|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The general abortion thread
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Just for mudfrog.
quote:
I'm sorry, (actually, I'm not, so I'm going to say it anyway) but as a married man with three adult sons, I feel that I have a right to have a joint say about what happens to my unborn child; and in any case, an unborn human being is not part of a woman's reproductive organs, s/he is a separate life relying upon the love and care of his/her mother to bring him/her to full potential.
I find the whole 'my body/my choice' thing cold, heartless, loveless, and in a sense, anti-men as well as anti-human and antiChrstian.
Would you care to expand? If you feel you have a 'joint say', why do you think that trumps what the woman you've impregnated might say?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
OK, first, how fucked up is a marriage if this is an issue in contention?
As to the general issue: the child is a separate life and it is a women's health/rights issue.
It is anti-woman to insist she has no rights.
Anti-human? Complain to the bastard you say created the system.
Anti-Christian? Depends on your interpretation, but see the preceding comment.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I've a question for those who vote pro-life.
How do you justify voting for politicians who don't give a shit about the women who get pregnant or even the children after they are born?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
Here's my experience as a counterpoint to Mudfrog's. I'm a middle aged woman with 3 children, in a stable marriage (as far as I know!). I had a miscarriage at about the 8-9 week mark between children 2 and 3. I've also had slightly wobbly mental health over the years - nothing serious enough to require major treatment. Physically, I'm in about the same nick as most middle aged women with 3 kids - not too bad, though bits are starting to fall off. I've had the equivalent of one decent year's sleep in the last 13.
We use reliable, long term contraception. I chart my periods. If we had a contraceptive failure and I got pregnant, I would know pretty quickly, and I would seek a medical termination as a matter of urgency. Physically, I don't think I could manage another pregnancy, childbirth & having a small child, and mentally it would be a disaster. It's not overstating it to say that there would be a risk of it being my life or the baby's.
Incidentally, it would also be disastrous for the marriage, as MrJt9 was not at all keen on the prospect of no3, never mind no4.
I give my life story (and apologies for the verbiage) because this is what the living embodiment of what "my body / my choice" looks like. It's a responsible decision for the whole family, and is not in any way cold or heartless. And btw, the pregnancy would be terminated quicker than God saw fit to terminate the pregnancy that ended in miscarriage.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It seems to me that a big part of the problem is that of language. Some want us to say that before birth the child is as much a child as after birth and that destroying the life amounts to murder.
But that can't actually be the case, otherwise we'd be punishing women for having miscarriages (which, I've heard, happen a lot more regularly than many (men?) might think). At very least, we've determined that this thing that happens in a human body is a special case compared to other forms of "child neglect"*.
The reality is that the developing embryo is just that: an embryo. It isn't a child. Whilst near to birth the difference becomes progressively smaller, it seems to me that there is necessarily a difference at conception between an embryo and a child.
As to the other substantive point, I suppose I can think of some scenarios where a spouse would want to have a say in a woman's health choice. Maybe the woman is refusing life-prolonging healthcare. But I can't really think of a situation where the spouse should by default have an "equal" say. Unless, I suppose, the woman is incapacitated and unable to make a decision.
* I apologise for this emotive term, but I think if a mother had developed some kind of natural symptom which endangered a post-birth child's life, we'd be taking it a lot more seriously if not necessarily criminally.
[ 25. January 2017, 08:01: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Jemima the 9th, many thanks for that post. It illustrates perfectly that abortion is not a simple issue. A close friend of ours, very much pro-life in principle, frightened for a time that she may have become pregnant in her mid forties when she was wrestling with the challenges of teenage children plus a health issue or two, put it this way. "If I am pregnant, I will become either a mad woman or a murderer." As it happened, she did not have to face either of those futures. But living with the dilemma for a while helped her to understand better that the choices may be complex and many-sided. To this day, neither she nor we know for sure what would have happened if she had been pregnant.
I've been reflecting on coercive control and what scripture has to say about it. I suppose the best known example is from probably the best known, certainly most often repeated, scripture in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 13). As the ESV puts it (verse 5) "Love does not insist on its own way". In the Roe v Wade case, the moral dilemma was resolved this way. The woman's right of privacy, a personal liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment, trumped the legislative rights of states to impose a right to life for the foetus. The law would be wrong to "insist on its own way".People can argue, in fact do argue, that this was a wrong "balancing" of rights.
It is known that Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, who drafted the Roe v Wade judgment, agonised for months over what was right. Blackmun was a Christian, a staunch Methodist. One of his key supporters in the arguments before the judgment was published was Bill Brennan, a practising Catholic. Those facts alone should be sufficient to persuade anyone that sincere Christians may be both pro-life and pro-choice.
I think this is where coercive control comes in. A woman who, for reasons of her own, does not want to go through with the pregnancy, is denied the opportunity to terminate because a law says she cannot obtain a termination legally. Her reasons for wishing to terminate do not matter.
Now it is true in general that the law does indeed exercise control over behaviour. There is punishment for crime. But is legislation against terminating pregnancies right to recognise termination as a crime? Or should it indeed allow scope for privacy, recognise there are certain very difficult personal decisions which it should leave up to the liberty and sense of personal responsibility of the person most concerned?
Roe v Wade prevented an imposition on those choices and, in common with the two Christians on the Supreme Court who were major players in the ruling, I think the judgment was correct. I also think it was a balanced judgment, recognising both the legal and the moral complexities. Many of my friends disagree with me on that. A number see abortion as a form of murder and see this as leaving no room for argument. I get that, of course. But even after many hours of discussion, I have never been sure that they have really thought through just how coercively controlling anti-abortion legislation can be in practice, given the large range of personal circumstances it covers.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
I don't like the term "pro-life" and what it implies about other views, but I am Roman Catholic and believe that life is precious from conception.
However, I'm uncomfortable with partners-should-have-a-say arguments, because they only support the preciousness of life if the partner who wants a say wishes to ensure the pregnancy continues.
What if the scenario is reversed? Should a partner who wants to force a woman to terminate a pregnancy have a say? How much of a say?
In relation to the question from LB about "voting pro-life", there was a very good piece in the Catholic Herald (I think) that said that it could never be right to legislate to prevent abortion without also putting in place the social policy that would remove the demand for abortion.
I suppose I aspire to a world where a woman may legally and safely have an abortion, but where no woman wants one. Thy kingdom come and all that.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
And FWIW, my experience is similar to J9's (though I'm a bloke).
After several years of childlessness - my fault - Mrs Tor had two difficult, dangerous pregnancies close to each other (we were expecting the second conception to take as long as the first), both of which could have ended in death for her and/or the baby.
So I had a vasectomy shortly after the birth of Master Tor, to make damn certain that wasn't going to happen a third time. That's me, taking control of my (admittedly feeble) fertility. Now, I had the support of my partner, but it was my choice, no one made me do it, no one stood outside the clinic and waved placards, and also, it was free on the NHS.
I'm going to extend the same courtesy to other thinking, breathing adults, if that's okay.
(And yes, I know the situation isn't exactly analogous, but it's close enough to have an informed opinion)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
My mother had terrible problems as well, and was refused an abortion by a Catholic obstetrician, although she had been warned not to have another child. She had a miscarriage, and nearly died, and was in hospital for months. For the rest of her life, she would spit at any talk of pro-life.
I was struck by Mudfrog's sentence, ' I feel that I have a right to have a joint say about what happens to my unborn child'.
Fine, but does he have a say about my unborn child? Does anyone?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was struck by Mudfrog's sentence, ' I feel that I have a right to have a joint say about what happens to my unborn child'.
Fine, but does he have a say about my unborn child? Does anyone?
Conversations between husband and wife over disagreements are just normal and the law shouldn't really have anything to say about them. Unless there is a pattern of bullying or other forms of coercion.
I don't think Mudfrog thinks he should have a say about your unborn child. The question is whether the law should have a say, and in what way.
Mind you, I completely agree that there is much confusion over boundaries and interference when it comes to contentious issues like this. The difference between what is moral and what should be subject to law often gets blurred.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I had a colleague whose husband insisted that she have an abortion. (I was told by another colleague - it was wise to know which subjects to avoid in the staffroom.) She has outlived him, and a second husband, but has no children. That is the mirror of Mudfrog's position. Difficult.
One of my landladies had a daughter who had married into a 'quiverful' inclined cult. She had a terrible pregnancy and labour, and her obstetrician was emphatic that she should never have another child. She would die. The elders of the church gathered round her bed (all men) and prayed for her to become pregnant again. I'm afraid I never heard the end of that story, but the coercive mindset about the function of women is in a continuum with the mindset about contraception and abortion - though I agree that once conception has taken place, the situation is not the same. But the putting of the woman in second place to the unborn is the same, and feels very wrong to me. If that daughter had become pregnant again, her life would have been seen as having no value. (Would a hospital carry out a hysterectomy without a husband's consent?)
This can never be an easy subject, but when preventing abortion leads to women's deaths, and life changing physical damage (I'm thinking of very young children here), it can seem very glib to elevate the embryo above the existing, thinking, woman (or child).
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The difference between what is moral and what should be subject to law often gets blurred.
Yes. No way should mudfrog legally have a direct say in his wife's abortion, but morally it's a bit more complex. I think it's quite legitimate for a father to feel deeply hurt at the loss of their child / potential child, and in the heat of abortion arguments it can be hard to acknowledge this.
Doc Tor mentioned vasectomies. Legally, I totally support the right for a man to have one without consulting his partner. Morally it depends, but if she wants more children discussion might be a good idea. (And interestingly, some US doctors require permission from wives before snipping.)
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think Mudfrog thinks he should have a say about your unborn child.
By voting for pro-life candidates he is attempting to do just that.
quote:
The question is whether the law should have a say, and in what way.
The law is the mechanism by which Mudfrog, and all other anti-abortion zealots, has a say.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
That's just his general rights as a citizen to lobby, mousethief. Mudfrog is not a lawmaker.
I do think there is a moral question involved any time any of us seeks by pressure and argument to turn our personal morality into law. I think we have a right to contribute to the debate, but absolutely no right to assume that our opinion will win the day.
Roe v Wade doesn't make abortion compulsory. Anti-abortion leglislation makes carrying to full term compulsory (possibly with a few carefully specified exceptions). I think that is the difference. But Mudfrog is free to lobby for more coercive legislation in this area and hold the opinion that it is the right thing to do. He and I would disagree on the rights and wrongs of his actions, of course.
Mudfrog hasn't appeared here yet. I'd be interested to know his opinion on the morality of coercion, and how it applies so far as abortion is concerned.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Canada has no abortion law. It handles abortion in the realm of health with regulations. It has a lower abortion rate than the USA. Are these connected?
We think they are, because putting abortion in the category of sexual health and women's health also means that good availability of education and direct discussion of sexual health and responsibility re sex, and ready availability of birth control, all contribute to the lower abortion rate.
We also see this as a human rights issue. The advancement of women's issues in general, proper post-birth benefits (a year of maternity leave is available, paid via a federal program), free pre and post health natal care, employers must hold jobs and not discriminate for mat leave among the things that make a difference.
We know people are having sex in less that ideal circumstances. We must educate and support proactively, and not just consider abortion as a stand alone issue retroactively. I think it is immoral to do so. If you're anti-abortion, are you for solid sexual education? for women's health? for availability of birth control? for free sexual health services? for support of the homeless? for direct financial aid to mothers and families post-birth? If you are not, then it is immoral.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Just for mudfrog.
quote:
I'm sorry, (actually, I'm not, so I'm going to say it anyway) but as a married man with three adult sons, I feel that I have a right to have a joint say about what happens to my unborn child; and in any case, an unborn human being is not part of a woman's reproductive organs, s/he is a separate life relying upon the love and care of his/her mother to bring him/her to full potential.
I find the whole 'my body/my choice' thing cold, heartless, loveless, and in a sense, anti-men as well as anti-human and antiChrstian.
Would you care to expand? If you feel you have a 'joint say', why do you think that trumps what the woman you've impregnated might say?
There are some good points made on this thread. It’s an emotive and complicated issue and ‘moral’ and ‘legal’ doesn’t cover it.
Let me start by saying that here in the UK where there is no Roe v Wade, no huge marches pro or anti-abortion, no weird people shooting doctors or anything like that, abortion is not the massive issue that the US suffers from.
That said, I just want to comment first on the last sentence Doc Tor wrote to me:
“If you feel you have a 'joint say', why do you think that trumps what the woman you've impregnated might say?”
Why would you ask that question in such an offensive and hostile manner? Read it aloud; did you mean it to sound like that?
Do you really believe that a man wants to ‘trump’ his wife’s decisions? Is that what you think of married men, of marriage? Do you have no concept of a loving marriage being a partnership where decisions are made together, where men are supportive of women, respectful, loving - and vice-versa?
The way that phrase reads, I infer that you might also go on to say that marriage is legalised rape and that women have no decision about that either, that men’s sexual urges will and must always ‘trump’ those of the woman.
I am not so naïve to believe that all marriages and all men – and all women for that matter – are so considerate of their spouse; I know there are abusive relationships where one side or the other does feel that their decision should ’trump’ the will of the spouse. But that’s not the norm, it’s not the majority.
And I can’t understand why a ‘joint decision’ will automatically trump the will of the wife. Read the phrase again – joint decision.
It seems to me you have a low opinion of the relationship within a marriage.
And let me ask about that last phrase: ‘the woman you’ve impregnated…’
Excuse me??
Can you imagine the pregnancy test being done and being positive and me phoning my friend to say, ‘I’ve impregnated Mrs Mudfrog’? Ca you imagine my wife phoning her mother to say, ‘I’ve been impregnated’?
Come on; is that phraseology not the language of lab rats and stallions on stud farms, brought in to impregnate the prize mare? My wife may indeed be a prize, but I’m no stallion! (sadly).
Can’t you see how this phrase reveals a dreadfully low opinion of a loving intimate relationship between a man and his wife/partner?
You make it sound like every pregnancy is the dutiful or forceful action of a man upon a compliant but apathetic woman who is merely the victim of his sexual urges and his need to reproduce.
Don’t you think that most women in loving relationships who have decided in advance to have a family with the man she’s with would never see herself as being impregnated like a lab rat, but would be a willing and active sharer in the love making that will hopefully lead to a mutually welcomed and loved child?
Mrs Mudfrog and I have three adult sons from her 4 pregnancies (she miscarried our third baby at 10 weeks – so I do know what that’s like for her – and me too) and all 4 were and are wanted (and missed).
My mother had 2 children that were totally unplanned by her then partner – totally accidental, but from the moment of the positive pregnancy test, completely wanted.
These two women were not ‘impregnated.’ The decision to have them was not forced on them by a husband whose will trumped theirs.
I am amazed – though not surprised - at the implied hostility to the role of a man in a sexual relationship and the implied casual dismissal of him having any loving contribution to the process of bringing a child into the world – either at conception or during the pregnancy.
It is precisely this attitude that I perceive that led me to write what I did about the woman’s right to choose being sometimes expressed as an anti-men sentiment, totally divorcing them from any right to be a part of the choice process.
I believe that a decision to keep or abort the baby should be a joint one, seeing that, except in the case of rape, the decision to be intimate was a joint one. The decision should never be the privilege of one party alone unless there are exceptional extenuating circumstances.
A man must never be allowed to force an abortion or to make te woman carry to term.
Likewise, a pregnant mother should never be allowed to abort without the reasonable consultation with the father she is still with and without counselling and advice given to both together.
I understand that every relationship is different and there will be lots of exceptions to this guideline especially of it protects the mother and /or the unborn child.
I understand and accept the concept of the woman’s right to choose – in the context of any pressure to make that decision for her to abort without her consent; a woman must always have the right to keep the baby. In fact, according to the natural scheme of things, that must be the default position. Nobody: no man, no religion, no culture, no political diktat, no family ‘honour’ should be allowed to tell a woman she has no choice to keep her baby girl, for example.
But where there is an ongoing relationship with the father, then he must be included in that choice – especially if it would be his choice, supported by medical opinion, that the child should be brought to term. I cannot understand a scenario where a woman in a relationship with a man would unilaterally abort the baby though the father disagrees and especially if there is no considered medical reason for the termination.
Even if the child was unplanned, if the parents are together and the relationship is healthy, the unborn child is healthy, the decision to terminate on choice grounds alone, must always be a joint one. And it should be those 2 people alone, with medical counsel – forget church elders round beds or other ‘interested’ parties; A woman’s right to choose with the father of th baby if in the relationship.
Rambling now, so I’ll stop
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That said, I just want to comment first on the last sentence Doc Tor wrote to me:
“If you feel you have a 'joint say', why do you think that trumps what the woman you've impregnated might say?”
Why would you ask that question in such an offensive and hostile manner? Read it aloud; did you mean it to sound like that?
Do you really believe that a man wants to ‘trump’ his wife’s decisions? Is that what you think of married men, of marriage?
I suggest this might be less emotive if you didn't read it as applying uniquely to your situation. Plenty of men who are not married - and who are not even in stable relationships - impregnate women.
Seen in that context, it might well seem a little odd if the man had as much right over the pregnancy as the woman. Don't you agree?
Marriage is a slightly different issue, although I'm still not really convinced that the husband has an equal say over the woman's body as the wife.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I think you're simply projecting. 'Impregnate' - I could have said 'make pregnant' - is simply a non-emotive word that covers the actual biological act quote:
verb (used with object), impregnated, impregnating.
1.
to make pregnant; get with child or young.
2.
to fertilize.
If you've read the thread: yes, I'm married, yes, I have two children after struggling to come to terms with a pathetically low sperm count. So pretty much all of your criticism of my supposed attitude and alleged opinion is simply tilting at a windmill.
I'm covering all the bases here, from rape through a drunken one-night stand, to an affair, through all the way to a loving marriage.
And in all of those, the woman is the one who decides. She's the one who has to carry the child to term. I would hope that she seeks advice from her nearest and dearest, and that as a society we have the support structures in place to help those women whose circumstances are less than ideal.
You can say "joint decision". But in actuality, that joint decision is you agreeing with your wife to do what she wants. Think about it. You might persuade your wife that she wants another baby - in that case, it's still what she wants.
And to add another part of the discussion: if the woman is using contraception, or insists on a condom, then she's already (a) decided she doesn't want to be pregnant at that time and (b) is telling her sexual partner she doesn't want to be pregnant at that time. She's made her decision right there and then. Anything that subsequently happens is informed by that.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
Mudfrog, I honestly can't understand how you can read what DocTor wrote here:
DocTor
After several years of childlessness - my fault - Mrs Tor had two difficult, dangerous pregnancies close to each other (we were expecting the second conception to take as long as the first), both of which could have ended in death for her and/or the baby.
So I had a vasectomy shortly after the birth of Master Tor, to make damn certain that wasn't going to happen a third time. That's me, taking control of my (admittedly feeble) fertility. Now, I had the support of my partner, but it was my choice, no one made me do it, no one stood outside the clinic and waved placards, and also, it was free on the NHS
And then say this:
[QUOTE]
Is that what you think of married men, of marriage? Do you have no concept of a loving marriage being a partnership where decisions are made together, where men are supportive of women, respectful, loving - and vice-versa?[/qb]
Mudfrog wrote:
"I am amazed – though not surprised - at the implied hostility to the role of a man in a sexual relationship and the implied casual dismissal of him having any loving contribution to the process of bringing a child into the world – either at conception or during the pregnancy.
It is precisely this attitude that I perceive that led me to write what I did about the woman’s right to choose being sometimes expressed as an anti-men sentiment, totally divorcing them from any right to be a part of the choice process".
That's certainly not what I'm saying. MrJt9 would absolutely be involved in the decision making process (I can only speak for me & our situation) but the final decision would be mine. I can't see what's unreasonable about that.
DocTor asked you to expand your argument. I can't see that you've done so - only restated your original statements. You've also not explained how (for example) my decision to terminate a pregnancy would be "cold, heartless, loveless, and in a sense, anti-men as well as anti-human and antiChristian"
My apologies for the total quoting ballsup I've made of that, I've tried to fix it and only seemed to make it worse.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
The American context does seem a bit strange to me, though, AFAIUI.
Women have the sole right to choose, yet a man is liable to pay child support if a woman decides to keep 'his' baby, even if it was the woman's decision not to use contraception, or to sabotage any contraception that was used. The 'fathers' in such cases may well end up in prison if they fail to pay child support, which seems rather daft if the child isn't their 'choice'.
TBH, it's hard to imagine that a relatively promiscuous and obviously non-religious man like Trump is really all that concerned about saving other people's unwanted foetuses. And he's not a fool, so I'm sure he realises that most Americans aren't as conservative on this issue as many of his evangelical fans.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The American context does seem a bit strange to me, though, AFAIUI.
Women have the sole right to choose, yet a man is liable to pay child support if a woman decides to keep 'his' baby, even if it was the woman's decision not to use contraception, or to sabotage any contraception that was used.
So you consider it "strange" that in addition to bearing all the associated medical risks of pregnancy women aren't required to also bear the entire financial burden of raising children as well? I find your advocacy of such a system "strange".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
No. The state could bear the burden. (I'm British after all!)
To ask for money from the man when he's irrelevant to the life or death of the child is what's strange.
The problem, I think, is that we in the West are still evolving when it comes to attitudes towards the family. Essentially, we're not quite sure what fatherhood is for. I'm fairly old-fashioned myself, but we're in a peculiar intermediate stage which can't be exactly satisfying for those on either side of the debate.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Women have the sole right to choose, yet a man is liable to pay child support if a woman decides to keep 'his' baby, even if it was the woman's decision not to use contraception
The standard answer given to the man is that he shouldn't have had sex if he wasn't prepared for the consequences. The trouble is that nowadays we've demolished this argument when applied to women (for abortion) but continue to apply it to men (for support, including jail if they fail to meet the requirements).
Karen DeCrow (former president of the National Organization for Women) said in 1982:
quote:
"Men should not automatically have to pay for a child they don't want. It's the only logical feminist position to take."
"Justice dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or put another way, autonomous women, making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."
I'm not sure I agree. Yes, it's a clear inconsistency, but there may not be a good solution.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
or to sabotage any contraception that was used.
This is a very different scenario. It involves having sex without informed consent, using a man's DNA to create a child without his permission, defrauding him of perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds, and deliberately changing the entire course of his life.
IMO it's not actually rape, but it can be similar in gravity - an offense somewhere between a rape and a serious fraud. The fact that society treats it so lightly is one measure of male disposability.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I believe that a decision to keep or abort the baby should be a joint one, seeing that, except in the case of rape, the decision to be intimate was a joint one.
Mudfrog, here's how I see it. The man deserves a say in the decision because it's his DNA, his life will be effected, and (as you say) he was part of a "decision to be intimate".
The woman deserves a say for all the above reasons, plus she has the very significant burden and risks of the pregnancy. It is, as they say, her body.
The woman therefore gets a greater say than the man, and so she gets to make the decision every time. I agree it can sometimes be hard on the father - losing a (potential) child should not be downplayed - but the mother having the final say is the only just solution. (The only other meaningful variable is what status and rights society grants the child.)
I guess you're familiar with the evangelical idea of male headship? As I remember it from my old church days, the man gets to make the important decisions for the family. He has an obligation to listen carefully to his wife and consider her wishes carefully (and with love), but in the end, the responsibility for the decision is his.
Perhaps you could consider pregnancy and abortion in a healthy relationship a reverse version of this?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I probably shouldn't even be writing this, as it's going to do crap-all good. Still.
I have a close family member who was formerly married to a woman he loved very much. She became pregnant (not contraceptive failure, as I understand it). At some point during the pregnancy she decided a) she didn't want to be married to him anymore, and therefore b) she had the child aborted. And told him so, casually, after the fact.
The man is still devastated half a lifetime later. At a gut level he sees himself as a failure--that he was unable to protect the life of a child, and that child his only child--never mind the fact that legally he never had a chance of doing anything anyway.
I have warned my own son to be damned careful who he conceives a child with, as he too will never have any possible way of protecting an unborn child.
I know the reply to this is going to be "well, suck it up, buttercup" and a lot of angry rhetoric about how woman have suffered so much at men's hands that this is a drop in the bucket.
I'm telling the story anyway.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
In against president hairball news, Netherlands plans a safe abortion fund to counter the USA plan to ban aid to organizations which provide safe abortions.
According to the link, banning abortion doesn’t lead to fewer abortions. It leads to dangerous attempts to end pregnancies. The estimate is that trump's order will result in 6.5 million unwanted pregnancies, 2.2 million unsafe abortions, deaths of 21,700 young mothers over 4 years. I have heard the statement that pro-life is really pro-pregnancy, with birth being the end of their activities and support. With the people on both sides being willing to step on and over homeless and hungry people to confront each other.
[ 26. January 2017, 02:21: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
No. The state could bear the burden. (I'm British after all!)
To ask for money from the man when he's irrelevant to the life or death of the child is what's strange.
The state obviously has an interest in dumping the financial liability on some man. (Hence various attempts to force women to identify a man who can be landed with a child support bill.)
Parenthetically, I learned from some recent court case that US sports stars are instructed to take the condom away with them after they have sex, to prevent the woman from impregnating herself with the sperm and so landing him with a big child support bill and her with a meal ticket.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I know the reply to this is going to be "well, suck it up, buttercup" and a lot of angry rhetoric about how woman have suffered so much at men's hands that this is a drop in the bucket.
Not from me. Taking the last first, this isn't some kind of tit-for-tat game. A woman's suffering caused by a man does not somehow cancel out a man's suffering caused by a woman. Hurt is hurt.
And to the first, of course it seems like a cruel and callous way to treat your relative, and I'm not surprised he was hurt by it. But I can't support somehow preventing her from making that choice.
The same goes for Mudfrog's "a woman should be forced to consult her husband/boyfriend/whoever". Of course in a sensible functional relationship a couple would talk about any significant decision that they were going to make - whether one of them should accept a job offer, quit work to become a student again, try for a baby, or terminate a pregnancy. But it doesn't need laws to force them to have a discussion. And if they're not in a sensible functional relationship...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm telling the story anyway.
That's a horror story, no question.
I wonder how often abortions are choices made by women to spite men. I'd like to think it can't be that often, but it does seem to have a ring of something that isn't exactly rare.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I wonder how often abortions are choices made by women to spite men. I'd like to think it can't be that often, but it does seem to have a ring of something that isn't exactly rare.
I don't think many. When a couple splits up (regardless whose decision it was) and the woman's pregnant, it's understandable for her to want an abortion: she'd have worries about providing for a child, plus she no longer loves the father. LC's story doesn't indicate the abortion itself was out of spite, although the announcement of it was perhaps done with callous indifference.
What I think it *does* demonstrate is:
- How men can be deeply wounded by the loss of their child. This doesn't mean they should get any say legally, but we could do a better job acknowledging this pain.
- LC's relative was totally powerless. I see no way around that, but men need to become aware of their vulnerability in many situations.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... I wonder how often abortions are choices made by women to spite men. I'd like to think it can't be that often, but it does seem to have a ring of something that isn't exactly rare.
So you have no idea how often something happens, but you like the sound of it because ... why? "Ooh, I'm mad at my boyfriend so I'll get pregnant and have an abortion to teach him a lesson!" Because that sounds reasonable to you? You know what has the ring of truth to me? That some women have abortions because the last thing they need is a baby AND a useless baby-daddy.
I have a news flash for everyone: women know what an abortion is. Every woman has given great thought to the issue, even those that have never been pregnant. We've heard all the arguments. We've heard the lectures and the preaching and the insults. Women who have had abortions keep the knowledge to themselves because they don't need someone to judge them and second-guess the most difficult decision of their lives.
I know many women who have had abortions. They are not murderers and they are not fools, regardless of what some people would like to believe.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And you see the point of this disempowering. She doesn't know what she's doing. She's driven by spite. She needs to see sonograms. She needs a 24 hour waiting period so that, bless her fuzzy little head, she can change her mind. She needs to prove she really means it by traveling 300 miles by bus to another state.
At that point, why does the poor feeble female thing need the power of decision at all? Clearly she cannot handle it. We could take it away, and give her a new pair of shoes, and she'll be distracted, eh?
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And you see the point of this disempowering. She doesn't know what she's doing. She's driven by spite. She needs to see sonograms. She needs a 24 hour waiting period so that, bless her fuzzy little head, she can change her mind. She needs to prove she really means it by traveling 300 miles by bus to another state.
At that point, why does the poor feeble female thing need the power of decision at all? Clearly she cannot handle it. We could take it away, and give her a new pair of shoes, and she'll be distracted, eh?
Yes. But then LC's example has made me think.
An embryo clearly isn't the same kind of thing to other stuff - and yet how we look at it must be influenced by other things.
Two people are in a relationship. The one gives the other money to pay for the car. One day he leaves town with the car.
We might say that it is his car no matter what money the other person has put in. He has a free choice to split from the relationship in any way that he feels like and has no obligation to return any donations of money which were contributed towards the car.
Or we might say that accepting a payment towards the car, even if legally there was no change of ownership, implies some kind of shared responsibility for it and some kind of discussion in the point at which it goes to the scrapyard. Even, perhaps, after the couple have split.
---
I don't think that changes my overall feelings on the topic. But I don't think we can simply ignore the potential for spite either.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't understand how spite - or any other feelings - makes any difference to the arguments over abortion. Surely, nobody would want laws which stipulate which emotions are OK, when having an abortion, and which are not?
I suppose it might suggest that potential fathers should have a say in abortion. That sounds like a car-crash.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The same goes for Mudfrog's "a woman should be forced to consult her husband/boyfriend/whoever". Of course in a sensible functional relationship a couple would talk about any significant decision that they were going to make - whether one of them should accept a job offer, quit work to become a student again, try for a baby, or terminate a pregnancy. But it doesn't need laws to force them to have a discussion. And if they're not in a sensible functional relationship...
Women who are in a sensible, functional relationship will typically discuss these sorts of things with their partners. Women who are not in relationships, or in relationships that aren't functional or sensible, will typically avoid introducing dysfunctional or unsensible elements into their lives. And women are typically the ones best situated to make this determination. Not Mudfrog.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's the word 'forced', that is unwelcome. How would you do this? It would mean telling a woman, that she can't have an abortion unless her partner agrees. Imagine the mess that might ensue with some difficult relationships, or where the partner doesn't agree.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The same goes for Mudfrog's "a woman should be forced to consult her husband/boyfriend/whoever". Of course in a sensible functional relationship a couple would talk about any significant decision that they were going to make - whether one of them should accept a job offer, quit work to become a student again, try for a baby, or terminate a pregnancy. But it doesn't need laws to force them to have a discussion. And if they're not in a sensible functional relationship...
Women who are in a sensible, functional relationship will typically discuss these sorts of things with their partners. Women who are not in relationships, or in relationships that aren't functional or sensible, will typically avoid introducing dysfunctional or unsensible elements into their lives. And women are typically the ones best situated to make this determination. Not Mudfrog.
Did you even read my post?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't understand how spite - or any other feelings - makes any difference to the arguments over abortion.
That's because much of the discussion wasn't about legislation.
Mudfrog expressed hurt at the idea of being excluded from a decision on the abortion of his (potential) child. I said that a father had the right to feel like that, that men's feelings[1] weren't much considered in society, but ultimately the decision had to be 100% from the mother. LC gave a very powerful example of how badly an abortion could hurt the father. Mr cheesy pretty much confirmed my theory about men's feelings by saying "Whoa! Crap, that must have really sucked, never thought of it like that!" (liberal paraphrase) but then sadly channeled his unexpected rush of empathy for men into groundlessly accusing women of sometimes aborting for spite, which he probably regrets but isn't backing down from because, well, he's mr cheesy.[2] This is no doubt where the thread goes horribly wrong.
----
[1] As opposed to their ideas, opinions, sporting events etc which get LOADS of coverage, traditionally to the complete exclusion of women.
[2] No insult intended.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good summary, Hiro's leap.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The same goes for Mudfrog's "a woman should be forced to consult her husband/boyfriend/whoever".
Where did I say that?????
Is that 'Fake News'??
I did say the following, and I think I need to repeat it here:
quote:
A man must never be allowed to force an abortion or to make te woman carry to term.
Likewise, a pregnant mother should never be allowed to abort without the reasonable consultation with the father she is still with and without counselling and advice given to both together.
I understand that every relationship is different and there will be lots of exceptions to this guideline especially of it protects the mother and /or the unborn child.
I understand and accept the concept of the woman’s right to choose – in the context of any pressure to make that decision for her to abort without her consent; a woman must always have the right to keep the baby. In fact, according to the natural scheme of things, that must be the default position. Nobody: no man, no religion, no culture, no political diktat, no family ‘honour’ should be allowed to tell a woman she has no choice to keep her baby girl, for example.
I think you read what you think is there.
[ 26. January 2017, 16:47: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Yeah, I read it. It seemed incoherent and self-contradictory.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A man must never be allowed to force an abortion or to make t[h]e woman carry to term.
<snip>
But where there is an ongoing relationship with the father, then he must be included in that choice – especially if it would be his choice, supported by medical opinion, that the child should be brought to term. I cannot understand a scenario where a woman in a relationship with a man would unilaterally abort the baby though the father disagrees and especially if there is no considered medical reason for the termination.
Even if the child was unplanned, if the parents are together and the relationship is healthy, the unborn child is healthy, the decision to terminate on choice grounds alone, must always be a joint one.
In short, you claim to be against allowing a man to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, and then outline a situation where a man can force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[ 26. January 2017, 16:51: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I would highlight the following words:
ongoing relationship with the father,
supported by medical opinion,
no considered medical reason for the termination.
if the parents are together and the relationship is healthy, the unborn child is healthy, the decision to terminate on choice grounds alone , must always be a joint one.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
on choice grounds alone
As opposed to health grounds? How much of a threat to the mother's heath does there need to be?
And if you're banning women from aborting on "choice grounds" you're not really in favour of women's choice.
(What did you think of my "reverse headship" suggestion btw?)
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The same goes for Mudfrog's "a woman should be forced to consult her husband/boyfriend/whoever".
Where did I say that?????
Conveniently, you quoted it for me. I'll extract the relevant bit:
quote:
Likewise, a pregnant mother should never be allowed to abort without the reasonable consultation with the father she is still with and without counselling and advice given to both together.
She should not be allowed to do X without consultation is the same as she should be forced to consult if she wants to do X.
I maintain my stance. Yes, of course in a sensible functional relationship a couple is going to discuss the consequences of a pregnancy (either before or after it happens). And that's what happens, and there's no need for laws to enforce it.
If a woman is not in a sensible functional relationship, forcing her to attend counselling with the man she's not in a functional relationship with is borderline abusive.
And forcing counselling on people who have already considered the options, and come to a conclusion, shows utter contempt towards their rights of self-determination.
I have the same feelings of contempt towards laws that force spouses to get permission from their spouse before a vasectomy or tubal ligation. It is quite simply not the place of government to interfere in people's relationships like that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
if the parents are together and the relationship is healthy, the unborn child is healthy, the decision to terminate on choice grounds alone , must always be a joint one.
That's a tautology. If a couple are in a healthy relationship, then they are going to discuss the consequences of a pregnancy and come to a decision together, about what it means for them as a couple. The same way they do with any other important decision. That's what "healthy relationship" means.
If the couple aren't making important decisions together, they aren't in a healthy relationship and your statement is moot.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would highlight the following words:
ongoing relationship with the father,
supported by medical opinion,
no considered medical reason for the termination.
if the parents are together and the relationship is healthy, the unborn child is healthy, the decision to terminate on choice grounds alone, must always be a joint one.
That seems to be a fairly meaningless mush of words. What constitutes "choice grounds alone"? If a woman has what you would consider a "considered medical reason for the termination", she's still making a choice. Does that still qualify as "choice grounds alone"?
As near as I can tell, "choice grounds alone" seems to mean "a reason Mudfrog would disagree with", but I'm not sure why your personal priorities should be paramount in someone else's reproductive choices.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht, you can interpret what I say however you like - and I can of course disagree with your interpretation.
What you cannot do is take your interpretation, put quotation marls round it and pass it off as my own words - especially when others quote it and believe I said those actual words.
That is not OK.
It's actually deceitful.
I wrote a whole load of other stuff as well but then my internet died and I lost it all. This is all I can remember LOL - and to be frank, all I can be bothered to write after all that lost effort.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Leorning Cniht, you can interpret what I say however you like - and I can of course disagree with your interpretation.
That is not OK.
It's actually deceitful.
Well, I'm sorry you feel like that. That was not my intent. The quote marks were intended to encapsulate words that described your position, not to indicate a verbatim quote (for which I would have used the quote function).
Your actual words, which both you and I have re-quoted, were:
quote:
Likewise, a pregnant mother should never be allowed to abort without the reasonable consultation with the father she is still with and without counselling and advice given to both together.
That is logically equivalent to saying "A pregnant mother should be forced to consult the father she is still with, and to attend counselling and receive advice with him, before being allowed to have an abortion."
The two statements have identical content, which is why I think my paraphrase was reasonable. I'm really not sure what else your words can mean, but you say I'm misrepresenting you, so apparently you mean something else.
You included extra language, which I did not quote, saying that there could be exceptions and so on. But when you structure it the way you did, the implication is that some third party is going to judge whether the woman's reason for wanting an exception from your rule is reasonable.
So a woman who wants an abortion and doesn't want to have your mandated partner-counselling is going to have to satisfy someone (a judge? a doctor? the counsellor?) that her reasons are adequate.
So you're going to take a woman who neither feels comfortable having a baby with her partner nor discussing her pregnancy with him, and have some third party decide whether she's being reasonable based on a short conversation? Or is she somehow going to have to prove that she's being reasonable?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
