Really? What about women who have been raped? Or my friend, who just got pregnant despite her husband having had a zero sperm count six weeks after his vas? (I don't honestly know if she considered abortion, we're not close enough for me to ask such a question, but if it happened to me, I'd already have my appointment.) There are a LOT of situations where a woman is considering an abortion that didn't result from bad decisions.
I Personally do not agree with Abortion. I was fortunate enough not to have an unplanned pregnancy, but I cannot imagine going through with something like that. HOWEVER politically I completely agree with Abortion. I feel that every woman should be able to make that choice on her own. Unfortunately there will be people out there who abuse this (a friend of mine has had 4 abortions so far, and i say so far because im sure there will be more) Abortions shouldnt be used as birth control, but I understand that there are always extenuating circumstances and therefore putting limits and qualifications on the law could impede on the freedom of choice.
I realized that, in this whole thread, I haven't ever actually addressed the "what about the man? Why doesn't he get a say?" question. And I do actually have a non-snarky response to it (yeah, even I can occasionally rein in the snark). Nope. It's not fair. A man has one point of decision -- the having sex. A woman has two -- the having sex, and then whether to continue a pregnancy. Nature is not fair, and that sucks for y'all, in this one situation. And when medical technology progresses, and the embryo or fetus can be transferred to the man, seahorse-style, or done in a lab or something, then I will absolutely advocate for that to be a choice. Because I believe in reproductive freedom for ALL. But as it stands right now, the rights of the woman to her own bodily autonomy absolutely trump that. My reproductive freedom is less important than your bodily autonomy. So if it were even possible, I wouldn't get to force you to continue a pregnancy in order to give me a baby (this is evident in laws about surrogacy, for instance.) But, I think this is a red herring.
No. Men in the situation DID have a decision point - the having of the sex. Unless it was rape (as in, the man was raped), the rights of the child (if the woman continues the pregnancy) to support from her/his parents aren't done away with with the "but it's not FAIR" argument.
I think this is a very sensible argument. Would you concede, however, if a man does not want the woman to keep the pregnancy but she does anyway, that he should be able to opt out of providing financial aid to said child? To me, the idea of having to pay money towards a child you didn't intend to have in the first place seems vastly unfair. Kinda makes it possible for women to 'trap' men so to speak.
I think if u can't provide for a kid and the heart hasn't started beating then abortion is ok but if u can support a kid and every thing then atleast give it up for adoption Sent from my Prism II using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Sex can have consequences, but the consequences are different for men and women. Get over it. For a woman, if she chooses to have sex, then she does so knowing she could get pregnant (wanted or unwanted). For a woman, the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy might mean having an abortion, or giving her child up for adoption, or going through with an unwanted pregnancy, and keeping (and paying for) a child that she resents. None of these are pleasant options. For a man, if he chooses to have sex, then he does so knowing that he could get the girl pregnant. For a man, the the consequences of a pregnancy, might mean that his partner aborts a child that he may have wanted, or his child might be given up for adoption, or she might keep the baby, which makes him just as financially responsible. None of these are necessarily pleasant options either. But there you have it... such is life. The only other alternatives are to either let the man force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want, or force her to abort a baby she might want, or to not hold men financially responsible for the children they produce. And these options, are far worse than anything I presented above.
I think there can be no black and white laws for abortion. I think abortion law should be treated as a case-by-case basis. Consider this scenario: Man and woman are about to have consensual sex. Man asks woman if she is using birth control. Woman lies and says she is, when she isn't. Man and woman have sex. Woman becomes pregnant and keeps the pregnancy. Man can do nothing about it, having no say in the woman's choice. Man now has 18 years of paying for a child he didn't want. Is this justice? I don't think so. In scenario's such as this the male should not have to provide financial aid for the conceived child. As far as i'm concerned if a woman has the right to choose whether to keep/abort the child, then a man should have the right to choose whether to support the child, especially if he was lied to about birth control, as above. I know the scenario above isn't what always happens and that it it's very rare that this happens, but it does happen, and that's what is wrong with the current system. Oh and before someone jumps in with 'shouldve wore a condom' condoms can be sabotaged, and are never 100% effective anyway. If a woman wants a child badly enough, she is guaranteed to be able to trick a man into giving her a baby. Also sex with a condom sucks ass, and I would put money on that alot of long term couples no longer use them. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
Actually, a woman can't give a child up for adoption against the father's wishes, generally. Also, there have been plenty of unplanned pregnancies that resulted in a child who is not at all resented by his/her mother. So those aren't exactly the options. But I absolutely agree with your last paragraph.
As for the whole support issue. Child support could start at conception, but it does not. It starts when there is an ACTUAL human being. Want facts ... here you go. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html \tINCIDENCE OF ABORTION• Half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. •Twenty-one percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion. • In 2011, 1.06 million abortions were performed, down 13% from 1.21 million in 2008. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred. • Each year, 1.7% of women aged 15–44 have an abortion . Half have had at least one previous abortion. • At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and at 2008 abortion rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45. \tWHO HAS ABORTIONS?• Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, 18–19-year-olds obtain 11%, and teens younger than 15 obtain 0.4%. • Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%. • Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and women of other races for 9%. • Thirty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions identify as Protestant and 28% identify as Catholic. • Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions. • About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children. • Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children). • Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level. • The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner. • Fifty-one percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%). \tSAFETY OF ABORTION• A first-trimester abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with minimal risk-less than 0.05%-of major complications that might need hospital care. • Abortions performed in the first trimester pose virtually no long-term risk of such problems as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries. • Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers. • Leading experts have concluded that, among women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single first-trimester abortion than if they carry the pregnancy to term. • The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16–20 weeks-and one per 11,000 at 21 weeks or later. • Fifty-eight percent of abortion patients say they would have liked to have had their abortion earlier. Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money. • Teens are more likely than older women to delay having an abortion until after 15 weeks of pregnancy, when the medical risks associated with abortion are significantly higher.
This is what I mean when I say the responsibilities and the rights a guy has in this situation just don't correspond. And the whole "he shouldn't have had sex" thing doesn't really fly since I can make the same argument for why a woman shouldn't be allowed to terminate a pregnancy. You want an abortion? Too bad, you made your decision when you had sex. You shouldn't have had sex if you weren't prepared to carry a pregnancy to term. Same logic. The double standard becomes pretty obvious when put like that doesn't it? Or am I missing something?
We're forced to suffer as a result of this terrible patriarchy system all of us men benefit from over women.
Ahh don't get me started on the whole patriarchy thing. The most mind blowing thing about that is we still have examples of legit patriarchal societies. Think you're oppressed in America? Try heading to Saudi Arabia, they won't let you drive or go out in public alone. But on the abortion thing, is it really so unreasonable to release a guy from financial obligations if he doesn't want to have the kid and the mother does? It's ultimately the mother's decision whether to abort, all I'm saying is that decision should have consequences. So if she wants to have the kid, that's fine, but she'd be on her own raising it. And if you try to argue that it's unfair to place her in that position, well, too bad shouldn't have had sex.
Exactly this. If the mother chose to have the child against the father's wishes why should he be forced to provide? They both had sex yet the man has no opt out option? Bullshit if you ask me.