PDA

View Full Version : Sweden Approves Abortion Based on Sex of Fetus


Don
05-16-2009, 12:19 AM
This Washington Times article (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/13/hot-button-28148687/) has the details.
Swedish women will be permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetus, according to a ruling by Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare.

The ruling was spurred by a request from Kai Wedenberg, head of the clinic where a woman twice requested, and received, an abortion based on sex.
Good idea, or not?

Devil Ledbetter
05-16-2009, 12:25 AM
It would be better if some people didn't get pregnant in the first place. If you want to choose the sex, adopt.

And this is coming from a hard-line pro-choicer.

Kitty Pryde
05-16-2009, 12:29 AM
It's worked out really well (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11china.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/China) for China (she said sarcastically).

Says the Gray Lady:

A bias in favor of male offspring has left China with 32 million more boys under the age of 20 than girls, creating “an imminent generation of excess men,” a study released Friday said.

William Haskins
05-16-2009, 12:30 AM
It would be better if some people didn't get pregnant in the first place. If you want to choose the sex, adopt.

And this is coming from a hard-line pro-choicer.

can't help but notice you didn't weigh in.

Don
05-16-2009, 12:33 AM
I thought I'd wait a while instead of writing my usual "Ministry of Truth" propaganda initial post and see how that played. :D

ETA: Neither did you. :rolleyes:

Don
05-16-2009, 12:37 AM
It's worked out really well (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11china.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/China) for China (she said sarcastically).

Says the Gray Lady:
A bias in favor of male offspring has left China with 32 million more boys under the age of 20 than girls, creating “an imminent generation of excess men,” a study released Friday said.
And people say we have nothing to fear from China. :rolleyes: Where are all those men going to find women if they don't come over here, take over our country, and open massive "comfort stations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women)"?

Bird of Prey
05-16-2009, 12:38 AM
This Washington Times article (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/13/hot-button-28148687/) has the details.

Good idea, or not?

Good idea? I doubt I'd characterize it as a "good idea," but I think it's inevitable, whether it's legal or not, so legalization is inevitable. I doubt anybody can really force a woman carry a fetus she doesn't want, nor should she be forced, for any reason. So, if she'd rather have a boy, have a boy.

Devil Ledbetter
05-16-2009, 12:47 AM
can't help but notice you didn't weigh in.I don't think abortion should be illegal, period. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree with anyone's particular reason for aborting. I might think it's a stupid, selfish or shortsighted reason but ultimately it's their family they're building, not mine.

If it's none of my business if you want to have six kids, why would I suddenly believe I should have a say if you decide to have six girls?

James81
05-16-2009, 12:47 AM
Wow, this makes me physically ill to my stomach.

William Haskins
05-16-2009, 12:49 AM
I don't think abortion should be illegal, period. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree with anyone's particular reason for aborting. I might think it's a stupid, selfish or shortsighted reason but ultimately it's their family they're building, not mine.

If it's none of my business if you want to have six kids, why would I suddenly believe I should have a say if you decide to have six girls?

okay. thanks.

veinglory
05-16-2009, 01:16 AM
I think there is a difference between saying a person should have access to abortion if they are not ready and willing to have an unplanned child, and saying abortion has no weight and should be entirely at will for any cosmetic and aesthetic reason whatsoever.

James81
05-16-2009, 01:18 AM
and saying abortion has no weight and should be entirely at will for any cosmetic and aesthetic reason whatsoever.

Yeah, but that's what happens when you dilute the language...instead of calling it a "human baby," it's called a "fetus"...instead of saying "it's alive," it's said to have the "potential for life"....

You can't just dilute the language and not expect the morals behind the arguements to get diluted as well.

Bird of Prey
05-16-2009, 01:20 AM
I think their is a difference between saying a person should have access to abortion if they are not ready and willing to have an unplanned child, and saying abortion has no weight and should be entirely at will for any cosmetic and aesthetic reason whatsoever.

It's up to the woman. Her body, her decision. There's no point in trying to control her to suit an outside opinion.

CACTUSWENDY
05-16-2009, 01:27 AM
When I first read the post...I too thought about China and their choices. My personal belief is that I am against it. Nature has a way of making enough to go around and messing with it does not seem right and will one day prove that out. (Let alone the thought that I would not be alive because I am female....) And this does not even take into consideration any views of it being 'right to abort' or not.

But this too is IMHO.

Devil Ledbetter
05-16-2009, 01:32 AM
When I first read the post...I too thought about China and their choices. My personal belief is that I am against it. Nature has a way of making enough to go around and messing with it does not seem right and will one day prove that out. (Let alone the thought that I would not be alive because I am female....) And this does not even take into consideration any views of it being 'right to abort' or not.

But this too is IMHO.Not to defend China's reprehensible policies, but they do have a massive overpopluation problem. The over abundance of men should eventually slow that problem down. One woman and a dozen men can make how many babies in a year? A dozen women and one man can make how many?

Also, some IVF patients are already choosing the sex via pre-implantation screening.

And James81, nobody is "diluting the language." Embryo is to baby as baby is to adult. It is not the same thing and should not (IMO) have the same rights.

Don
05-16-2009, 01:32 AM
I think China's situation shows we can't do much about it. We just have to hope it doesn't catch on here.

There's really no reason anybody needs to pick the sex of their child, though. Let's call it a luxury and slap a fat tax on it at least. :roll:

robeiae
05-16-2009, 01:33 AM
Abortion is a valid medical procedure and should be legal, imo.

But this kind of thing turns abortion into nothing more than birth control, which many hard-line pro-choice folks have been forever insisting that it's not. which, of course, lends mild support to the argument that other forms of birth control are other forms of abortion.

An ugly ruling, imo.

James81
05-16-2009, 01:37 AM
And James81, nobody is "diluting the language." Embryo is to baby as baby is to adult. It is not the same thing and should not (IMO) have the same rights.

Well, the dilution comes more in the statements about the baby not being "alive." Of course it's alive...it has a heartbeat and it's growing.

When it comes to rights, does not the consitution explicitly give each of us the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

William Haskins
05-16-2009, 01:40 AM
But this kind of thing turns abortion into nothing more than birth control

i'll go a step further and say that it turns into eugenics.

James81
05-16-2009, 01:41 AM
i'll go a step further and say that it turns into eugenics.

I'll go yet another step further and say that it turns into ebonics.

Bird of Prey
05-16-2009, 01:42 AM
Well, the dilution comes more in the statements about the baby not being "alive." Of course it's alive...it has a heartbeat and it's growing.

When it comes to rights, does not the consitution explicitly give each of us the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

When you aren't a part of somebody else's body, I think you get those rights.

Seaclusion
05-16-2009, 01:42 AM
When it comes to rights, does not the consitution explicitly give each of us the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?


Yes, each person. A fetus is not an autonomous person and thus is not protected under the constitution.

Richard

James81
05-16-2009, 01:44 AM
Yes, each person. A fetus is not an autonomous person and thus is not protected under the constitution.

Richard

Well, if you want to get technical, only MEN have those rights:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.



:D

amirite? huh? amirite?

(I'm being facetious, but if you want to get down to technicalities, there it is in black and white...written in a time when WOMEN WERE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE OR OWN PROPERTY)

Don
05-16-2009, 01:47 AM
i'll go a step further and say that it turns into eugenics.
Not to Godwin the thread, but I think this qualifies as eugenics.
Programs by which humans are carefully selected for breeding in order to maximize certain qualities..
Of course, eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) has a bad rep now, thanks to old mustachio. In its heyday, though, look at the list of supporters:

Margaret Sanger
H.G. Wells
Woodrow Wilson
Theodore Roosevelt
John Maynard Keynes
Winston Churchill

You know, I never learned that in high school. Strange, isn't it?

Seaclusion
05-16-2009, 01:47 AM
Yes James81, but we now consider the word 'man' to apply to 'human'

Richard

James81
05-16-2009, 01:48 AM
Yes James81, but we now consider the word 'man' to apply to 'human'

Richard

Yes, and maybe someday we'll evolve to the point where "fetus" applies to "human" as well.

Zoombie
05-16-2009, 01:48 AM
Really, the only good thing about China's solution is it means they're perfectly geared to fight a major, global war, cause they have a huge number of pissed off young men to throw around.

...

shit.

Seaclusion
05-16-2009, 01:50 AM
Really, the only good thing about China's solution is it means they're perfectly geared to fight a major, global war, cause they have a huge number of pissed off frustrated young men to throw around.

...

.

Semantics

James81
05-16-2009, 01:50 AM
Really, the only good thing about China's solution is it means they're perfectly geared to fight a major, global war, cause they have a huge number of pissed off young men to throw around.

...

shit.

If only we could figure out a way to get all the guys who sit at home and play WoW to join the military....

Zoombie
05-16-2009, 01:51 AM
Or if somehow, WWIII could be fought over WoW...

Don
05-16-2009, 01:51 AM
Not too surprising a decision, for Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) at least.
Nevertheless, the second largest known eugenics program, created by social democrats in Sweden, continued until 1975.

James81
05-16-2009, 01:52 AM
Or if somehow, WWIII could be fought over WoW...

WWIII will be fought against robots.

AND SEE THAT WAR IN APPROXIMATELY ONE WEEK!

Zoombie
05-16-2009, 01:53 AM
What exactly is Sweden's supposed eugenics program run by?

Don
05-16-2009, 01:58 AM
I'll do some digging. The eugenics program was started by the Social Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Social_Democratic_Party). They sound like a piece of work.
The Social Democratic Party's position is in theoretical base within Marxist revisionism. Its party program interchangeably calls their ideology democratic socialism, or social democracy. They support social welfare provision paid for from progressive taxation. In recent times they have become strong supporters of feminism, equality of all kinds, and in strong opposition to what they see as discrimination and racism.
Eugenics fits right in with the "state over people" mantra though.

Zoombie
05-16-2009, 01:59 AM
Kudos for being pro feminism and equality.

Not so kudos for the whole Eugenics thing.

William Haskins
05-16-2009, 02:01 AM
well, their professed goal of non-discriminatory tolerance will certainly be put to the test if science catches up to a "gay gene", for instance, and women start aborting on that basis.

Devil Ledbetter
05-16-2009, 02:02 AM
I guess I need a better understanding of what eugenics means. I thought it meant the government controlling who could mate with whom in some effort to "improve" the human race, kind of like animal husbandry but with people.

Parent voluntarily aborting pregnancies for any reason does not seem to comport with that definition. They're doing it because they don't want, say, a boy because it's their (idiotic) dream to have another girl so their existing girl will have a sister to play with. They're not doing it with an eye toward improving the human race as a whole, and they're not being forced to do it at all.

It's not eugenics, unless the definition has changed to mean aborting any particular fetus you don't want.

Don
05-16-2009, 02:02 AM
It looks like it was run by the government, Zoombie.

Sweden to reflect on eugenics past (http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2727&date=20051221)

From 2005:
Sweden's government said on Wednesday that it had commissioned a study into why eugenics evolved in the country in the 19th and 20th centuries, leading to tens of thousands being sterilized by force.

A total of 63,000 people, mostly women, were sterilized in Sweden from 1935 to 1975 based on eugenics and the desire to weed out "inferiors" to create a stronger Swedish race.

MacAllister
05-16-2009, 02:04 AM
Wow...is it time for another abortion thread already? I dunno where the weeks go.

Zoombie
05-16-2009, 02:07 AM
No, but you actually answered my question Don.

Looks like its being run off the Nazi idealogy of racial purity...

Susan Gable
05-16-2009, 02:08 AM
well, their professed goal of non-discriminatory tolerance will certainly be put to the test if science catches up to a "gay gene", for instance, and women start aborting on that basis.

Or a hair color gene. Nope, don't want a (fill in your undesirable hair-color here.)-haired kid. THink I'll just get rid of this one and try again.

Susan G.

James81
05-16-2009, 02:09 AM
Wow...is it time for another abortion thread already? I dunno where the weeks go.

:roll:

What are the odds that this will end violently and die a cold, hard death due to lockage?

Devil Ledbetter
05-16-2009, 02:15 AM
It looks like it was run by the government, Zoombie.

Sweden to reflect on eugenics past (http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2727&date=20051221)

From 2005:

Sweden's government said on Wednesday that it had commissioned a study into why eugenics evolved in the country in the 19th and 20th centuries, leading to tens of thousands being sterilized by force.

A total of 63,000 people, mostly women, were sterilized in Sweden from 1935 to 1975 based on eugenics and the desire to weed out "inferiors" to create a stronger Swedish race. See, now that sounds like eugenics to me. Not some individual parents deciding on a particular gender (or even hair color, if we must play slippery-slope). The parents are making the choice voluntarily based on what they want for their family, not being forced to abort by a government bent on "improving" the human race.

Now, when the government starts demanding that mixed race couple abort, I'll worry about eugenics.

Devil Ledbetter
05-16-2009, 02:17 AM
well, their professed goal of non-discriminatory tolerance will certainly be put to the test if science catches up to a "gay gene", for instance, and women start aborting on that basis.Based on the (anti-gay) religious-right's "pro-life" sentiments I doubt this would be much of an issue.

But then again, they are given to occasional fits of hypocrisy.

Don
05-16-2009, 02:22 AM
No, but you actually answered my question Don.

Looks like its being run off the Nazi idealogy of racial purity...
Look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) again, Zoombie. It was the "in thing" among the intelligensia long before it became a Nazi thing. It basically fell out of favor because of the blowback from the Nazi thing. Almost like it was a test to see how the average Joe would react to wholescale human husbandry.
The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rudin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany, and when proponents of eugenics among scientists and thinkers prompted a backlash in the public.

You don't consider these people Nazis, do you? They were all supporters of eugenics pre-Nazi, though.

Margaret Sanger
Marie Stopes
H.G. Wells
Woodrow Wilson
Theodore Roosevelt
Emile Zola
George Bernard Shaw
John Maynard Keynes
William Keith Kellogg
Winston Churchill
Linus Pauling
Sidney Webb

Contemplative
05-16-2009, 02:23 AM
Voluntary personal eugenics has always been legal just about everywhere. Not that it's good; I'm just saying...

Anyway, yeah, I think a woman should be able to abort based on the gender of the child. You can't give people a freedom and then restrict it based on their motive for exercising it; in that case they don't have the freedom at all, because you are controlling whether or not they can do it.

Aside from the basic liberty reasons, no little girl ever deserves to be raised in a family that wanted a boy enough to abort and try again. The usual story from Chinese women is that they were made to feel again and again what a disappointment they were. Remember me talking in another thread about how bigots cannot raise children who fall within the spectrum of their bigotry? Yeah, that.

Devil Ledbetter
05-16-2009, 02:32 AM
Voluntary personal eugenics has always been legal just about everywhere. Not that it's good; I'm just saying...

If it's voluntary and personal, is it even eugenics?

Seriously. This term gets thrown around a lot, but what exactly does it mean? If it doesn't involve human husbandry, forced sterilizations and forced pairings of "fine" human specimens with the intent of producing particular traits in the offspring, can it even be eugenics?

Or does it just boil down to personal preferences (however selfish they may be.)

Don
05-16-2009, 02:40 AM
One set of parents making one decision based on their own personal preference probably doesn't qualify as eugenics. Millions of sets of parents making millions of identical decisions based on an ideal generated by the society around them may well qualify.

Contemplative
05-16-2009, 02:41 AM
If it's voluntary and personal, is it even eugenics?

I would say that if a person with a genetically inherited condition chooses to adopt or procure artificial insemination rather than having their own genetic child, that's an act of voluntary eugenicism -- doubly so if they do it with the deliberate intent of removing bad genes from the gene pool. Likewise the ickier but more common case of racists seeking to breed with only people they see as being of their own race, to avoid 'polluting the race'.

'Eugenics' is a word that has connotations which do not match its literal meaning in the modern age.

Zoombie
05-16-2009, 03:04 AM
Maybe that means we need to come up with a new term, cause Eugenics has a lot of very...very...VERY nasty baggage.

I'm looking at you, Mr. Mengala.

Devil Ledbetter
05-16-2009, 04:16 AM
I would say that if a person with a genetically inherited condition chooses to adopt or procure artificial insemination rather than having their own genetic child, that's an act of voluntary eugenicism Are you sure it's not just a case of them not wanting to pass their own suffering along to their child?

-- doubly so if they do it with the deliberate intent of removing bad genes from the gene pool. Is that a bad thing? Is there inherent value in preserving bad genes? Because where I see value is caring for people who are already here regardless of their debilitating genetic anomalies - not preserving or revering those particular anomalies for the anomalies' sakes.

Where I would draw the line is when the state begins enforcing who can have children based on genetics.

Let's look at the flipside of this argument. I know a woman with a genetic condition called osteogenesis imperfecta. She's had hundreds of broken bones in her lifetime. She is tiny (maybe 30-40 pounds), very disfigured and has never been able to walk. But she's a great gal, plucky, intellegent. She decided to have kids, knowing full well they would have a 1-in-4 chance of suffering this debilitating condition. Both of them do. I would defend to the death her right to make that choice for her family, I sure don't want the state telling her she can't bear children -- yet there is no way I would take a 1-4 risk that my kids would suffer their whole lives with that condition, or any condition of that severity.

Does that make me a eugenicist? Or just a parent with different values and ideals than hers?

veinglory
05-16-2009, 04:22 AM
It's up to the woman. Her body, her decision. There's no point in trying to control her to suit an outside opinion.

That is very black and white. I mean people can kill and eat animals but we don't let them kill them painfully or for sheer entertainment. I am pro-choice but that doesn't mean I think a fetus has the same moral weight as a tic tac.

cethklein
05-16-2009, 04:32 AM
This is disturbing at best, sickening at worst. As an aside, I notice the Washington Times is the source here. I definitely noticed the anti abortion slant. Obviously the Moonies are anti abortion, but is anyone else a bit disturbed by the prospect that Mr. Moon's writers may be using this disturbing story as an attack on abortion in general? Even if you oppose abortion, it seems a bit tasteless.

Not that i would EVER accuse the "True Father" of promoting such things. No, NEEEEEEEVER...........................

Gretad08
05-16-2009, 04:40 AM
That is very black and white. I mean people can kill and eat animals but we don't let them kill them painfully or for sheer entertainment. I am pro-choice but that doesn't mean I think a fetus has the same moral weight as a tic tac.


A baby does have more moral weight than a tic-tac and thanks for pointing that out. That's seems to get lost in the "woman's right" argument.

Someone please explain to me why it is solely the woman's right to choose an abortion? Because she has to carry the baby for 9 months?

I've carried babies, it's not that hard...very incompetent people do it everyday. The hard part comes after the baby is born.

What about the fathers? Do they not get a choice at all just because they can't carry the child?

Note that I'm referring to cases in which mom and baby are perfectly healthy, as I'm sure is the case in a majority of the abortions performed in the U.S. If there are health issues, and mom's life is in danger then yes she has more say than dad IMO.

Bird of Prey
05-16-2009, 05:08 AM
A baby does have more moral weight than a tic-tac and thanks for pointing that out. That's seems to get lost in the "woman's right" argument.

Someone please explain to me why it is solely the woman's right to choose an abortion? Because she has to carry the baby for 9 months?

I've carried babies, it's not that hard...very incompetent people do it everyday. The hard part comes after the baby is born.

What about the fathers? Do they not get a choice at all just because they can't carry the child?

Note that I'm referring to cases in which mom and baby are perfectly healthy, as I'm sure is the case in a majority of the abortions performed in the U.S. If there are health issues, and mom's life is in danger then yes she has more say than dad IMO.

Well, this is where these threads potentially break down. Nobody's going to change your mind. Nobody's going to change mine. I think it's absolutely a woman's right and her call; you don't.

It's a legal issue and really a control issue. How anybody perceives a fetus is irrelevant to the argument. It's the legal view that counts. The legal view is that an adult woman's rights trump those of a fetus. It is up to that woman to decide whether or not she is going to carry a fetus to term.

Now if you believe that the fetus has rights or the husband has rights, you have every right to bring a fetus to term, as many as you want, consulting a husband as you see fit. But that's where your rights end: with you, your spouse, your children, your family. Trying to control other people's conduct when it comes to their bodies and their personal social and family decisions is counter to a free society.

dgiharris
05-16-2009, 05:14 AM
A baby does have more moral weight than a tic-tac and thanks for pointing that out. That's seems to get lost in the "woman's right" argument..
:ROFL:

Someone please explain to me why it is solely the woman's right to choose an abortion? Because she has to carry the baby for 9 months?

I've carried babies, it's not that hard...very incompetent people do it everyday. The hard part comes after the baby is born.

What about the fathers? Do they not get a choice at all just because they can't carry the child?

Note that I'm referring to cases in which mom and baby are perfectly healthy, as I'm sure is the case in a majority of the abortions performed in the U.S. If there are health issues, and mom's life is in danger then yes she has more say than dad IMO.

I know, this is a complex issue and it sucks that ultimately, not everyone's rights are equal in this case.

The father does have a right, but the mother simply has more right becuase she is the one that bears a greater burden. I don't think you can say having a baby is 'no big deal'. One of my co-workers almost died during delivery at the hospital (her baby died) and she had all the health care in the world.

We can't subject someone to a life threatening condition against their will. We are a free society. And yes, pregancy is LIFE threatening. If you don't believe me, look up the mortality rates in countries without modern medicine.

If we weren't a free society, sure. Demand away. But we are a free society, and the mother has the ultimate choice.

So what is the fix?

Well, people being responsible would be a great start. Access to more technological options (invitro fertilization, screenings, etc) but unfortunately, that is cost prohibitive for most.

I don't see an easy solution until the costs of the more exotic fertility treatments/options become wayyyy cheaper.

anyways, my one cent

Mel...

William Haskins
05-16-2009, 05:16 AM
This is disturbing at best, sickening at worst. As an aside, I notice the Washington Times is the source here. I definitely noticed the anti abortion slant. Obviously the Moonies are anti abortion, but is anyone else a bit disturbed by the prospect that Mr. Moon's writers may be using this disturbing story as an attack on abortion in general? Even if you oppose abortion, it seems a bit tasteless.

Not that i would EVER accuse the "True Father" of promoting such things. No, NEEEEEEEVER...........................

sorry to interrupt your "shoot the messenger" diatribe. but i didn't find anything overtly anti-abortion about the article.

if it makes you feel better, it broke (for the english-speaking world) the day before on the local. you can read that version if it's more comfortable for you.

http://www.thelocal.se/19392.html

oh, and if it's of any interest, here's a thread at democratic underground (125 responses from a fairly progressive membership - you might be surprised at the reservations some have about this).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3873199

veinglory
05-16-2009, 05:16 AM
I think you may be missing the point that it is more that two points of veiw. If you grant a fetus some innate worth, yet a great deal less than a baby it is not a matter of whether you can kill it or not, but when, why, how and what justifications are socially acceptable. Falsely dichotomisng an argument is what makes it intransigent.

Most people already do this by accepting abortion only for a certain duration within the pregnancy (unless the reason is very compelling such as to save the mother's life). I would argue that a person should know, before becoming pregnant, that killing a fetus because of its race or gender os considered abhorent and potentially not allowed. And indeed in many countries this is already the case.

dgiharris
05-16-2009, 05:35 AM
I think you may be missing the point that it is more that two points of veiw. If you grant a fetus some innate worth, yet a great deal less than a baby it is not a matter of whether you can kill it or not, but when, why, how and what justifications are socially acceptable. Falsely dichotomisng an argument is what makes it intransigent.

I guess this is something that subjectiveness is inevitable.

At what point is a fetus a life? Of course, the anti-abortion definition (once the egg is fertilized) just doesn't fly with me. A cluster of cells to me is a cluster of cells. It is a 'potential' life, but not a life.

In my mind I draw the line at when that life can exist on its own outside of the body, so the third trimester. Until that time, I consider it 'part' of the mother and if she wants to get rid of that 'part' it is her choice.

Do I fault those who view potential life = life.

No. I see the logic there, it is just a view I don't share.

When a woman has a miscarriage at 2 months do we hold a funeral? No. We don't because on some level we do not recognize it as a life, but a potential life, there is a difference IMHO.

However, what I will concede is that the attitudes of those being irresponsible is abhorrent. There is a difference between an accidental pregnacy and reckless behavior.

*sigh*

This issue sucks. I see both sides and there will never be a meeting of the minds on this issue. It is akin to WWI. Trenches are set deep, battle lines are drawn.

My other cent

Mel...

Zoombie
05-16-2009, 05:41 AM
We could always kill everyone on the other side

dolores haze
05-16-2009, 05:47 AM
I'm strongly pro-choice, but I have a big problem with this. It just seems like such a trivial reason to abort.

rhymegirl
05-16-2009, 05:50 AM
When it comes to rights, does not the consitution explicitly give each of us the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

When you aren't a part of somebody else's body, I think you get those rights.

Yes, see this is the problem with your reasoning, James. If you want to grant an unborn child rights, then automatically the woman carrying it ends up with no rights.

What about the woman's rights? Some of us think of "life" as actually living and breathing in the world. And carrying an unwanted child for 9 months might take away my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Gretad08
05-16-2009, 06:01 AM
Well, this is where these threads potentially break down. Nobody's going to change your mind. Nobody's going to change mine. I think it's absolutely a woman's right and her call; you don't.

It's a legal issue and really a control issue. How anybody perceives a fetus is irrelevant to the argument. It's the legal view that counts. The legal view is that an adult woman's rights trump those of a fetus. It is up to that woman to decide whether or not she is going to carry a fetus to term.

Now if you believe that the fetus has rights or the husband has rights, you have every right to bring a fetus to term, as many as you want, consulting a husband as you see fit. But that's where your rights end: with you, your spouse, your children, your family. Trying to control other people's conduct when it comes to their bodies and their personal social and family decisions is counter to a free society.

I agree with several of your points bird. (and no I don't tend to get nasty so if this thread breaks down that will be on someone else's comments, not mine.)

I'm not saying it's not a woman's call, but in cases where there are no health issues, I think there are other factors that should be considered. Okay, enough said about that b/c you're right, we probably won't agree, but we certainly don't have to argue :Hug2:

As I said before, between the pro-choice/pro-life argument, I have a problem with government legislating our choices. Period. End of story. I don't want them telling me whether I can or can't do anything regarding my family, nor do I want them to do that to you or anyone else here. This is where we agree. Woman's right or not, it's certainly not a right of the government.

And back to the original post, I think it's bizarre that anyone would choose to abort due to the sex of a child.

Have a good week-end.

Gretad08
05-16-2009, 06:17 AM
:ROFL:



I know, this is a complex issue and it sucks that ultimately, not everyone's rights are equal in this case.

The father does have a right, but the mother simply has more right becuase she is the one that bears a greater burden. I don't think you can say having a baby is 'no big deal'. One of my co-workers almost died during delivery at the hospital (her baby died) and she had all the health care in the world.

We can't subject someone to a life threatening condition against their will. We are a free society. And yes, pregancy is LIFE threatening. If you don't believe me, look up the mortality rates in countries without modern medicine.

If we weren't a free society, sure. Demand away. But we are a free society, and the mother has the ultimate choice.

So what is the fix?

Well, people being responsible would be a great start. Access to more technological options (invitro fertilization, screenings, etc) but unfortunately, that is cost prohibitive for most.

I don't see an easy solution until the costs of the more exotic fertility treatments/options become wayyyy cheaper.

anyways, my one cent

Mel...

Okay, I didn't mean to sound glib...I was going for humor when I said that I've carried a baby and it's not that hard. Of course it's challenging. Anyway I don't do humor well all the time.

Please note that I specifically mentioned that my point is referring to cases in which the health of mom and baby is perfectly fine throughout pregnancy.

And yes, the mortality rates for mothers are high in countries without modern medecine, but again, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the good ol' U.S...top notch modern medecine 'round these parts.

Of course, even with modern medecine things can go wrong and I'm so sorry for your co-worker and her baby. Thankfully around here, that's the exception, not the rule.

You're right...the whole thing sucks... ugly and heated.

I didn't mean to offend anybody...Have a good week-end.

James81
05-16-2009, 06:27 AM
Yes, see this is the problem with your reasoning, James. If you want to grant an unborn child rights, then automatically the woman carrying it ends up with no rights.

What about the woman's rights? Some of us think of "life" as actually living and breathing in the world. And carrying an unwanted child for 9 months might take away my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Ok, what about the father that doesn't want the child? Why is HE forced, against his will, to support a child he didn't want when the mother wants the child?

What about his "libe, liberty, and pusuit of happiness"?

dgiharris
05-16-2009, 06:38 AM
Okay, I didn't mean to sound glib...I was going for humor when I said that I've carried a baby and it's not that hard. Of course it's challenging. Anyway I don't do humor well all the time.

ght...the whole thing sucks... ugly and heated.

I didn't mean to offend anybody...Have a good week-end.

Seems I got some of your humor but not all of it (i did put the laughy face by the part I got :) )

anyways, that's what I get for reading too fast. No problem, i wasn't offended

Mel...

History_Chick
05-16-2009, 06:40 AM
And people say we have nothing to fear from China. :rolleyes: Where are all those men going to find women if they don't come over here, take over our country, and open massive "comfort stations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women)"?


I always thought about this in the back of my mind. You have a lot of hot blooded, horny males and no females and that just aint good.

On topic: Why cant they do some type of fertility thing that chooses the sex of teh child. I thought we could do that now. Maybe I'm wrong.

Little Earthquake
05-16-2009, 09:19 AM
I'm pro-choice, but I have a peculiar aversion to people who would use their choice for (IMO) frivolous reasons. I can understand saying, "I cannot afford a child right now," or "My boyfriend is an abusive jagoff and I don't want him beating a kid like he beats me," or "I just really don't like children." Each of those reasons for abortion is, in effect, saying, "This child's life wouldn't be all that great because of X, Y and Z reasons, so I'm going to do him/her a favor and cut both our losses." But to say, "I really want a little girl to dress up in ruffles and bows, so since my fetus is male, I'm going to have an abortion and try again," just sounds... I don't know... heartless.

(My thoughts on the matter might have something to do with the fact that I want to have a baby so badly right now and I think I'd be glad with whatever the fates gave me.)

Romantic Heretic
05-16-2009, 06:48 PM
Um, reading the article revealed, from my point of view, a different perspective.

Sveriges Television reported Tuesday that the board, in response to Mr. Wedenberg's inquiry, decided it is illegal to deny a woman an abortion up to her 18th week of pregnancy even if her request is based on a sex preference.

The Swedish government did not decide that fetuses of a certain gender should be aborted. They said they cannot deny a woman an abortion even if she chooses to abort because of the fetus' gender.

Different thing altogether.

Cyia
05-16-2009, 06:57 PM
Do they actually ask someone their reasons before allowing an abortion?

Little Earthquake
05-16-2009, 07:06 PM
Do they actually ask someone their reasons before allowing an abortion?

That's kinda what I was wondering. Theoretically, a woman in America could abort b/c of her child's gender, so long as she lives in a state that allows a later-term abortion.

Cyia
05-16-2009, 07:10 PM
I think you may be missing the point that it is more that two points of veiw. If you grant a fetus some innate worth, yet a great deal less than a baby it is not a matter of whether you can kill it or not, but when, why, how and what justifications are socially acceptable. Falsely dichotomisng an argument is what makes it intransigent.

Quoting because I agree, it's more than just this side vs. that side.

Something I don't see discussed a lot is the extreme cases on the "life side". I've seen, and understand, the arguments for extreme cases like abuse, incest, rape, etc. for people choosing not to carry a fetus to term. But what about a woman who decides to keep the child and carry the fetus to term?

She's made her choice. She (and possibly the baby's father or other relatives) are looking forward to a new baby. They've got a nursery, bought clothes, done everything in anticipation for it... then the mother is assaulted or hit by a drunk driver or shot, etc. and loses the fetus. What about her choice? It was taken away, but legally the only crime (other than the assault or DUI) is fetal injury rather than negligent homicide or murder. Is the choice she made any less valid? Especially if the pregnancy was far enough along that the child could have survived on its own if delivered before it was injured.

And just to be difficult...

The child's DNA and the mother's DNA are distinct and different, so how's it her body?

(Don't shoot me, I'm just going with the "more than two" POV's track. If it's too much of a derail, I'll delete it.)

Thump
05-16-2009, 07:14 PM
I'm strongly pro-choice, but I have a big problem with this. It just seems like such a trivial reason to abort.

Agreed. I guess I wouldn't have as much of a problem with this if only we lived in society where traces of male favouritism didn't still remain. If it truly was the parents' choice to have a girl or a boy, based on their own desire for such or such, then go for it. But let's face it, hair colour and gender preferences are heavily a matter of social conditioning and fashion. One generation Blonde hair is all the rage, the next, Red is the way to go. I mean, look at China, do you think all those parents who aborted girls (or otherwise got rid of them) did so because they were personally more in tune with raising a boy? Or was it because they were conditionned to think boys were better?

James81
05-16-2009, 08:14 PM
Quoting because I agree, it's more than just this side vs. that side.

Something I don't see discussed a lot is the extreme cases on the "life side". I've seen, and understand, the arguments for extreme cases like abuse, incest, rape, etc. for people choosing not to carry a fetus to term. But what about a woman who decides to keep the child and carry the fetus to term?

She's made her choice. She (and possibly the baby's father or other relatives) are looking forward to a new baby. They've got a nursery, bought clothes, done everything in anticipation for it... then the mother is assaulted or hit by a drunk driver or shot, etc. and loses the fetus. What about her choice? It was taken away, but legally the only crime (other than the assault or DUI) is fetal injury rather than negligent homicide or murder. Is the choice she made any less valid? Especially if the pregnancy was far enough along that the child could have survived on its own if delivered before it was injured.

And just to be difficult...

The child's DNA and the mother's DNA are distinct and different, so how's it her body?

(Don't shoot me, I'm just going with the "more than two" POV's track. If it's too much of a derail, I'll delete it.)

But see, in our country, if a woman is not allowed to do what she wants, when she wants, it's suddenly misogynic, sexist, and bigotted.

Who cares about consequences? They don't matter. What matters is that the women never has to face the consequences from a decision she makes (i.e. the decision to have unprotected sex). It doesn't matter what or who has to suffer because of it, so long as she doesn't, that's all that matters.

It doesn't matter that the baby is alive....

It doesn't matter that the baby has distinct DNA...

It doesn't matter that the act of abortion is effectively killing a human life...

It doesn't matter WHAT the father wants....(if he WANTS the child and she doesn't...she gets her way....if he DOESN'T want the child and she DOES, he still has to support it)

All that matters is that women have the choice to do what they want.

(Ok, so I'm being over the top and a little sarcastic here, and no doubt I'll get branded as a misogynist or sexist or whatever, but there you have it...the rub...the crux.)

Gretad08
05-16-2009, 08:36 PM
Quoting because I agree, it's more than just this side vs. that side.

Something I don't see discussed a lot is the extreme cases on the "life side". I've seen, and understand, the arguments for extreme cases like abuse, incest, rape, etc. for people choosing not to carry a fetus to term. But what about a woman who decides to keep the child and carry the fetus to term?

She's made her choice. She (and possibly the baby's father or other relatives) are looking forward to a new baby. They've got a nursery, bought clothes, done everything in anticipation for it... then the mother is assaulted or hit by a drunk driver or shot, etc. and loses the fetus. What about her choice? It was taken away, but legally the only crime (other than the assault or DUI) is fetal injury rather than negligent homicide or murder. Is the choice she made any less valid? Especially if the pregnancy was far enough along that the child could have survived on its own if delivered before it was injured.

And just to be difficult...

The child's DNA and the mother's DNA are distinct and different, so how's it her body?

(Don't shoot me, I'm just going with the "more than two" POV's track. If it's too much of a derail, I'll delete it.)

Really compelling question Cyia...way to muddy the waters even more ;). (just kidding). I love when this issue can be looked at in more than just pro-choice/pro-life views.

Thanks!

icerose
05-16-2009, 09:06 PM
My personal views. I am very pro-life, but I'm also pro-choice if that makes any sense. I believe that abortions should be there until the baby can live on its own, after that it should be only for life threatening situations. twenty something weeks is more than enough to know whether or not you're pregnant and whether or not you want to keep it.

I personally would never have an abortion unless it was going to kill me and the baby. That being said, I'm also done having kids and have taken the necessary steps to avoid future pregnancies.

At the same time I'm torn because having a baby is a really big deal, not just the pregnancy but everything that follows. So that choice has to be there.

What I especially don't get though is the pro-life who don't believe an abortion is ever waranted. Not in the case of rape, incest, or life threatening. Some go as far as to say taking care of tubular pregnancies is wrong. What the heck?

As for women choosing based on the sex of the baby, I don't understand why they don't adopt? It is disturbing to me, especially weighing it against China's situation. I wish more people would value every life and they could get over the whole sexist thing.

Cyia
05-16-2009, 09:15 PM
The one I don't understand is partial birth abortion. What's the benefit in it? The pregnancy is already to term, the baby's half delivered, so why not just put it up for adoption?

icerose
05-16-2009, 09:31 PM
The one I don't understand is partial birth abortion. What's the benefit in it? The pregnancy is already to term, the baby's half delivered, so why not just put it up for adoption?

I don't get it either. That one really really bothers me.

Thump
05-16-2009, 09:54 PM
I don't get it either. That one really really bothers me.

It's more a question of life-threatening issues coming up late in the pregnancy and 1) having to abort to save the life of the mother or 2) the fetus dies in the womb and has to be evacuated or 3) the fetus is alive but has some a serious health issue that would seriously compromise it's quality of life or it may be that they are severely retarded for example that it wouldn't be much more than a shell of a person or a life that would be constant pain and unhappiness etc and this only shows itself later in the pregnancy.

The advantage of this sort of procedure is that the baby's body comes out intact and the parents have something to hold and grieve over giving them some chance at proper closure.

James81
05-16-2009, 10:13 PM
3) the fetus is alive but has some a serious health issue that would seriously compromise it's quality of life or it may be that they are severely retarded for example that it wouldn't be much more than a shell of a person or a life that would be constant pain and unhappiness etc and this only shows itself later in the pregnancy.

I like how we decide for someone whether or not their issue will reduce their quality of life. Personally, I think it's really offensive to say that because someone is going to be retarded, that their quality of life is reduced. Because, heck, some of the happiest people I know are retarded.

Sorry, but this one doesn't hold much water. Let the child have a chance at life and let THEM decide what their quality of life will be.

icerose
05-16-2009, 10:20 PM
It's more a question of life-threatening issues coming up late in the pregnancy and 1) having to abort to save the life of the mother or 2) the fetus dies in the womb and has to be evacuated or 3) the fetus is alive but has some a serious health issue that would seriously compromise it's quality of life or it may be that they are severely retarded for example that it wouldn't be much more than a shell of a person or a life that would be constant pain and unhappiness etc and this only shows itself later in the pregnancy.

The advantage of this sort of procedure is that the baby's body comes out intact and the parents have something to hold and grieve over giving them some chance at proper closure.

Most of the people asking for partial birth abortions to be allowed want it for the reason of getting rid of an unwanted baby. I already made allowanced for the life of the mother, and it has absolutely nothing to do with removing a dead baby from the womb, it isn't abortion, the pregnancy is already over, there's nothing to kill.

As for the really bad conditions, most of those can be determined before hand, and it's a very very muddy issue.

But most of what I've seen has been still about woman's choice, not about saving the baby from some horrible disease.

Thump
05-16-2009, 10:21 PM
I like how we decide for someone whether or not their issue will reduce their quality of life. Personally, I think it's really offensive to say that because someone is going to be retarded, that their quality of life is reduced. Because, heck, some of the happiest people I know are retarded.

Sorry, but this one doesn't hold much water. Let the child have a chance at life and let THEM decide what their quality of life will be.

I agree that retardation isn't necessarily the worst thing in the world. But the way I read it this isn't your average retarded person who can somewhat interact with the world. We're talking can't learn to speak, or walk or feed themselves, kind of stuck to being like babies for the rest of their lives, that sort of thing or like, "vegetables" (although I find that term offensive personally).

Bird of Prey
05-17-2009, 12:15 AM
I think the term "retarded" is considered degrading. I know a mentally challenged man who simply detests that term, and gets very upset if somebody refers to him as "retarded." I think terms like challenged and/or maybe handicapped or learning disabled or something along that line demonstrate a bit more sensitivity. And I'd welcome any suggestions.

James81
05-17-2009, 01:42 AM
I think the term "retarded" is considered degrading. I know a mentally challenged man who simply detests that term, and gets very upset if somebody refers to him as "retarded." I think terms like challenged and/or maybe handicapped or learning disabled or something along that line demonstrate a bit more sensitivity. And I'd welcome any suggestions.

Thinking of the term "retarded" (which the dictionary defination feeds back to "retardation) as degrading is what I consider degrading.

The word is what it is. To dillute the language or make the word into something it's not (a negative connotation) is what is degrading.

James81
05-17-2009, 01:46 AM
It actually reminds me of the show this past season on American Idol where Scott (the blind one) absolutely butchered a song, and, while Simon was telling him (in his usual manner...which he DID actually kind of soften) that he didn't do a good job on his song, Paula was beside him screaming at him about how he was being disrespectful.

And I kept thinking, Paula was the one being disrespectful because she was making the guy (Scott) feel about 2 feet tall by making it seem like you can't be honest about his performance just because he was blind.

Let's stop pretending like these people can't handle things, and start treating them with the same respect we give others. No, we don't have to be harsh and uncaring, but we don't have to dilute our language and be skittish around them either.

Bird of Prey
05-17-2009, 01:49 AM
Thinking of the term "retarded" (which the dictionary defination feeds back to "retardation) as degrading is what I consider degrading.

The word is what it is. To dillute the language or make the word into something it's not (a negative connotation) is what is degrading.

Actually, I think I'm deferring to people who prefer not to be labeled or called "retarded." And the word does have a negative connotation in present day.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7M8BpsaCMKEC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=retarded+connotation&source=bl&ots=vLq_Wmdhyj&sig=sSbr2EDmC-r6vixj0AC_IA2QgIo&hl=en&ei=CSAPSpOZPMHgtgeFuqz9Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2009/01/24/news/local/doc497ac0419501f069889487.txt

Cranky
05-17-2009, 02:30 AM
Actually, I think I'm deferring to people who prefer not to be labeled or called "retarded." And the word does have a negative connotation in present day.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7M8BpsaCMKEC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=retarded+connotation&source=bl&ots=vLq_Wmdhyj&sig=sSbr2EDmC-r6vixj0AC_IA2QgIo&hl=en&ei=CSAPSpOZPMHgtgeFuqz9Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2009/01/24/news/local/doc497ac0419501f069889487.txt

I am one who absolutely freaks out over improper usage of the word retarded. I hate hate hate it when people do that...to the point I see red, and whatever respect I had for the person who does so is pretty much out the window.

However. It is a legitimate term and used properly, I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I don't think anyone here in this thread used the word inappropriately. And there are some people with mental retardation who don't mind the term. So I defer on a case by case basis. Other people feel more PC terms or people first terminology to be insulting. I use the term the person being talked to or referred to prefers to use if I know their preference. If there isn't one stated, proper usage of "retarded" isn't wrong. If you're corrected and still use it, well...that's different, imo. YMMV, but I think it's worth throwing out there.

/my part of the derail

Palmfrond
05-17-2009, 03:07 AM
No one either in Sweden or in the US has to explain her reason for having an abortion. It makes no sense to discuss whether it should legal to have an abortion for sex selection, since there's no requirement to reveal one's purpose at all.

Insurance companies in the US won't pay for an amniocentesis for the purpose of sex selection unless the fetus is at risk for a genetic disease that only occurs in one sex, but it isn't hard to come up another excuse if the mother really wants to know. Sex determination by ultrasound is sometimes accurate, and sometimes not. Having an abortion for sex selection based on ultrasound would be idiotic, but the woman wouldn't have to tell the medical providers what she was doing.

I'm not clear about how this decision in Sweden affects anything, since women don't have to have a reason.

William Haskins
05-17-2009, 03:16 AM
because while there is no law against aborting for such reasons, there is value is the shaping of a public consciousness that says such a decision ought to be (in the philosophical sense) arrived at for reasons other than selfishness and shallowness.

regdog
05-17-2009, 08:30 PM
Ok, what about the father that doesn't want the child? Why is HE forced, against his will, to support a child he didn't want when the mother wants the child?

What about his "libe, liberty, and pusuit of happiness"?


James81 the man had several choices before the child was conceived. He could have used birth control. A great many men refuse to wear a condom saying birth control is the woman's responsibility. The argument of "She said she was on the pill" is also invalid. Baloney. If a man has sex he is equally responsible for preventing pregnancy every time.

Or he can abstain or be snipped.



As for abortion based on gender it happens every day, even in this country. More than one woman has had an ultra sound and then decided whether she wants the boy or a girl.

China now has a policy of saying gender cannot be determined on ultra sound to prevent gender selective abortion.

China also now has the lovely pratice of bride kidnapping. Men are paying for women to be kidnapped and forced into marriage with them.

I think in the very near future China will stop allowing foreign adoption of girls and they will be raised and sold into marriage. Just my opinion.

James81
05-17-2009, 08:57 PM
James81 the man had several choices before the child was conceived. He could have used birth control. A great many men refuse to wear a condom saying birth control is the woman's responsibility. The argument of "She said she was on the pill" is also invalid. Baloney. If a man has sex he is equally responsible for preventing pregnancy every time.

Or he can abstain or be snipped.



.

:roll:

And the woman doesn't have that EXACT SAME CHOICE?

benbradley
05-17-2009, 09:26 PM
Swedish women will be permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetus,

I've never had an abortion (I lack the plumbing and don't expect to ever have it) so maybe I don't understand something... can't a woman lie about her reasons?

"Oh, I'm working my way through college, this would be such a bad time for me to have a baby, bla bla bla..."

Or do they have El Al security experts interviewing women who want abortions?

Ken
05-17-2009, 09:27 PM
... Regdog wasn't denying that women don't, James. She was just correctly pointing out that men can take preventative measures, too, and shouldn't think themselves off the hook when it comes to bearing burden for 'unwanted' pregnancies. "It takes two to tango," as they say ... or was it the rhumba? Always forget which.

dmytryp
05-17-2009, 09:33 PM
Just to give you an idea where such things might lead
http://huwu.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/india.doc

The strong preference for sons under patriarchal traditions and the availability of inexpensive prenatal diagnostic techniques have resulted in an increased use of prenatal gender tests in India, even among the rural poor. Some private clinics provide such tests and then offer an induced abortion if the parents are dissatisfied with the sex of the foetus. Although no reliable figures exist on the incidence of this practice, highly distorted sex ratios in regions where such practices are believed to be common suggest that a significant number of female foetuses are aborted annually.

To counteract this practice, the Government of India enacted country-wide legislation in 1994 that regulates prenatal testing. The stated purpose of the legislation is to prohibit the use of prenatal diagnostic techniques for the determination of the sex of a foetus, resulting in “female foeticide,” which is described as “discriminatory against the female sex” and “affecting the dignity and status of women.” To this end, the law restricts the performance of prenatal diagnostic techniques to cases involving serious diseases and abnormalities and prohibits entirely the use of such techniques to determine the sex of a foetus and the advertising of such use. Facilities performing such techniques must be registered, and persons conducting the testing in these facilities are prohibited from revealing the sex of a foetus in any manner. The law also prohibits family members of a pregnant woman from seeking or encouraging her to undergo prenatal testing to determine the sex of the foetus. Penalties for contravening the provisions of the law include imprisonment and fines and, in the case of a registered medical practitioner, loss of registration, which can be permanent in the case of repeat offences.

James81
05-17-2009, 09:59 PM
... Regdog wasn't denying that women don't, James. She was just correctly pointing out that men can take preventative measures, too, and shouldn't think themselves off the hook when it comes to bearing burden for 'unwanted' pregnancies. "It takes two to tango," as they say ... or was it the rhumba? Always forget which.

And my point is that women have ONE MORE choice than men when it comes to having children.

Have you ever tried the whole "if a woman doesn't want a baby, maybe she shouldn't have sex" arguement in an abortion debate before? Man, women will show up in droves to lash at out your for that one. I found it amusing that someone was using the reverse logic for men.

But my intial point is that if you are going to give women a choice, then you need to give men the choice too (assuming you want the sexes to be equal and all that, and have your pro-choice viewpoint be consistent and all).

If a woman can choose to abort her child when the father actually WANTS the baby, then a man should be able to choose not to support or have any responsibility for the child when he doesn't want the baby but she does.

That's the only view that is consistent and non-sexist from a pro-choice standpoint.

James81
05-17-2009, 10:06 PM
Oh, and the reason I found the "men should abstain from sex" arguement when it comes to suporting the child amusing is because it's actually a very pro-life type of arguement. Pro-lifers use that exact same arguement (that if women don't want a child, they should abstain from sex) all the time. It's interesting to me to see it played out in reverse.

Bird of Prey
05-17-2009, 10:12 PM
If a woman can choose to abort her child when the father actually WANTS the baby, then a man should be able to choose not to support or have any responsibility for the child when he doesn't want the baby but she does.




Don't worry. I know plenty of men who have exercised that option. I can't count how many women I know that raise/raised children by themselves because the fathers have skipped out or flat out refused child support. So, you're right. It might as well be legal for men to refuse because an awful lot do anyway. As long as they don't get visitation or any legal access, it makes sense. Most women can support their children and raise them just as well without all that hassle.

James81
05-17-2009, 10:15 PM
Don't worry. I know plenty of men who have exercised that option. I can't count how many women I know that raise/raised children by themselves because the fathers have skipped out or flat out refused child support. So, you're right. It might as well be legal for men to refuse because an awful lot do anyway. As long as they don't get visitation or any legal access, it makes sense. Most women can support their children and raise them just as well without all that hassle.

Yeah, but the thing is...it's not legal for them to do. If they choose not to pay child support, they can be gone after and the money can be taken from them in other ways (such as tax returns). So, no, we aren't equal in the choice yet.

regdog
05-17-2009, 10:30 PM
:roll:

And the woman doesn't have that EXACT SAME CHOICE?


Yes, she also has the final right to govern her own body, herself and decide what will happen to it.

Why should any man be given the right to govern a woman's body?

Funny, I've never heard men's health issues debated by Congress, argued in an election or addressed by religious groups.



And my point is that women have ONE MORE choice than men when it comes to having children.

Have you ever tried the whole "if a woman doesn't want a baby, maybe she shouldn't have sex" arguement in an abortion debate before? Man, women will show up in droves to lash at out your for that one. I found it amusing that someone was using the reverse logic for men.

But my intial point is that if you are going to give women a choice, then you need to give men the choice too (assuming you want the sexes to be equal and all that, and have your pro-choice viewpoint be consistent and all).

If a woman can choose to abort her child when the father actually WANTS the baby, then a man should be able to choose not to support or have any responsibility for the child when he doesn't want the baby but she does.

That's the only view that is consistent and non-sexist from a pro-choice standpoint.


I know far more situations where the man has walked away from his responsiblity than stepped up and said he would take and raise the baby himself.

The man always has the choice to use protection. If he chooses not to he has to accept the result. Pregnancy, parenthood or abortion. Men are not innocent victims in this.


Oh, and the reason I found the "men should abstain from sex" arguement when it comes to suporting the child amusing is because it's actually a very pro-life type of arguement. Pro-lifers use that exact same arguement (that if women don't want a child, they should abstain from sex) all the time. It's interesting to me to see it played out in reverse.


The point is a man can chose not to have sex just as a woman can. It is not coming from the pro-life type of arguement. It is a simple fact that a man does not have to have sex, he chooses to and if chooses to take no part in pregnancy prevention and then say "Oh I don't want to be a father, I don't want to support a kid I don't want" is pathetic.

A man who takes no repsonsibility for his actions cannot complain about the outcome of those actions, or play the put upon victim.

Ken
05-17-2009, 11:35 PM
And my point is that women have ONE MORE choice than men when it comes to having children.

... how so? A woman can say no, to be sure, but so can a man, if not to a woman then to his own urges.

robeiae
05-17-2009, 11:47 PM
The point is a man can chose not to have sex just as a woman can. It is not coming from the pro-life type of arguement. It is a simple fact that a man does not have to have sex, he chooses to and if chooses to take no part in pregnancy prevention and then say "Oh I don't want to be a father, I don't want to support a kid I don't want" is pathetic.

A man who takes no repsonsibility for his actions cannot complain about the outcome of those actions, or play the put upon victim.
This isn't fair.

You can't call a man "pathetic" and argue that he can't complain about the outcome of his actions in such a case, yet still maintain--and be consistent--that a woman can freely circumvent the outcome of her actions.

It's not that I disagree with the reality, here: the father of a child should be legally responsible for that child's welfare equally with the mother and abortion should be legal. It's the belittling of the father, as it were.

Ideally, the decision to continue or abort a pregnancy should be one arrived at rationally, with input from both parties imo. Ultimately, however, the mother's opinion--since it is indeed her body--carries more weight. And the father--through no particular fault of his own--may be forced to assume responsibility for a child he does not think he wants, or lose a child that he does think he wants.

But it's a trade-off. The mother is at risk because of and will be inconvenienced by the pregnancy.

Still, it doesn't make a man's position "pathetic."

benbradley
05-18-2009, 12:24 AM
Yes, she also has the final right to govern her own body, herself and decide what will happen to it.

Why should any man be given the right to govern a woman's body?

Funny, I've never heard men's health issues debated by Congress, argued in an election or addressed by religious groups.
I recall one example from the Old Testament, some guy named Onan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan). Also, Christian doctrine as I learned it states that men as well as women are to be abstinent from sex until marriage, though admittedly the focus in society has been much more strongly on women.

regdog
05-18-2009, 01:11 AM
This isn't fair.

You can't call a man "pathetic" and argue that he can't complain about the outcome of his actions in such a case, yet still maintain--and be consistent--that a woman can freely circumvent the outcome of her actions.

It's not that I disagree with the reality, here: the father of a child should be legally responsible for that child's welfare equally with the mother and abortion should be legal. It's the belittling of the father, as it were.

Ideally, the decision to continue or abort a pregnancy should be one arrived at rationally, with input from both parties imo. Ultimately, however, the mother's opinion--since it is indeed her body--carries more weight. And the father--through no particular fault of his own--may be forced to assume responsibility for a child he does not think he wants, or lose a child that he does think he wants.

But it's a trade-off. The mother is at risk because of and will be inconvenienced by the pregnancy.

Still, it doesn't make a man's position "pathetic."


I take exception to the man crying that he's the victim and that is what I find pathetic. Too many men take the position that they are helpless victims of a woman's deceit. Or that birth control is solely a woman's responsibility. The man has no problem having sex with the woman but doesn't believe he should have responsibility to prevent pregnancy.

Then they say they have been duped and trapped into being fathers and paying support. They neglect to take their lack of responsibility in as a factor in their situation.

It is a man's own fault if he did not wear a condom. Just as it is a man's choice to not have sex. He could have done that and walked away. How many of those men were in a situation where the woman forced them into unprotected sex?

I never said a woman is free to circumvent the outcome of her actions. I don't think having to have an abortion is getting away with anything freely. Nor is becoming a mother and possibly raising a child with no help from the father.

I think it would be great if more men stepped up and said if the woman has no desire to be a mother, he is absolutely ready and willing to take on the full responsibility of fatherhood and raise the child himself. Doesn't happen too often though.

I think it would be even better if people men and women who decide to do the grown-up thing and have sex, were grown-up enough to prevent all unwanted pregnancies.

Zoombie
05-18-2009, 02:03 AM
Most of these problems are going to be solved soon, in my opinion...

We've already started seeing shots that can make a man temporarily infertile. I see no reason why, soon, we could eradicate unwanted pregnancies in all but the dumbest of dumb cases.

Till, then though, I think everyone should share responsibility in any child conceived and decide together what they want to do. But the buck stops with the gal...whether its child birth, the hormones, pregnancy itself, or just sheer societal pressure, most of the pressure is on the gal, and that means she gets the say, in my opinion.

Dommo
05-18-2009, 02:19 AM
An abortion is a get of jail free card Regdog compared to the position of a man. This is why I'm such a supporter of the upcoming male birth control pills, as that would put us men on an equal footing with women. The way the things are now, once a pregnancy does occur(e.g. birth control failed) the guy is at the complete mercy to the whims of the woman. As it stands I've known a guy who was entrapped by his girlfriend putting pinholes in his condoms. Now he's stuck with the decision SHE made(he caught her in the act a few weeks later, prior to her knowing she was already knocked up).

The thing you have to understand Regdog, is that us guys lack a veto option like women have with an abortion. We have to live with a woman's choice, whether or not we want a kid. Until that problem is ever addressed it won't matter how grown-up us guys are about sex, because in the end the decisions that really matter won't have any part for us to play.

benbradley
05-18-2009, 02:58 AM
An abortion is a get of jail free card Regdog compared to the position of a man. This is why I'm such a supporter of the upcoming male birth control pills, as that would put us men on an equal footing with women. The way the things are now, once a pregnancy does occur(e.g. birth control failed) the guy is at the complete mercy to the whims of the woman. As it stands I've known a guy who was entrapped by his girlfriend putting pinholes in his condoms. Now he's stuck with the decision SHE made(he caught her in the act a few weeks later, prior to her knowing she was already knocked up).
Did the guy talk to any attorneys about that? I can imagine the guy could sue her for his child support costs, as he took reasonable steps so he would not get her pregnant (condoms can fail, but this was definitely no 'accident'). It would make an interesting court case, whatever the outcome.

And of course being deceitful about such a thing is hardly a good way to start a family.

There are many stories of women making a career of reproduction, just about literally standing in line to sleep with a rich big-name sports star with the sole purpose of conceiving his child and effectively "hitting the lottery" with child support. And I'm sure the woman won't object too much if he uses a condom, as long as she can take it with her afterward.

Dommo
05-18-2009, 04:33 AM
Legally sperm is considered a gift. A woman can do with it as she pleases. Thus he didn't have a leg to stand on in court.

benbradley
05-18-2009, 05:46 AM
Legally sperm is considered a gift. A woman can do with it as she pleases. Thus he didn't have a leg to stand on in court.
He used a condom. I'm no lawyer, but to me that count as clear intention to withhold the "gift."

ETA: He may have a tough time proving in court that she got pregnant because of her punching holes in a condom instead of a defective off-the-shelf condom, but there's still something very wrong with a woman who would do that, even if the can't be held responsible for it in any legal sense.

robeiae
05-18-2009, 05:52 AM
He used a condom. I'm no lawyer, but to me that count as clear intention to withhold the "gift."
But that would make him a "gift-tease"...

cethklein
05-18-2009, 06:06 AM
well, their professed goal of non-discriminatory tolerance will certainly be put to the test if science catches up to a "gay gene", for instance, and women start aborting on that basis.

They're likely in the clear since I highly doubt they'll be finding such a gene. (Has anyone ever even come clsoe to discovering such a gene or are we still in the "it's a good theory so let's run with it" stage?)

William Haskins
05-18-2009, 06:13 AM
whether or not it's a "gene", i can easily envision advances in science sufficient to find biological markers consistent with homosexuality. if, in fact, this does come to pass, there's no reason to think that some people won't screen for it and potentially decide to abort based on it.

Cranky
05-18-2009, 06:18 AM
whether or not it's a "gene", i can easily envision advances in science sufficient to find biological markers consistent with homosexuality. if, in fact, this does come to pass, there's no reason to think that some people won't screen for it and potentially decide to abort based on it.

They may have in fact already found some structural (and other)differences in the brain (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/24/MNVA11DNFQ.DTL). And yeah, I think there are some people who just might abort if they discovered their baby was going to be homosexual.

Cyia
05-18-2009, 06:23 AM
They may have in fact already found some structural (and other)differences in the brain (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/24/MNVA11DNFQ.DTL). And yeah, I think there are some people who just might abort if they discovered their baby was going to be homosexual.


Anyone here ever seen Twilight of the Golds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_of_the_Golds)? It deals with a woman who has a homosexual brother and then undergoes testing to see if her unborn child is carrying the "gay gene". When the test comes out saying her child will "likely" be gay she contemplates abortion because of it. The movie centers around not only her decision, but the way her family perceives her and her brother.

James81
05-18-2009, 06:54 AM
Yes, she also has the final right to govern her own body, herself and decide what will happen to it.

Why should any man be given the right to govern a woman's body?

Funny, I've never heard men's health issues debated by Congress, argued in an election or addressed by religious groups.

I never said a man should have a right to govern a woman's body. I said that if a woman is allowed to choose what she wants to do with her body, then a man should have the right to choose what he wants to do with his resources. (a choice, that of course, would occur before the baby is born, just like abortion)

I know far more situations where the man has walked away from his responsiblity than stepped up and said he would take and raise the baby himself.

The man always has the choice to use protection. If he chooses not to he has to accept the result. Pregnancy, parenthood or abortion. Men are not innocent victims in this.

The woman has the choice to use birth control. If she chooses not to, she has to accept the result. Women are not innocent victims in this either.

(see what I am saying now? The woman has free reign to do with the baby what she wants, why shouldn't the man have the choice as to whether he wants to support a baby or not? AT least in the man's case, his choice is to withhold his resources...in the case of a woman choosing abortion, the baby DIES)

The point is a man can chose not to have sex just as a woman can. It is not coming from the pro-life type of arguement. It is a simple fact that a man does not have to have sex, he chooses to and if chooses to take no part in pregnancy prevention and then say "Oh I don't want to be a father, I don't want to support a kid I don't want" is pathetic.

A man who takes no repsonsibility for his actions cannot complain about the outcome of those actions, or play the put upon victim.

Neither does a woman have to have sex.

But congratulations, you now officially understand the pro-life arguement (whether you see it or not). Everything you are saying about the man in this case, is the exact same thing that pro-lifers say about women.

Knowing that, can you at least see how the pro-life side feels about the situation now? That's the intention of what I'm saying....to help you understand the pro-life side of the arguement (and to point out how blatantly hypocritical the pro-choice side can be about it....all choices, power, and decisions are handed to the woman and the men are left at the whims of whatever she wants....which is unfair, ridiculous, sexist, and WRONG)

... how so? A woman can say no, to be sure, but so can a man, if not to a woman then to his own urges.

You make it sound like sex is the man's idea entirely. I'm just saying that if you are going to be pro-choice, then be consistent.

I think it would be great if more men stepped up and said if the woman has no desire to be a mother, he is absolutely ready and willing to take on the full responsibility of fatherhood and raise the child himself. Doesn't happen too often though.



It doesn't matter. Even if the man wanted the baby, if SHE doesn't want it, it's HER body (according to the pro-choice crowd) and she shouldn't be forced unfairly to carry a baby to term if she doesn't want to (according to the pro-choice crowd).

That's the whole crux of the pro-choice arguement.

Bird of Prey
05-18-2009, 06:54 AM
Oh for heaven's sakes. It's really doubtful that we'll be able to tell genetically who's going to be gay, but even if we do eventually know because of the giant leaps of "scientific advancement," by that time we'll have all kinds of designer babies, and my guess is that nobody will conceive the old fashioned natural way, anyway. And I might add, that by the time we know what is really behind being "gay," it will be as accepted as apple pie.

Silver King
05-18-2009, 07:26 AM
Seeking an abortion based upon the sex of a fetus would appear justified when you consider the countless other reasons given to end pregnancies.

A friend of mine some years ago confided in me that she had terminated her pregnancy because it conflicted with her travel arrangements to visit Europe.

I would have been less surprised if she had said, "We really want a girl, and it just happened to be a boy..."

regdog
05-18-2009, 04:54 PM
An abortion is a get of jail free card Regdog compared to the position of a man.


An abortion is a get out of jail free card?!?!?! Obviously.

An abortion must have no affect on the woman whatsoever. She must never think about her decision once it's made and the procedure done. She must never look at a pregnant woman or a child and wonder "What if". The physical side effects must be a cake walk for her. After all it is just bleeding, cramping, hormonal fluctuations, pain, nothing at all. The possibility of sterility must be nothing. The possible dangers related to surgery are nothing at all.

Lets add to that the stigma associated to abortion. There is society's, religious, personal. The woman will become a "baby killer" and called that by those protesting outside the clinic. She faces being harrassed, threatened, screamed at, spit on.

She can turn on the news or go to church and listen to men preach about how evil abortion is and again she can be told she's a killer.

Those all certainly add up to get out of jail free.

I never said a man should have a right to govern a woman's body. I said that if a woman is allowed to choose what she wants to do with her body, then a man should have the right to choose what he wants to do with his resources. (a choice, that of course, would occur before the baby is born, just like abortion)



The woman has the choice to use birth control. If she chooses not to, she has to accept the result. Women are not innocent victims in this either.

(see what I am saying now? The woman has free reign to do with the baby what she wants, why shouldn't the man have the choice as to whether he wants to support a baby or not? AT least in the man's case, his choice is to withhold his resources...in the case of a woman choosing abortion, the baby DIES)



Neither does a woman have to have sex.

But congratulations, you now officially understand the pro-life arguement (whether you see it or not). Everything you are saying about the man in this case, is the exact same thing that pro-lifers say about women.

Knowing that, can you at least see how the pro-life side feels about the situation now? That's the intention of what I'm saying....to help you understand the pro-life side of the arguement (and to point out how blatantly hypocritical the pro-choice side can be about it....all choices, power, and decisions are handed to the woman and the men are left at the whims of whatever she wants....which is unfair, ridiculous, sexist, and WRONG)



You make it sound like sex is the man's idea entirely. I'm just saying that if you are going to be pro-choice, then be consistent.



It doesn't matter. Even if the man wanted the baby, if SHE doesn't want it, it's HER body (according to the pro-choice crowd) and she shouldn't be forced unfairly to carry a baby to term if she doesn't want to (according to the pro-choice crowd).

That's the whole crux of the pro-choice arguement.

Please do not assume that you know what I already knew about this issue. I am and have been fully aware of the pro-life side.

I have an opinion on this issue. I have addressed the issues you have raised and stand by my beliefs and opinion.

Yes, a woman has the ability to choose birth control, so does the man. If he chooses not to use any, then he must accept the possibility of pregnancy. If a man is unsure about his partners birth control he can always use some.

To claim that men are left to a woman's whims, what about the whims of the man. There are plenty of men out there who are all for the idea of a baby until the woman actually gets pregnant. Then all of a sudden when faced with the realization of having a baby, they change their minds and say they don't want they kid and leave.

Now that woman has been left to whims of a man. The man walks away, the woman is now left to have the baby and fight the man in court for child support, abort the baby, or have the baby and do everything herself. Rather sexist of the man to have the ability to make a baby and then say good bye to the mother, child and responsibility.

Many a marriage has ended with the husband never paying child support or seeing the children he brought into this world. Children whose lives he was involved in for years. Again is he victim to the woman's whims.


I believe the woman has the final say on what happens with her body. I believe a man has options to prevent pregnancy. And no man who refuses to take those options cannot then complain about the outcome of his actioins and lack of them.

Ken
05-18-2009, 05:28 PM
James replied: You make it sound like sex is the man's idea entirely. I'm just saying that if you are going to be pro-choice, then be consistent.

I was impying no such thing. Does my post really come across to you that way?

Originally Posted by Ken: A woman can say no, to be sure, but so can a man, if not to a woman then to his own urges.

Men and women share equal burden, as I was pointing out here, in response to your previous post in which you said that:

...women have ONE MORE choice than men when it comes to having children.

And as to my being "pro-choice," if you are implying here that I am, I never said which side of the fence I'm on in regards to abortion ... unless I've been posting in my sleep or something?

Bird of Prey
05-18-2009, 05:36 PM
Regdog, I think your argument is sound.

I have a cousin - owned a company as was rather well off - who was dating a gal who apparently wanted children, and apparently wanted them by him. He had a suspicion that she wouldn't be diligent about birth control, but - as he told me with a grin - it didn't matter. He had had a vasectomy, and it had worked all the years he was married, so. . . .

The point is that if a man doesn't want children, you are absolutely right: he has all kinds of preventative options. Ultimately, it's about personal responsibility.

James81
05-18-2009, 05:43 PM
Please do not assume that you know what I already knew about this issue. I am and have been fully aware of the pro-life side.

I have an opinion on this issue. I have addressed the issues you have raised and stand by my beliefs and opinion.

Yes, a woman has the ability to choose birth control, so does the man. If he chooses not to use any, then he must accept the possibility of pregnancy. If a man is unsure about his partners birth control he can always use some.

To claim that men are left to a woman's whims, what about the whims of the man. There are plenty of men out there who are all for the idea of a baby until the woman actually gets pregnant. Then all of a sudden when faced with the realization of having a baby, they change their minds and say they don't want they kid and leave.

Now that woman has been left to whims of a man. The man walks away, the woman is now left to have the baby and fight the man in court for child support, abort the baby, or have the baby and do everything herself. Rather sexist of the man to have the ability to make a baby and then say good bye to the mother, child and responsibility.

Many a marriage has ended with the husband never paying child support or seeing the children he brought into this world. Children whose lives he was involved in for years. Again is he victim to the woman's whims.

Right, but none of that has anything to do with the arguement at hand. Right now, the woman has the option to take a man back to court for the money. And as long as she has the option (whether she uses it or not), pro-choice is a sexist movement.

(And I'll reiterate that I'm talking about giving the man the choice AT BIRTH ONLY to decide whether he wants his child or not....and if he doesn't, he can choose not to support it)


I believe the woman has the final say on what happens with her body. I believe a man has options to prevent pregnancy. And no man who refuses to take those options cannot then complain about the outcome of his actioins and lack of them.

Both men and woman have options to prevent pregnancy:

Man choice: 1
Woman choice: 1

Women have the option to have an abortion:

Man choice: 1
Woman choices: 2

Men cannot LEGALLY (that's my point here is the legality, I am well aware that men don't support their children, but the mother has LEGAL RIGHTS to go after him) choose not to support their child.

Man choice: 1
Woman choices: 2

Therefore, the current laws are SEXIST.

James81
05-18-2009, 05:45 PM
The point is that if a man doesn't want children, you are absolutely right: he has all kinds of preventative options. Ultimately, it's about personal responsibility.

We have condoms and abstinance. Those are our choices.

I think you are mistaking men for women, who have about billion different types of birth control.

regdog
05-18-2009, 06:24 PM
We have condoms and abstinance. Those are our choices.

I think you are mistaking men for women, who have about billion different types of birth control.


Which puts most of the responsibility of birth control on women.

There are plenty of medical researchers out there who could spend as much time on male birth control as they do on male sexual enhancement-Just saying.

James81
05-18-2009, 06:26 PM
Which puts most of the responsibility of birth control on women.

There are plenty of medical researchers out there who could spend as much time on male birth control as they do on male sexual enhancement-Just saying.

Hey, I'm all for it. As soon as they come out with male birth control that won't make me grow manboobs, I'd take it.

Bird of Prey
05-18-2009, 06:52 PM
We have condoms and abstinance. Those are our choices.

I think you are mistaking men for women, who have about billion different types of birth control.

Um, James. Vasectomy?? And if you don't trust the gal, don't sleep with her or use a condom. Come on. In terms of casual sex, men should use condoms anyway, and women should insist on it for a lot more reasons than pregnancy.

Men have "limited" options? Gee, so what? Right now, they've a few good options, and down the road they'll probably have more.

James81
05-18-2009, 07:15 PM
Um, James. Vasectomy?? And if you don't trust the gal, don't sleep with her or use a condom. Come on. In terms of casual sex, men should use condoms anyway, and women should insist on it for a lot more reasons than pregnancy.

Men have "limited" options? Gee, so what? Right now, they've a few good options, and down the road they'll probably have more.

Again, not the point at all. ;)

Dommo
05-18-2009, 11:46 PM
Bird of Prey, get real. A vasectomy is a permanent solution. How about I demand all women get their tubes tied, until I want kids. That's what you're saying here.

Sure if I already had kids, and felt I had enough, I'd probably a vasectomy, as it'd be safer than me asking for my wife to get her tubes tied, but as someone who hasn't had kids, I think a vasectomy isn't exactly something that's fair to demand.

James81
05-19-2009, 12:10 AM
Bird of Prey, get real. A vasectomy is a permanent solution. How about I demand all women get their tubes tied, until I want kids. That's what you're saying here.

Sure if I already had kids, and felt I had enough, I'd probably a vasectomy, as it'd be safer than me asking for my wife to get her tubes tied, but as someone who hasn't had kids, I think a vasectomy isn't exactly something that's fair to demand.

I always love to bring up this subject in an abortion debate, because when it comes up, it puts the pro-choice side into the pro-life debate points and the pro-life side into the pro-choice debate points. Effectively, you get the same groups of people arguing at each other with the same arguements that they argue vehemently against.

Now, if I can just find a way to reconcile the two and help people to realize that....

*thinks*

My-Immortal
05-19-2009, 07:48 PM
1) Yes, she also has the final right to govern her own body, herself and decide what will happen to it.

2) Why should any man be given the right to govern a woman's body?

3) I know far more situations where the man has walked away from his responsiblity than stepped up and said he would take and raise the baby himself.

4) The man always has the choice to use protection. If he chooses not to he has to accept the result. Pregnancy, parenthood or abortion. Men are not innocent victims in this.

5) The point is a man can chose not to have sex just as a woman can.

6) It is a simple fact that a man does not have to have sex, he chooses to and if chooses to take no part in pregnancy prevention and then say "Oh I don't want to be a father, I don't want to support a kid I don't want" is pathetic.

7) A man who takes no repsonsibility for his actions cannot complain about the outcome of those actions, or play the put upon victim.

Numbering mine.

Curious. In regards to all these statements, do you also find the same to be true when the sexes are reversed?

1) Do MEN also have the final right to govern HIS own body, himself, and decide what will happen to it?

In these cases, the men do not. Not exactly equal.

2) Why should any woman be given the right to govern a man's body?

Happens all the time in court.

3) Really? I wonder if the statistics would back this up. If an abortion allows a woman to opt out of the responsibility of having a child, and a man leaves a woman/baby without support are considered the same thing (in terms of one or the other opting out of their responsibility), I wonder which is done more in any given year.

But then, I don't suppose women who have had abortions want to be considered the same as dead-beat dads, right? Dead-beat dads just don't want to be responsible for their unwanted children....

4) If you reverse this statemtent, it sounds a lot like the argument that women rail against. "The woman has the choice to use protection. If she chooses not to, she has to accept the results."
Of course, the only difference, the big difference, is that the woman is ALLOWED the extra option of deciding to have an abortion or not - a man doesn't have that option.
A woman DOESN'T have to accept the results - a man does.

5) Again, another argument that women rail against - "the point is a woman can choose not to have sex just as a man can."

6) Ummmm.....let's reverse and see how this one sounds?

It's a simple fact that a woman does not have to have sex, she chooses to and if she chooses to take no part in pregnancy prevention and then say, "Oh I don't want to be a mother, I don't want to support a kid I don't want" is then....also pathetic?

So are women who want an abortion for the same reason that men who don't want the responsibility for their kids, also pathetic?

7) A woman who takes no responsibility for her actions cannot complain about the outcome of those actions, or play the put upon victim.

I'll just leave that one as is.

Interesting debate. If all things WERE equal, men and women would BOTH have the right to decide what they did or did not do with their bodies...and BOTH would be declared pathetic or not based on their actions or inactions. As it stands now, there is a double standard. A woman can use an abortion to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy for basically any reason at all - but if a man were to use any/all of those same reasons:

I don't want to be a father yet.
I can't afford a kid right now.
A kid would interfere with my social life/my school plans/college/a job
I'm not mature enough yet to be responsible for a kid

etc...he's considered pathetic, a dead-beat, scum etc. Now, one might say that women are called names too. True. Both men and women are called vicious names in regards to what they do/don't do.

The difference, women can still legally rid themselves of their obligations.

A man cannot.

Take care all -

Bird of Prey
05-19-2009, 07:53 PM
Bird of Prey, get real. A vasectomy is a permanent solution. How about I demand all women get their tubes tied, until I want kids. That's what you're saying here.



No, I'm not. First of all, a vasectomy is reversible in most cases, so you know. But in reality, I was addressing it as an option to men who are certain they don't want children and don't want the risk of fathering a child, don't want to use condoms but want to sleep with a woman or multiple women.

icerose
05-19-2009, 07:57 PM
No, I'm not. First of all, a vasectomy is reversible in most cases, so you know. But in reality, I was addressing it as an option to men who are certain they don't want children and don't want the risk of fathering a child, don't want to use condoms but want to sleep with a woman or multiple women.

Then the same has to be applied to women to be fair. And it's not politically correct to do so but it's okay to bag on men? At least be consistent in your arguement.

Bird of Prey
05-19-2009, 08:05 PM
Then the same has to be applied to women to be fair. And it's not politically correct to do so but it's okay to bag on men? At least be consistent in your arguement.

What? What are you talking about? I am consistent in my argument. I know women who have had their tubes tied because they didn't want to risk pregnancy. So? What's your point?

James81
05-19-2009, 08:30 PM
Numbering mine.

Curious. In regards to all these statements, do you also find the same to be true when the sexes are reversed?

1) Do MEN also have the final right to govern HIS own body, himself, and decide what will happen to it?

In these cases, the men do not. Not exactly equal.

2) Why should any woman be given the right to govern a man's body?

Happens all the time in court.

3) Really? I wonder if the statistics would back this up. If an abortion allows a woman to opt out of the responsibility of having a child, and a man leaves a woman/baby without support are considered the same thing (in terms of one or the other opting out of their responsibility), I wonder which is done more in any given year.

But then, I don't suppose women who have had abortions want to be considered the same as dead-beat dads, right? Dead-beat dads just don't want to be responsible for their unwanted children....

4) If you reverse this statemtent, it sounds a lot like the argument that women rail against. "The woman has the choice to use protection. If she chooses not to, she has to accept the results."
Of course, the only difference, the big difference, is that the woman is ALLOWED the extra option of deciding to have an abortion or not - a man doesn't have that option.
A woman DOESN'T have to accept the results - a man does.

5) Again, another argument that women rail against - "the point is a woman can choose not to have sex just as a man can."

6) Ummmm.....let's reverse and see how this one sounds?

It's a simple fact that a woman does not have to have sex, she chooses to and if she chooses to take no part in pregnancy prevention and then say, "Oh I don't want to be a mother, I don't want to support a kid I don't want" is then....also pathetic?

So are women who want an abortion for the same reason that men who don't want the responsibility for their kids, also pathetic?

7) A woman who takes no responsibility for her actions cannot complain about the outcome of those actions, or play the put upon victim.

I'll just leave that one as is.

Interesting debate. If all things WERE equal, men and women would BOTH have the right to decide what they did or did not do with their bodies...and BOTH would be declared pathetic or not based on their actions or inactions. As it stands now, there is a double standard. A woman can use an abortion to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy for basically any reason at all - but if a man were to use any/all of those same reasons:

I don't want to be a father yet.
I can't afford a kid right now.
A kid would interfere with my social life/my school plans/college/a job
I'm not mature enough yet to be responsible for a kid

etc...he's considered pathetic, a dead-beat, scum etc. Now, one might say that women are called names too. True. Both men and women are called vicious names in regards to what they do/don't do.

The difference, women can still legally rid themselves of their obligations.

A man cannot.

Take care all -

*applause*

icerose
05-19-2009, 08:41 PM
What? What are you talking about? I am consistent in my argument. I know women who have had their tubes tied because they didn't want to risk pregnancy. So? What's your point?

The fact of the matter is women do have more options both before and after then men and men have less options and more legal obligations, whether or not they live up to those obligations is a different discussion. This particular arguement can never be black and white or completely equal. There will always be disparaties on both sides.

Contemplative
05-19-2009, 08:49 PM
I am fairly pro-choice, but on scientific and sociological grounds rather than feminist ones. At a point in a pregnancy when a fetus has the same number of neurons as a cockroach, killing it has the same moral gravity as stepping on a cockroach.

I think that third-trimester abortions, when the fetus has a developed brain, get tricky and need to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

I think James81 has dead-on pinpointed a major hypocrisy in the orthodox feminist positions on abortion and child support, and people are prevaricating or refusing to acknowledge that. Feminist doctrine has always subtextually been that a woman's rights are paramount over all other things, including a man's rights.

Honestly, abstract of any context, consider how most feminists will react to "well, he should have kept it in his pants," as opposed to "well, she should have kept her legs shut." Feminism recognizes and sympathizes with the fundamental sexual drive women possess, yet similarly demeans the identical drive men possess. This is consistant with the rhetoric of many minority rights groups, where bad things happening to minorities are the fault of society, while identical bad things happening to members of the majority are no one's fault but their own. There is an inequality of responsibility there on an axiomatic level.

Child support, then, is an effort to free a woman from the natural consequences of a choice she has the full power to make. I'm not saying it's in any way pleasant, but you can't tell me that for all the bleeding and cramps and post-partum depression abortion isn't still easier than being a mother, if you didn't want to be a mother. Further, my understanding is that abortion can be relatively effortless and consequence-free if it is done early enough (i.e. with the morning after pill or within a week or two of the broken condom).

I do grant that we live in a society where women will face serious emotional abuse for seeking an abortion, and that provides a practical justification for child support. I don't think it's in any way just to the man, but a moderate injustice to him prevents an extreme injustice to both the child and the woman. I just wish feminists wouldn't treat it like it was black and white, when it so clearly isn't.

In practice, women have the choice, but frequently as a result of social pressure, sentimentality or ignorance choose poorly (i.e., not to have an abortion when they are ill-equipped to be a parent). When they do, the child suffers as much or moreso than the woman. That also provides some justification that child support may be an ugly but necessary compromise.

I absolutely support child support in cases where a woman cannot have an abortion without serious medical complications, and therefore does not have a choice.

EDIT: I also want to remind people that, as discussed on another thread, vasectomies are not available without a doctor's consent, and the majority of doctors won't consent for a young unmarried man, and there's no legal precedent to demand the procedure. Neither gender really has access to this as a reliably birth control method until they already have kids.

Bird of Prey
05-19-2009, 09:10 PM
The fact of the matter is women do have more options both before and after then men and men have less options and more legal obligations, whether or not they live up to those obligations is a different discussion. This particular arguement can never be black and white or completely equal. There will always be disparaties on both sides.


But I think I've already stated that men shouldn't have to support children that they don't want. Alot of them don't anyway, and women at this juncture may be in more than an adequate position to raise children on the their own. If a man doesn't want to be included in the raising of his child, fine. As long as he knows he relinquishes all legal rights to the kid including the bearing of his name, I say adios. But the man shouldn't expect to come back later in a moment of regret, and try to insert himself into the kid's life, at the risk of imprisonment.

You see, I understand the reasons for child support, but if men really don't have to support these children, it will bring a lot of issues that we really need to deal with to the fore.

Gretad08
05-19-2009, 09:30 PM
I could be totally wrong but doesn't a man have the option of signing away his rights? I think I've heard of this before. In that case he literally has no rights to the child, visitation or otherwise, and he also has no support obligation.

Like I said, I may be mistaken.

icerose
05-19-2009, 09:31 PM
But I think I've already stated that men shouldn't have to support children that they don't want. Alot of them don't anyway, and women at this juncture may be in more than an adequate position to raise children on the their own. If a man doesn't want to be included in the raising of his child, fine. As long as he knows he relinquishes all legal rights to the kid including the bearing of his name, I say adios. But the man shouldn't expect to come back later in a moment of regret, and try to insert himself into the kid's life, at the risk of imprisonment.

You see, I understand the reasons for child support, but if men really don't have to support these children, it will bring a lot of issues that we really need to deal with to the fore.

Okay then, our pages aren't far off. In my experience for the most part the men who aren't going to pay child support and don't love the child and don't want anything to do with the child skip out anyway. It's a sticky grey situtation for sure.

Bird of Prey
05-19-2009, 09:44 PM
Child support is not about the woman or the man really. It's about the welfare of the child. So, it's hard to make child support a legit part of the discussion in terms of sexual equality and who gets to choose about having the child. But still, that's the road we're on.

If we eliminate a man's obligation to support an unwanted child, and if the mother is unable to provide for the child - or even if she is but barely - the obligation falls on society to pick up the tab for health and education, to name a few. So the question becomes, how far are we willing to to tread into a brave new world??

Contemplative
05-19-2009, 10:00 PM
I've always advocated fully socialized health care and education. (almost typed "sexualized" in place of "socialized" there, heh).

Beyond that... I think state-provided child support would be a better thing on an abstract moral level than penalizing individual men, but from a practical sociological standpoint there are problems. There are always people who seek to cash in on any social program; in this specific case we could motivate them to procreate and deprive their children, which could have tragic long-term consequences.

I also think that there is a solid sociological benefit to there being a penalty for men casually impregnating women. It's not just, but that doesn't mean it's not having a beneficial societal effect.

Honestly, the basic fact of child support bothers me, but not nearly as much as the openly double-standard feminist rhetoric and rationalization surrounding the issue does, blaming men for their sexuality while exonerating women. It's also a class issue -- child support can be fairly trivial for an upper class man, and can destroy a lower class man's life.

What should really be done is to attack the social conservative movement with all the force and power we can level, and not forbear until it has been scattered to the four corners of the earth and men and women alike have free access to reproductive control, open education starting at an early age above reproductive safety and freedom from any stigma surrounding exercising those choices.

Contemplative
05-19-2009, 10:01 PM
I could be totally wrong but doesn't a man have the option of signing away his rights? I think I've heard of this before. In that case he literally has no rights to the child, visitation or otherwise, and he also has no support obligation.

Like I said, I may be mistaken.

As far as I know, signing away rights does not free a man from the obligation to pay child support.

AMCrenshaw
05-19-2009, 11:03 PM
What should really be done is to attack the social conservative movement with all the force and power we can level, and not forbear until it has been scattered to the four corners of the earth and men and women alike have free access to reproductive control, open education starting at an early age above reproductive safety and freedom from any stigma surrounding exercising those choices.

I'm on board.

My-Immortal
05-19-2009, 11:58 PM
Child support is not about the woman or the man really. It's about the welfare of the child. So, it's hard to make child support a legit part of the discussion in terms of sexual equality and who gets to choose about having the child. But still, that's the road we're on.

If we eliminate a man's obligation to support an unwanted child, and if the mother is unable to provide for the child - or even if she is but barely - the obligation falls on society to pick up the tab for health and education, to name a few. So the question becomes, how far are we willing to to tread into a brave new world??

Lets look at 'the welfare of the child' vs the choices available to the men and women once a pregnancy occurs:

1) Woman decides she wants to have the child. Man doesn't want the responsibility of a child, ducks out of paying child support, can be fined and/or sent to prison for failure to pay child support. Child is alive and supported by only the woman. Woman gets a say in what happens to her body. Man has no say.

2) Man decides he wants to have the child. Woman doesn't want the responsibilty of a child, decides to have an abortion. She is not fined and/or sent to prison for having an abortion. Child is not alive. Woman gets a say in what happens to her body. Man has no say.

One might argue that the welfare of the child in scenario number two is still better than the lesser-supported child from scenario number one - but of the two scenarios, only the woman gets to make a decision regarding her life. Neither the man or frankly the child gets a say.

So, in regards to the possible obligation of supporting a child falling onto society's shoulders...isn't that really all up to women?

take care -

Sirion
05-20-2009, 12:06 AM
Nobody has a right to kill a child. Point blank.

If you believe that an unborn child isn't alive, then you should have no problem with Sweden doing this. You should have no problem with abortions at all, and not care if they happen less often. If it's not a life then it doesn't matter. One of the reasons I don't quite understand it when people say that they support abortion, but want to limit them. If you want to limit them then you are admitting that there is something wrong with them. If there's nothing wrong with them, then limiting them is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Abortion is worse than killing a full grown person. That child you murder would have grown up, gone to school, made friends, gone to college, gotten married, had children of his own, grown old, been a grandfather. They would have had their own personalities, their own flaws, their own goals and dreams. You took that from them. God have mercy on your soul; actually, no, no mercy for someone who does this.

I look forward to the day when all of the abortion clinics turn into adoption clinics. History will be the judge for the butchers that support the horrible practice. There is no middle ground on this (some tried to make a middle ground argument for other such atrocities -- slavery, genocide, etc - it doesn't hold water); if you do not oppose evil, then you support it. It’s murder. It’s wrong.

You don't have a right to kill an innocent. No matter what has happened, no matter who you are. You don't have that right.

Bird of Prey
05-20-2009, 12:57 AM
Lets look at 'the welfare of the child' vs the choices available to the men and women once a pregnancy occurs:

1) Woman decides she wants to have the child. Man doesn't want the responsibility of a child, ducks out of paying child support, can be fined and/or sent to prison for failure to pay child support. Child is alive and supported by only the woman. Woman gets a say in what happens to her body. Man has no say.

2) Man decides he wants to have the child. Woman doesn't want the responsibilty of a child, decides to have an abortion. She is not fined and/or sent to prison for having an abortion. Child is not alive. Woman gets a say in what happens to her body. Man has no say.

One might argue that the welfare of the child in scenario number two is still better than the lesser-supported child from scenario number one - but of the two scenarios, only the woman gets to make a decision regarding her life. Neither the man or frankly the child gets a say.

So, in regards to the possible obligation of supporting a child falling onto society's shoulders...isn't that really all up to women?

take care -

Well, Immortal, I would think that women - being 51 percent of the population - have a pretty big say on to what degree society support of a child regardless. And I would also add that children are a big burden tax-wise to women who don't have any and didn't want any. Men aren't victims all by their lonesomes.

Dommo
05-20-2009, 02:17 AM
But you're still dodging the question Bird.

Women have an ejection seat, and a veto option that overrides us(abortion). We as men, should have the counterbalance of being able to choose whether or not to support the child. Even now there are guys who are cuckholded and have paid child support for another man's kids, because a guy has no right to demand anything from a woman while she's pregnant.

Here are the rule changes I'd institute.

1. A man has the option of choosing to not support the child. He signs a contract, and forbears any rights to see the kid, however he is required by law to provide relevant health information(basically analogous to a sperm donor).

2. A man has the option of choosing to support the child. Should he choose this option, a paternity test is performed, and upon resolution he can choose to support the kid. Should he do so, he is bound by law to support the kid until his/her 18th birthday.

3. Paternity tests will be done prior to the birth of all children by law. This is simply because paternity is a matter of opinion until proven otherwise. I grew up on a military base, and I know that it happens in some cases of over 10% of fathers(I know this because a family friend was a doctor on the naval base where I grew up, and I asked him recently), and I remember being a kid and seeing strange men come and go from the neighbors house while Mr. ****** was out at sea with my dad. A man should never have to support another man's child unless he chooses to.

I'm pro choice, largely on a practical basis. Women would get abortions no matter what, and I'd rather see women go to a doctor, than go get a coat hanger. I also believe that if a woman is raped, or has serious health issues the option should be available. That said, I do oppose aspects of abortion for several reasons, one of which is that it's not fair to men(especially those who oppose it for religious/ethical reasons, or because they want the kid).

AMCrenshaw
05-20-2009, 02:43 AM
I also think that men need to put themselves in women's shoes. If a woman doesn't want or isn't ready to have a child, if she is too young, it is ultimately her body and what she chooses to do is right. But I don't think potential parents need to act without each other. Good communication will go a long way, so even though I believe it's ultimately the woman's decision, the potential father's voice and opinions need to be heard.


That said, women who want their children but also want support from fathers who aren't interested in having children are asking for cake and to eat it too. I like Dommo's ideas for reform, particularly numbers 1. and 2.

But then I do wonder: won't the mother have to stay with the child during the day? Who will pay the bills? Or won't the mother have to go to work? Who will stay with the child?

Surely, there is a way to help single mothers of young children without making men support children they don't have a life with...



AMC

ad_lucem
05-20-2009, 02:45 AM
I can see the future, and in the future this does not end well.

(The thread, I mean.)

Medievalist
05-20-2009, 02:59 AM
But you're still dodging the question Bird.

Women have an ejection seat, and a veto option that overrides us(abortion). We as men, should have the counterbalance of being able to choose whether or not to support the child. Even now there are guys who are cuckholded and have paid child support for another man's kids, because a guy has no right to demand anything from a woman while she's pregnant.

Get a DNA test; this is fairly standard practice now anyway in terms of checking for potential genetic problems.

Dommo
05-20-2009, 03:30 AM
The problem is that if you sign the birth certificate in most states, the results of the DNA test are irrelevant. A man might not suspect he's been cuckolded until the kid grows up a bit, since most babies look similar. Also most doctors won't disclose obvious paternity conflicts(e.g. blood types from blood tests on the baby, which is an obvious paternity indicator, and can prove that a guy isn't the father), they will notify the mother but not the father. I know in particular with the military, you're considered a father automatically even if you're at sea. This makes things particularly problematic, and it's one of the reasons the cuckoldry rate is high on military bases(the obvious other one being the long time absences of the spouse).

I'm surprised at how hostile the feminist community is to this type of measure. They try to say it's unfair to women, but really it's not. It's just setting something right that's been screwed since the dawn of human history. For most men the prospect of raising another man's child(unless it's voluntary, as in adoption or something), is a horrifying thing. The financial consequences are enormous, and the emotional ones are huge as well. I figure it's best to just have it out in the open prior to the baby being born, that way given the way things are with family law, the guy who's kid it is, will be responsible for it. I think it's a good thing as it would make everyone involved responsible for their actions.

One more thing. I just noticed that no one brought up the third option women have, which is adoption or "financial abortion". Us men have no say in that, so I figure if a woman chooses to bring a kid to term, against the will of the father, then she should either put it up for adoption or go solo.

Bird of Prey
05-20-2009, 04:02 AM
But you're still dodging the question Bird.

Women have an ejection seat, and a veto option that overrides us(abortion). We as men, should have the counterbalance of being able to choose whether or not to support the child. Even now there are guys who are cuckholded and have paid child support for another man's kids, because a guy has no right to demand anything from a woman while she's pregnant.

Here are the rule changes I'd institute.

1. A man has the option of choosing to not support the child. He signs a contract, and forbears any rights to see the kid, however he is required by law to provide relevant health information(basically analogous to a sperm donor).

2. A man has the option of choosing to support the child. Should he choose this option, a paternity test is performed, and upon resolution he can choose to support the kid. Should he do so, he is bound by law to support the kid until his/her 18th birthday.

3. Paternity tests will be done prior to the birth of all children by law. This is simply because paternity is a matter of opinion until proven otherwise. I grew up on a military base, and I know that it happens in some cases of over 10% of fathers(I know this because a family friend was a doctor on the naval base where I grew up, and I asked him recently), and I remember being a kid and seeing strange men come and go from the neighbors house while Mr. ****** was out at sea with my dad. A man should never have to support another man's child unless he chooses to.

I'm pro choice, largely on a practical basis. Women would get abortions no matter what, and I'd rather see women go to a doctor, than go get a coat hanger. I also believe that if a woman is raped, or has serious health issues the option should be available. That said, I do oppose aspects of abortion for several reasons, one of which is that it's not fair to men(especially those who oppose it for religious/ethical reasons, or because they want the kid).

Well, Dommo, your last paragraph is potent to say the least. How do you oppose "aspects" of abortion??

Bird of Prey
05-20-2009, 04:05 AM
Surely, there is a way to help single mothers of young children without making men support children they don't have a life with...



AMC


It's called state aid, which followed to its likely conclusion - and if we're to be fair - state control of the child being reared.

AMCrenshaw
05-20-2009, 04:10 AM
If it's not a life then it doesn't matter. One of the reasons I don't quite understand it when people say that they support abortion, but want to limit them. If you want to limit them then you are admitting that there is something wrong with them. If there's nothing wrong with them, then limiting them is irrelevant and unnecessary.

No one else has, so I will: BS! Don't you know there is a difference between an early pregnancy and a pregnancy in its final term?

Five weeks: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZXWkrppnQQ0/SYZswjP4aaI/AAAAAAAACs8/TC1VU3SqiKw/s1600/embryo12mm30x32.jpg

This is the actual size. And many people advocate that abortions should be done even before this.

You don't have a right to kill an innocent. No matter what has happened, no matter who you are. You don't have that right.

I'm guessing you eat meat.



AMC

James81
05-20-2009, 04:21 AM
Honestly, the basic fact of child support bothers me, but not nearly as much as the openly double-standard feminist rhetoric and rationalization surrounding the issue does, blaming men for their sexuality while exonerating women. It's also a class issue -- child support can be fairly trivial for an upper class man, and can destroy a lower class man's life.

Child support is pretty much out of control in this country. On both sides. On the one side, you have men who are complete wastes of flesh who avoid child support at all costs (who happen to have ruined it for those of us who WANT to support our children such that all men get treated like dogs in court and the judge won't even look in your damn direction).

On the other hand, you have women who take child support and abuse the absolute hell out of it, spending the money on themselves while the child suffers.

And then you have the state smack dab in the middle of it, refusing to lift a finger to fix the obvious, blatant holes in child support. Basically setting up a slush fund for the cutodial parent, while the non-custodial parent has to deal with whatever the number comes out to be, regardless of their financial situation or whether or not they can actually live on what's left. One of the many reasons I lost my house and fell into bankruptcy, and for a year and half lived on peanuts and ramen to try and get by on my own.

Thing is, they could EASILY fix the situation. And the guys who don't want to pay MIGHT JUST BE A LITTLE MORE APT TO PAY if they'd fix it so that there is a garauntee that the child actually benefits from the money.

/rant

What should really be done is to attack the social conservative movement with all the force and power we can level, and not forbear until it has been scattered to the four corners of the earth and men and women alike have free access to reproductive control, open education starting at an early age above reproductive safety and freedom from any stigma surrounding exercising those choices.

Asolutely. I'm pro-life, and it makes me sick to my stomach when I hear other pro-lifers who are anti-birth control or anti-education in our schools. It's like they want to shoot themselves in the fucking foot. Someone needs to beat these people in the face and make them realize that kids (teens that is) are going to have sex whether they like it or not. At LEAST give them the education and the ability to use protection, so that they don't HAVE to get abortions in the first damn place.

Once we've scattered these social conservatives to the ends of the planet, we need to absolutely flood our schools with upfront, honest sex education and let the condoms and BC pills flow from the ceiling like milk and honey. Just douse them with this stuff so that it's so engrained in their heads that they can't imagine sex without BC and protection.

If you believe that an unborn child isn't alive, then you should have no problem with Sweden doing this. You should have no problem with abortions at all, and not care if they happen less often. If it's not a life then it doesn't matter. One of the reasons I don't quite understand it when people say that they support abortion, but want to limit them. If you want to limit them then you are admitting that there is something wrong with them. If there's nothing wrong with them, then limiting them is irrelevant and unnecessary.



This is what bothers me the most about the pro-choice arguement. The whole movement bases their logic on delusions (that even they don't truly believe at their core...as is evidenced by the hesitation for abortion based on superficial reasons), tries to blatantly front lies, and softens the language to assauge the guilt from what is actually happening. Oh, and then on the back of all that, they try and turn it into a woman's rights issue (which it isn't).

Doesn't matter how much you blur the issue, these things remain facts whether you want to believe them or not (and most people DO believe them deep down underneath all the BS):

The fetus is human.
The fetus is alive.
The act of abortion is killing a live, human baby.

Personally, when you get past all that, if the pro-choice camp would just ADMIT what is actually happening, they DO raise some very strong arguements on why abortions are a necessary evil.

For example, the simple load on our orphanages, creating unwanted children who are demographically apt to turn into deliquents. That's a strong arguement.

I could almost get on board with the pro-choice side IF they were ever able to let go of the delusions I listed above and just be honest about what is happening. On the other hand, I almost can't side with pro-life because the overtly conservative pro-lifers are anti-sex, anti-woman, who think that preaching abstinence is going to do a damn thing to help the problem.

So, yeah, I find myself suspended between both sides, because both sides exhibit ridiculous behaviors.

James81
05-20-2009, 04:38 AM
BTW, since I have such strong opinions on abortion, I also have a solution that I think would work really well. Here's how I would fix the abortion issue:

1. First and foremost, we stop lying about what is happening. It is what is. The baby is alive, it's human, and the act of abortion is killing a live, human baby. No ifs, ands, or buts. That's what is happening.

2. Second, we flood our schools with education about PROTECTION and BIRTH CONTROL only. We don't need to teach kids how to have sex. They can figure it out on their own the same way we all did. That's part of the fun of the first experience, is that it's so bad it's funny. And by flood, I mean absolutely douse them in all the information we have available as it pertains to condoms and birth control.

3. We make birth control available on every street corner, everywhere you look you have easy access to condoms, birth control, and the morning after pill (the latter to be used sparingly due to it's possible detriment to the woman in frequent use).

4. We stop pretending like sex is taboo in our counry and return to realistic moral values. Sex isn't evil, fucking VIOLENCE is evil. We make violence the taboo issue and sex is a natural, beautiful part of life to be entered into with responsibility.

5. We give women two free passes at abortion. If, for any reason, they don't want their baby, we allow them to have up to two abortions in their life. Let's face it, birth control isn't 100% reliable, and no woman should have to carry a rapist's baby. AFter that, then they deserve to have to find a coat hanger clinic, because, given the success rate of birth control and condoms used in conjunction with each other, it's nearly impossible to get pregnant if you are using both anyway (even though there is still a chance). We recognize that it's ok to fuck up, but we also clamp down and realize that when it happens repeatedly, it's not really "fucking up" it's stupidity and ignorance (which we don't allow to happen anyway because we douse them with education).

My guess is that with those 5 steps, you could successfully wipe out MOST of the abortion problems in our country. I'm sure that either extreme will not like that plan, but I think it would be something that most people could get behind and support for those who are more "middle of the road" on the issue.

Bird of Prey
05-20-2009, 05:01 AM
My guess is that with those 5 steps, you could successfully wipe out MOST of the abortion problems in our country. I'm sure that either extreme will not like that plan, but I think it would be something that most people could get behind and support for those who are more "middle of the road" on the issue.

You don't think either extreme will like the plan, huh? And YOU'RE the middle of the road?? LOL!! What a rant. . .what a bizarre, hateful rant! Congratulations, James. "Either extreme" pales in comparison to you! Really, I've never seen such contempt for women on this board. Wowee Zowee. . . . lol. . . .

James81
05-20-2009, 05:19 AM
You don't think either extreme will like the plan, huh? And YOU'RE the middle of the road?? LOL!! What a rant. . .what a bizarre, hateful rant! Congratulations, James. "Either extreme" pales in comparison to you! Really, I've never seen such contempt for women on this board. Wowee Zowee. . . . lol. . . .

Hahaha....

Could you point out the parts of that post that show contempt for women?

(Believe it or not, I am someone who strives to be open minded and not harbor things like hate or bitterness, so if I'm doing so unintentionally, I would like to know)

Cyia
05-20-2009, 05:21 AM
Hahaha....

Could you point out the parts of that post that show contempt for women?

(Believe it or not, I am someone who strives to be open minded and not harbor things like hate or bitterness, so if I'm doing so unintentionally, I would like to know)

I have to agree with J81 here. You may not have liked his ideas, but I didn't see them as hateful at all.

James81
05-20-2009, 05:23 AM
I have to agree with J81 here.

Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

MWAHAHAHAHA!

:roll:

Cyia
05-20-2009, 05:31 AM
Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

MWAHAHAHAHA!

:roll:

Thus why I refused to use your full name. Say it three times and... I think you know the rest... :D

icerose
05-20-2009, 05:31 AM
I have to agree with J81 here. You may not have liked his ideas, but I didn't see them as hateful at all.

Scary thing is, I agree with him too. :poke:

Neither side is looking at preventative or practical fixes. They're both arguing their points and saying it's either my side or their side. I'm not on either. I have to say I'm more pro-life, because I do believe abortion is a form of murder, but at the same time there are instances when it's unfortunately necessary and I don't want women shoving coat hangers up there. It doesn't mean I don't believe in not restricting it, and keeping some things completely out except in extreme circumstances. Partial birth for example makes me absolutely ill. That is outright murder. Just because the baby hasn't taken a breath of it's own, doesn't make it any less a baby. I mean you just gave birth to it!

Anyway, I'm sidetracking...

There's a lot of problems that need to be fixed, We need more talking and solutions and less propaganda imo, and both sides are extremely guilty.

Bird of Prey
05-20-2009, 05:57 AM
BTW, since I have such strong opinions on abortion, I also have a solution that I think would work really well. Here's how I would fix the abortion issue:

1. First and foremost, we stop lying about what is happening. It is what is. The baby is alive, it's human, and the act of abortion is killing a live, human baby. No ifs, ands, or buts. That's what is happening.

2. Second, we flood our schools with education about PROTECTION and BIRTH CONTROL only. We don't need to teach kids how to have sex. They can figure it out on their own the same way we all did. That's part of the fun of the first experience, is that it's so bad it's funny. And by flood, I mean absolutely douse them in all the information we have available as it pertains to condoms and birth control.

3. We make birth control available on every street corner, everywhere you look you have easy access to condoms, birth control, and the morning after pill (the latter to be used sparingly due to it's possible detriment to the woman in frequent use).

4. We stop pretending like sex is taboo in our counry and return to realistic moral values. Sex isn't evil, fucking VIOLENCE is evil. We make violence the taboo issue and sex is a natural, beautiful part of life to be entered into with responsibility.

5. We give women two free passes at abortion. If, for any reason, they don't want their baby, we allow them to have up to two abortions in their life. Let's face it, birth control isn't 100% reliable, and no woman should have to carry a rapist's baby. AFter that, then they deserve to have to find a coat hanger clinic, because, given the success rate of birth control and condoms used in conjunction with each other, it's nearly impossible to get pregnant if you are using both anyway (even though there is still a chance). We recognize that it's ok to fuck up, but we also clamp down and realize that when it happens repeatedly, it's not really "fucking up" it's stupidity and ignorance (which we don't allow to happen anyway because we douse them with education).

My guess is that with those 5 steps, you could successfully wipe out MOST of the abortion problems in our country. I'm sure that either extreme will not like that plan, but I think it would be something that most people could get behind and support for those who are more "middle of the road" on the issue.


Let's see, where do I begin. I'll tell you quite frankly, James, I wouldn't normally respond to somebody who thinks like you, but as you asked, let me summarize what you've stated:

You think abortion is wrong, immoral I suppose as it's a "live, human baby," but you're willing to "allow" a woman two abortions, not one but two, before you put your lenient foot down. Then SHE can go find a coat hanger.

But God knows you don't want to curb SEX; you want birth control available on every street corner, because you want to make sure that sex is available on every street corner, right James? Let's get real, huh? The subtext is pretty clear.

And nowhere in this little rant do we mention a man getting the old coat hanger treatment to rip out his testicles after repeatedly impregnating women because they buy his "don't make me use a condom, honey; I love you" appeals.

This entire blast of yours is about putting the responsibility of sex and all its ramifications on women while making sure that they are available to have sex with on any and all occasions. You want to flood the schools with sex education? What kind of sex education, James? The kind that says "sex is beautiful," fuck anybody at any time? Or should they just "figure it out" like you did? Tell me, James, at what age is it O.K. that minors fuck? At what age should a minor be "available?"

But as if that's not bad enough, you ADMIT that even with all those condoms hanging on every tree limb down every street, mistakes CAN happen, so along with the condoms are the morning after pill. Well, why the hell do we need the morning after pill, James? Could it be that some sweet fella forgot to put the condom on? And to make matters worse, the lady can't use the morning after pill "too often," eh, due to its possible detriment. Wtf does that mean? She might not be able to carry a baby down the road? Well don't worry, James, in case she can still do it, there's always the fucking coat hanger to get Pop off the hook.

You're so sexist and so full of self-gratification at a woman's expense that it's actually vile.

Dommo
05-20-2009, 06:21 AM
BoP, the aspects of abortion that bother me are as follows.

1. When it's used as regular form of birth control. It shows a lack of responsibility, since statistically speaking, if a dude is using condoms, and a chick is using the pill, the chances of pregnancy are pretty slim. There's no reason for some women to have a half dozen abortions, if both parties are using contraceptives. This just reeks of irresponsibility, or it reeks of potential spousal abuse.
2. When people on the Pro-choice side, try to claim that the fetus is nothing more than a bunch of cells, however they often fail to note that it's a bunch of cells that could become a person. I have to agree with James, that I see so many people try to justify an abortion with the fact that it's "not a human" when that's not really true. I could see a justification if a person didn't think they'd be able to support a child or if they just genuinely didn't feel they would be a good parent, rather than try to delude themselves.
3. When the people on the Pro-life side, are such antisex moralists that they can't accept reality for what it is, and that's that people will fuck, because it's fun and feels good. They'd rather drive abortion underground, and see women die in droves than address the problem in a hospital.


My beef with the abortion "rights" stuff, is that it gives women "veto" power as I've said. A woman already has three choices, and a guy has no say. Abort, Adopt, or parenthood. Regardless of what she chooses, the guy is on the hook. I don't see why it would be unreasonable to demand some transparency and some options for the guy out of fairness. As it is, we're financially liable for everything, so why shouldn't we have a say in something that is 50% ours? That's all I'm saying. Provide transparency through mandatory paternity testing of ALL children born, and provide men options. If we don't want a kid, force the woman to either put the kid up for adoption or go it alone.

Personally, if I were god emperor of the world, all people would be chemically sterile until they're married, upon which time they would be made fertile again. That would solve most everything, and let people fuck to their hearts content without consequence. But until that day comes(and yes it will come), we've got to deal with a system of convoluted legal arguments and emotional radicals from both sides.

Bird of Prey
05-20-2009, 06:57 AM
BoP, the aspects of abortion that bother me are as follows.

1. When it's used as regular form of birth control. It shows a lack of responsibility, since statistically speaking, if a dude is using condoms, and a chick is using the pill, the chances of pregnancy are pretty slim. There's no reason for some women to have a half dozen abortions, if both parties are using contraceptives. This just reeks of irresponsibility, or it reeks of potential spousal abuse.

How the hell do you know how many abortions women have or any woman has? I want to see a stat here or a link that it's used with any frequency as a form of birth control. Otherwise, what you just said is irresponsible and utter bullshit. I would bet that the number of women that use it as "birth control" are so insignificant as to be laughable. Do you have any idea what's involved in an abortion? No. Just spewing ignorance and propaganda about something you know nothing about. . . .


2. When people on the Pro-choice side, try to claim that the fetus is nothing more than a bunch of cells, however they often fail to note that it's a bunch of cells that could become a person. I have to agree with James, that I see so many people try to justify an abortion with the fact that it's "not a human" when that's not really true. I could see a justification if a person didn't think they'd be able to support a child or if they just genuinely didn't feel they would be a good parent, rather than try to delude themselves.


Well, Dommo, let me tell you a little secret. That bunch of cells in your left toe nail could become a person, too, with the right tweeking. We're not too far from that. So please don't cut any more toe nails. I'd hate to think of you as a, you know, murderer.

3. When the people on the Pro-life side, are such antisex moralists that they can't accept reality for what it is, and that's that people will fuck, because it's fun and feels good. They'd rather drive abortion underground, and see women die in droves than address the problem in a hospital.

"It's fun and feels good. . . ." I see. I bet it feels really good to know that any problems that arise because it's "fun and it feels good" are the woman's problems, eh? She gets to carry the baby to term, all the agony of child birth, the agony of giving it away for adoption or bearing the entire cost of its raising while HE gets to walk away because after all, why should HE - perhaps meaning you - have to bear the cost of a child he didn't want? Right, Dommo?

I'll take those moralists any day over you. At least the "moralists" are willing to acknowledge that a man must pay for the child, as opposed to you who seem to be advocating that women can be used or not, but either way, get to shoulder all the consequences. If that's not blatant and vile sexism, I don't know what is.


My beef with the abortion "rights" stuff, is that it gives women "veto" power as I've said. A woman already has three choices, and a guy has no say. Abort, Adopt, or parenthood. Regardless of what she chooses, the guy is on the hook. I don't see why it would be unreasonable to demand some transparency and some options for the guy out of fairness. As it is, we're financially liable for everything, so why shouldn't we have a say in something that is 50% ours? That's all I'm saying. Provide transparency through mandatory paternity testing of ALL children born, and provide men options. If we don't want a kid, force the woman to either put the kid up for adoption or go it alone.


Beyond belief. So, women SHOULD NOT get abortions but if the man doesn't want the kid, FORCE HER to put it up for adoption or go it alone. I repeat, your position here is really vile. Sexist and vile.


Personally, if I were god emperor of the world, all people would be chemically sterile until they're married, upon which time they would be made fertile again. That would solve most everything, and let people fuck to their hearts content without consequence. But until that day comes(and yes it will come), we've got to deal with a system of convoluted legal arguments and emotional radicals from both sides.

But you're not an emotional radical, just somebody who thinks that it's O.K. to have sex any time anywhere and let the woman bear the burden of carrying an unwanted child, the agony of childbirth, raising the kid or putting it up for adoption while YOU walk away and go knock up somebody else. You're right, you're not an emotional radical. You're somebody who seriously thinks that the day will come when the "system of convoluted legal arguments" will bend to your will because maybe you seriously think you are god emperor. Well you aren't, Dommo. Because the world is dominated by people in this country that are rational enough to never let people like you prevail, but enjoy it in your head. I don't need to know what else the little voices are telling you.

James81
05-20-2009, 07:01 AM
Wow, BoP. Have you ever heard of the term "projection"? (as it is used in psychology) The basic idea of projection is that someone will project their own worst qualities onto someone else, and then bash the crap out of them for it.

I've been guilty of it a time or two. I think, in this case, you are guilty of it. No offense, but damn, you twisted my arguement into something that I didn't even slightly hint at, so I have to assume that you are merely projecting here. *shrug* I know I hold *some* sexist views, but it's nowhere near the intensity that you (along with mscelina and Macalister) are saddling me with. And I DO NOT hate women or think of them as evil. I don't understand them. In fact, a lot of ways I may even be a little jealous of them. But I don't hate them. And in a forum where we are supposed to respect our fellow writer, I'm getting a little tired of being accused of such. I try to ignore those accusations, but this is getting a little ridiculous.

/rant

Now I'll address your post:



You think abortion is wrong, immoral I suppose as it's a "live, human baby," but you're willing to "allow" a woman two abortions, not one but two, before you put your lenient foot down. Then SHE can go find a coat hanger.

The coat hanger comment was a little over the top. The intent of that point was to eliminate the abortions for birth control reasons (or, to get back onto the original topic of the thread: for people who want to choose the sex).

Personally, I think that me, as a pro-life advocate, saying that we should make two abortions ok is being extremely open minded and fair, given my own personal viewpoints.

But God knows you don't want to curb SEX; you want birth control available on every street corner, because you want to make sure that sex is available on every street corner, right James? Let's get real, huh? The subtext is pretty clear.

This is why abortion is such an issue. People equate the availability of birth control to promoting sex. THAT'S NOT TRUE. People's sex drives aren't suddenly going to increase just because they can get their hands on birth control. People's sex drives are what they are, whether we try to stifle them or not. In fact, stifling the sex drive probably INCREASES the desire to have sex.

There is no subtext. My subtle point is that when we stop making such a big deal about sex, sex will no longer be a big deal -->WHICH MEANS that the moment we take the "taboo-ness" out of sex, it immediately loses that extra "luster" that we give it by making it taboo. We need to stop controlling our youth/people, and start trusting them to make the right decisions.

And nowhere in this little rant do we mention a man getting the old coat hanger treatment to rip out his testicles after repeatedly impregnating women because they buy his "don't make me use a condom, honey; I love you" appeals.

this is one of those issues I was talking about when I said "projection" above. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. If men were the ones to get pregnant, my arguement would remain the same.

This entire blast of yours is about putting the responsibility of sex and all its ramifications on women while making sure that they are available to have sex with on any and all occasions. You want to flood the schools with sex education? What kind of sex education, James? The kind that says "sex is beautiful," fuck anybody at any time? Or should they just "figure it out" like you did? Tell me, James, at what age is it O.K. that minors fuck? At what age should a minor be "available?"

No it's not. The responsibility of birth control is on the woman (right now, as men's birth control isn't widely available yet). The responsibility of wearing condoms is on the man. Both sexes need to do BOTH things if they are going to have sex and don't want a baby. And if both sexes DID those things, the possibility of the woman getting pregnant is less than 1% (if I remember the statistics right).

I told you what kind of sex education. The kind that promotes safe sex and using birth control. It's not the school's business to teach them about the "beauty of sex." That's something people need to decide on their own. Not everybody believes sex is some magical disney princess experience. Some people think it's a great way to have some fun, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Teaching people how to be safe isn't promoting sex. It's promoting responsibility.

But as if that's not bad enough, you ADMIT that even with all those condoms hanging on every tree limb down every street, mistakes CAN happen, so along with the condoms are the morning after pill. Well, why the hell do we need the morning after pill, James? Could it be that some sweet fella forgot to put the condom on? And to make matters worse, the lady can't use the morning after pill "too often," eh, due to its possible detriment. Wtf does that mean? She might not be able to carry a baby down the road? Well don't worry, James, in case she can still do it, there's always the fucking coat hanger to get Pop off the hook.

Poor choice of words on my part. Frequent use of the morning after pill is physically dangerous to the woman's body (or so I've heard). If I'm wrong about that, then so be it. But it's something I've heard from several sources. I have no idea of the truth behind it.

There are more reasons to have the morning after pill. Condoms DO break (just ask my brother who now has a 5 year old daughter because one broke). Once again, you're projecting here.

You're so sexist and so full of self-gratification at a woman's expense that it's actually vile.

Haha, I am a *little* sexist. I freely admit that. But I'm not all that bullshit you just said. ;)

Bird of Prey
05-20-2009, 07:16 AM
Haha, I am a *little* sexist. I freely admit that. But I'm not all that bullshit you just said. ;)

Sexism isn't charming, isn't innocent nor is it acceptable in any man claiming to have dignity or integrity. I have nothing more to say to you.

I should also add that the message is the same to Dommo.

Cyia
05-20-2009, 07:16 AM
Abortion as birth control (in Google box) yields:
(And I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information, I just went looking for links. Sadly most of the information is out of date. 2005 seems to be the most current.)


http://www.contracept.org/abortifacient.php



Using abortion as birth control means that abortion is being used as a back-up method to ineffective or improperly used contraception, or no contraception is being used at all. Of women having abortions,

* 46% did not use contraception during the month they became pregnant
* 8% never used a method of birth control
* 47% have had at least one previous abortion

Although there are situations in which abortion is in response to health concerns of the mother or fetus, or in response to pregnancy arising from abuse, the majority of abortions are obtained for social and financial reasons. The primary reasons given for choosing abortion are given below.

* 75% say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities
* about 75% say they cannot afford a child
* 50% do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner



http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html


• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[9]

• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[9]

• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[1,10]

James81
05-20-2009, 07:17 AM
Sexism isn't charming, isn't innocent nor is it acceptable in any man claiming to have dignity or integrity. I have nothing more to say to you.

Fantastic. :)

icerose
05-20-2009, 07:28 AM
I'm sorry bird, but I don't see it in their posts and I'm a woman. Maybe because I don't have an eternal patience for women doing stupid things and think they should be held JUST AS responsible as men. I think it cuts both ways and the abortion situation and children situation are a big grey sticky mass and for the most part people try to oversimplify it or turn it into a thing it isn't.

MacAllister
05-20-2009, 07:35 AM
Enough. These discussions always end up the same place -- with a couple of guys trying desperately to justify why they should get to control women's bodies and decisions, a couple of women who don't know what the big deal is, and an all-out argument when people on all sides are certain of their rightness.