it's cloaked in empowering and respecting women and their rights to live by their own lives and choices without unfair domination.

I find it ironic, that, we say we don't want a situation where a man dominates and essentially has the ability to possibly enslave her body, by advocating the ability for that woman to enslave the man for a lifetime without his consent.......


Me? I think a man should help raise his child. just for debate, I just am looking for the thoughts and clarity on how equality is best established when the male doesn't have the same option as the woman, and, in today's application, is clearly a contrived result.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker



But forcing the mother into an abortion because the father can absolve himself from any responsibility is fair? she's not forced - her body, her decision. he has nothing to do with it. right? by law

And when 25 years later the father decides that he now wants to have a relationship with his child, does he have to pay up, with interest? Or does the father just get to disappear for the expensive and tough years and then come back? I'd say absolutely not. he aborted. just like the woman's choice to abort, his has to ABSOLUTE and PERMANENT

What about a married couple? Can the father waive his parental rights, but not force a divorce? I mean, why should he have to bare any of those costs for her decision to keep the baby? The whole idea is that it wouldn't cost him anything. interesting, I'd think a marriage contract would have a default for this one




the best I can get from these comments is 2 options:

1 - don't sleep with someone that you don't care about and have similar views about child bearing and rearing (clearly)

2 - men - don't let any woman to sleep with know your real identity. She has all the power (cynical)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And when 25 years later the father decides that he now wants to have a relationship with his child, does he have to pay up, with interest? Or does the father just get to disappear for the expensive and tough years and then come back? I'd say absolutely not. he aborted. just like the woman's choice to abort, his has to ABSOLUTE and PERMANENT



And how exactly do you police that? Incarcerate those who are seen with their biliological children but have waived their parental rights?

If parental rights have been waived and there is no legal relationship, does that mean they could marry in the future?

What is the default in this marriage contract? Does every marriage now require a contract?

What if both partners used birth control, yet the woman got pregnant. The man still gets to walk away?

So basically the man has a get out of jail free card, and the woman is left to deal with the physical, emotional and financial aspect of child birth or abortion.

And you somehow call this equal?

As you said before, I do think the 50's is calling...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...the verbage here is very male dominated when the arguments imply, essentially: the male is the 'adult', the female is the victim, or, even worse, just an incubator.

Perhaps you overlooked this part (bold added for emphasis):
"My position is that men must make the decision about creating a child in advance: only have sex with people you trust absolutely when they tell you they are on the pill/IUD, whatever; actually have that discussion in advance of sex; know what the risk of failure of each method of birth control is; use multiple methods; and so on. ... On the other hand, the woman has all of those options, plus an additional option to terminate the pregnancy. That's not unfair, it's just biology."

I just can't see how that could possibly be read as meaning "the man makes the choices and the woman has to do whatever he wants".

Quote

I find it ironic, that, we say we don't want a situation where a man dominates and essentially has the ability to possibly enslave her body, by advocating the ability for that woman to enslave the man for a lifetime without his consent.......

If the woman somehow raped the man, or otherwise managed to steal his sperm against his will, I would agree with with the use of the term "enslave". If the guy took a gamble (trusting someone he doesn't know, or relying on her to take 100% of the responsibility for birth control, or relying on a birth control method with a known failure rate), then he made a choice, she didn't "enslave" him. Why do you assume the guy is powerless and the woman is 100% responsible for the choices that get made? Anyway, if it makes you feel any better, you could recognize that it is the child, not the woman, who has the man "enslaved", as you put it.

Quote

...there is plenty of case law where a man has been forced to provide support to a child that isn't his biological child...

That's true, though the circumstance there is almost always that the man was married to a woman who cheated on him, then deceived him into believing that the child was his. We could perhaps take a tangent here and discuss who is the real "parent", a man who invested years into loving, caring for, and teaching a child, or someone whose sole contribution was a sperm donation. Nevertheless, the problem is a legal system that obstructs the "nurturing dad" from collecting damages from the "bio-dad". That system is a legacy from the days when it was impossible to prove who is the real bio-father; the technology to do that is quite recent, and the law has yet to catch up. That could be remedied with a few changes to the law, without resorting to a system that gave a blanket pass to fathers to say "hey, it wasn't my idea" and walk away from their children.

Quote

Heck, why couldn't someone just pick any stranger off the street and make them support their child - for the sake of that child.

In a way we do this now. We don't pick strangers off the street, but we do collectively pay taxes to pick up the slack from fathers who don't care to take financial responsibility for their offspring.

I still haven't seen anything to make me believe that you give any weight at all to the fact that we are talking about a child who has real needs that someone must meet, a child who did not have any say in the circumstances of their birth. A child is not a piece of luggage, nor is it an impediment that can simply be discarded when it becomes inconvenient. Perhaps you will mock my "for the children" perspective, but I think it immoral that the one totally innocent party in these situations is the one who has to bear the full consequence of their parent's bad decisions.

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tink1717

Abortion AND birth control ON DEMAND, with no apologies or regulation. If you have a penis, you don't get a vote.



I'm a big advocate of authority and responsibility going hand in hand. THIS position says men bear responsibility, but have no authority. I can't see how that is any different from a man claiming it is all the woman's problem to deal with (He made half the decision to have sex, but wants no responsibility). I consider both positions clearly and fundamentally flawed.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I can't see how that is any different from a man claiming it is all the woman's problem to deal with (He made half the decision to have sex, but wants no responsibility).



Because biology isn't equal. The woman bears the result of sex and therefore should have the final, and only, say in the matter. If you were the one who got pregnant, you'd understand.
Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
davjohns

I'm a big advocate of authority and responsibility going hand in hand. THIS position says men bear responsibility, but have no authority. I can't see how that is any different from a man claiming it is all the woman's problem to deal with (He made half the decision to have sex, but wants no responsibility). I consider both positions clearly and fundamentally flawed.



^^^

Actually, this is all I'm trying to explore here with the analogies and discussions and, frankly, wide tangents and friendly poking. Agreed, the positions are flawed and trying to find one that's gender (and relationship) neutral is tricky. The problem is the emotional content - the bumper sticker quotes (eventually delivered with vulgarisms, I hate that point) and the "you wouldn't understand" comments really highlights the unreasonableness.

But I'll continue to play - Note - I'm not invested in the discussion and much of this is just for debate sake - so I do appreciate it when the posters don't get all emotional about it. But I'll reply in kind just to demonstrate the silliness of it.



Back to G-Don:

So, you say that my analogy is ridiculous.... (BTW, I think it's over the top too - but it's a natural extension just to extend the discussion)

My analogy is boiled down as follows: "two people hook up, as a result, one of them wants to keep a baby and requires the other to help pay for it"

- (who are you to second guess why the one person decided to have the baby? if they claim it's because of the hookup, then that's it. Genetics doesn't apply, we've proven that society doesn't care, as they have forced non-biological parents into support - this is an extension of that. Establish need, and the courts should be able to act on that alone - this is your point frankly)

1 - in the way I present it, it's gender equal, heck, it even works with a gay couple as well. perfectly fair and even. And the focus is on helping the child be raised - ALL children, not just the narrow definition.

2 - in the other 'philosophy' it's only allowed in a hetereo-hookup, and only if gender biased. (here's an emotionally argumentative mortar shell - The point is that this isn't really about children, that argument is used to actually progress the male dominating position of society by punishing those males that don't follow the prescribed behavior defined by the other alpha males for tending to their genetic incubators).

--- why do they hate orphans (is it because most orphans are minorities? ---disclaimer - just using the 'typical' attack mode here for demonstration) - don't orphans deserve the same opportunity to have two providers in their lives as the other situation with the biological mother and her partner/supporter who may or may not actually contribute genes to the equation?
--- why do they hate gay people? doesn't a gay parent deserve help in raising that child too?

--- Orphans are NOT 'ridiculous'.

Lastly - the argument was also made that people are upset that their tax money is being used to raise these kids of single mothers. How selfish to claim one is concerned for the kids, and then complains about a bit of tax money.. (ok, that's a cheap shot).


in the end - my discussion really does come down to the point that it's very inconsistent to claim the status quo is about ensuring responsibility, but only for one gender and not the other. It clearly smacks of a male dominated mental position hidden behind a false illusion of advocating for equality.

(Truthfully? I have no issue with whatever solution society comes up with. Provided that it's fair for any relationship and both genders. Right now, emotions, outdated standards, and politics have certainly not gotten us there.

'but....."biology"' seems to be a false trail, or at least a very sexists argument - see court decisions.

what else - oh yeah. people should make better decisions up front

- if men and women took precautions together, less problems
- if men and women just chose partners smarter, less problems
- if men and women BOTH made the decisions together and accepted the results of their actions together less abortions and less conflict
- if both CHOOSE to support the other, it's like the choice debate would even be a big deal
- I really do hold deadbeat dads to be the worst pond scum. But I also sympathize with the man that would choose to do the right thing and have that option also taken away. hard to balance when I also sympathize with the woman that has the same decisions as well as the physical burden in addition to all the other stuff)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tink1717

Quote

I can't see how that is any different from a man claiming it is all the woman's problem to deal with (He made half the decision to have sex, but wants no responsibility).



Because biology isn't equal. The woman bears the result of sex and therefore should have the final, and only, say in the matter. If you were the one who got pregnant, you'd understand.



Hmmm...sorry. Thought you were a guy.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

what else - oh yeah. people should make better decisions up front



Agreed, better education is the key there.



yes - better education, also better upbringing and outlook

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

Attached



:D:D:D:D

(I'd think that outfit would do it too, but some of the congressmen might actually like it)

I'd also like to offer:

"because so far taking regular margaritas has just resulted in the opposite effect"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>A fetus is not (a) eligible for a tax allowance (b) eligible for a SSN, (c) eligible for a
>passport or any other form of ID, (d) eligible to own property, have a bank
>account, have a library card, (e) allowed to collect dependent child survivor
>benefits from Social Security.

Well, to be fair, children are not eligible to have bank accounts at many banks. And to extend that argument, it would be silly to claim that children are not human because they cannot be on juries, vote, serve in the military, make decisions on their own medical care etc.

We have discrete changes in rights from fertilization to adulthood, but from a 10,000 foot view it's a gradual increase in rights with time. We draw firm lines at places (right to life - birth right to vote - 18 right to drink -21) but the actual boundaries are a lot fuzzier than that to most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frankly, if either parent had the ability to abort through to the 309th month, we'd have better behaved kids and adults.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0