Is abortion only the womans right to choose?

Mills75 wrote:

It is right and proper that a person be the absolute ruler over her or his body, but it is not right that a woman should be able to make a decision that will affect the next eighteen years of her sexual partner's life.

I agree except in the case of non-consensual sex where she is opposed to abortion. His decision to impose on her body affects the rest of her life (motherhood does not end after 18 years) and he should be held responsible.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

(motherhood does not end after 18 years)

*sighs* Nor does fatherhood, believe it or not..

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

Of course the man doesn't have the right to choose whether or not the woman has an abortion, but neither should the woman have the right to make a choice that will affect the next eighteen years of the man's life (despite the legal fiction enforced by one unenlightened court).

Both parties are responsible for contraception. What what would seem to be a more just system is that the woman retains the right to make the choices that affect her body, and if she chooses an abortion, then the man is required to pay half the costs. If the man, however, wants the woman to have an abortion and the woman refuses, then he should have the option to waive his parental rights and not be saddled with eighteen years of child-support payments. In this case, he would still be liable for half the cost of an abortion, and by waiving his rights he would be barred from having any contact with the product of that conception.

It is right and proper that a person be the absolute ruler over her or his body, but it is not right that a woman should be able to make a decision that will affect the next eighteen years of her sexual partner's life. Let's face it, eighteen years is a steep, steep penalty for three to eight hours of mutual pleasure (Okay, three to eight hours in my case, two to twenty minutes in the case of most other men ); the woman can choose whether to impose that sentence on herself, but why should she have the authority to impose that sentence on somebody else?

Legal fiction enforced by one unenlightened court?

Not a legal fiction at all. If a man impregnates a woman, that's not a fiction at all (legal or otherwise). It's a FACT.

It's also a fact that BOTH parents have a duty to support the life they created. There is no court in the land that will ever let a man simply walk away from his duty of support upon the payment of one-half the cost of an abortion.

Inasmuch as it takes two people to make a baby, the only thing you said that makes any sense is this: "Both parties are responsible for contraception."

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

It is right and proper that a person be the absolute ruler over her or his body, but it is not right that a woman should be able to make a decision that will affect the next eighteen years of her sexual partner's life.

Why not? We allow people to make all sorts of decisions that will affect other people, without allowing those other people to have any say in the decision at all. For instance, a parent in this country has an undeniable right to name a child, and the child has no right to change that name until s/he reaches the age of majority. So a parent gets to make a decision that will affect the next eighteen years of that child's life and the child has no input. Would you call that unfair?

I offered this hypothetical elsewhere, but it seems fitting to repeat it here:

Driver accidentally hits Pedestrian, injuring her severely. Driver did not intend to hit Pedestrian, but it is clear that he was negligent and that he alone was responsible. Pedestrian's doctors give her a choice: she can have an operation to correct her injuries, or she can forego surgery. If she has the operation, she has a 50 percent chance of dying, but if she survives she will be 100 percent cured. On the other hand, if she foregoes surgery, her lifespan will not be shortened but she will crippled for the rest of her life. Pedestrian has brought a lawsuit against Driver. Driver can anticipate that, if Pedestrian decides to forego surgery he will have to pay $100,000 in damages. If she has surgery and dies, it is certain that he will pay at least $1 million or more in damages to Pedestrian's estate. And if she has the surgery and survives, Driver will have to pay $10,000. As Pedestrian is weighing her medical options, Driver tells her: "since your decision will undoubtedly affect me, I should have a say in whatever choice you make. After all, it's not fair that you have 100 percent of the choice while I bear 100 percent of the financial burden. Therefore, in exchange for paying you $100,000 right now, I demand that you forego that operation. If, on the other hand, you choose to reject my offer and go ahead with the surgery, then I will be absolved of all responsibility and I won't be obligated to pay you (or your estate) anything."Now, is that fair?

0 Replies

Terry: a good caveat to add. I should have added that in the first place.

Debra_Law: the legal fiction is the duty, not the pregnancy. If a man and a woman have sex for the purpose of mutual pleasure and not procreation, then there simply is no logical or reasonable expectation that either partner is obliged to an eighteen year long burden. Since abortion is an option in the event that adequate precautions weren't taken, or said precautions failed, the woman should not be the sole arbiter of whether or not the man should suffer an eighteen year long penalty. If the woman wishes to bring the pregnancy to term, that is, legally, her choice and her choice alone. However, she should not be able to make that choice of parenthood for the man.

joefromchicago: You would compare eighteen years of child support payments to eighteen years of putting up with the names our parents give us? That is simply nonsensical. Now were I a woman I would be truly offended by your automobile accident analogy. It implies that women are passive recipients of the will of men and bear no more responsibility for the consequences of the things they consensually do with men than a child would. Pedestrians have a rightful expectation to be free from harm by motorists provided they are following the rules set forth for pedestrians. They have a rightful expectation of recompense for injuries sustained due to the negligence of motorists. This simply is not analogous to a pregnancy resulting from consensual sex.

First, there isn't a victim if both participants are adults (remember, it's already been established that we're talking about consensual sex). Second, the woman is presented with a choice of two outcomes, not three. She may terminate the pregnancy for a relatively small fee, or she may bring the pregnancy to term at a far, far greater cost both financially and emotionally. Deaths from legally performed abortions in the US are nearly unheard of. A woman is just about as likely to be hit by lightning as suffer major complications, much less death, from a legal abortion in the US, and she's certainly at greater risk of death just driving to work or flying on a plane. And the argument isn't that the man should have any authority to decide whether or not the woman has an abortion, but that the man should be able to choose for himself whether or not he becomes a parent. Thus the automobile accident analogy just doesn't apply on any level.

0 Replies

Mills75 wrote:

Debra_Law: the legal fiction is the duty, not the pregnancy.

You're wrong. The duty to support your offspring is not a legal fiction. It is a duty recognized by our entire society and enforced by our laws in every state in the union. There's nothing fictional about that.

Mills75 wrote:

If a man and a woman have sex for the purpose of mutual pleasure and not procreation, then there simply is no logical or reasonable expectation that either partner is obliged to an eighteen year long burden.

From a reasonable, objective person standard, if you impregnate a woman (regardless of whether you intended to do so or not), you're responsible for the consequences of your actions.

You advocate a position wherein men should be allowed to have sex indiscriminately for pleasure and bear absolutely no responsibility for the consequences. Society does not find your position to be logical nor reasonable. On the contrary, society demands that you support the children you create until they reach the age of majority. If you find an unwanted pregnancy to be too burdensome of a price to pay for a moment of pleasure, keep your pants zipped. Simple enough?

Society does not require you to engage in the sexual activity that may result in the conception of your children. Society does not interfere in any way with your choice to use or not to use contraceptive methods—or additional contraceptive methods, as the case may be—during sexual activity to avoid your sexual partner’s resulting pregnancy. Society should not be stuck with supporting your children. That's your responsibility, like it or not.

Quote:

Since abortion is an option in the event that adequate precautions weren't taken, or said precautions failed, the woman should not be the sole arbiter of whether or not the man should suffer an eighteen year long penalty. If the woman wishes to bring the pregnancy to term, that is, legally, her choice and her choice alone. However, she should not be able to make that choice of parenthood for the man.

Where are the violins? Cry us a river, why don't you. No court in the land is going to buy your argument. It's completely frivolous. If you don't want to bear the responsibility for the consequences of your own conduct, then don't engage in the conduct. No one is forcing you to engage in sexual activity that may result in an unwanted pregnancy.

0 Replies

I fully agree with Debra. If you're not smart enough to use protection when having sex, then you have to take half the responsability for the child you helped make.

It makes my skin crawl to see anyone throw the word "abortion" around like it's suppose to be something you do without giving it a second thought. Gee, I think I'll skip having my nails done today and go have an abortion instead Rolling Eyes

If you don't want the "burden" of having children, use extra protection or get yourself "snipped"! Simple as that ;-)

0 Replies

Good idea, Montana. He can get snipped!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v722/Debra_Law/scissors.gif

0 Replies

snip snip

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

From a reasonable, objective person standard, if you impregnate a woman (regardless of whether you intended to do so or not), you're responsible for the consequences of your actions.

Again with this language that implies women aren't fully responsible for their actions. Rather than suggesting a man should be unfettered by responsibility, my proposal holds a man responsible for, at minimum, half the cost of an abortion and, at maximum, the support of a child if that man chooses to accept the parenting responsibilities resulting from the woman's decision of whether or not to carry out the pregnancy.

Debra_Law wrote:

You advocate a position wherein men should be allowed to have sex indiscriminately for pleasure and bear absolutely no responsibility for the consequences.

No, you didn't read my post carefully enough. I'm advocating a system where woman and men may practice consensual sex in a responsible manner. Refer to the above portion of this post.

Debra_Law wrote:

Society does not find your position to be logical nor reasonable. On the contrary, society demands that you support the children you create until they reach the age of majority. If you find an unwanted pregnancy to be too burdensome of a price to pay for a moment of pleasure, keep your pants zipped. Simple enough?

Society is known neither for its grasp of logic nor reason. And I neither remember appointing you as the spokesperson of society, nor do I remember the second landing of the Puritans. Sex is enjoyable, healthy, and, thanks to the modern marvels of science, no longer just for procreation.

Debra_Law wrote:

Once again, my proposal requires the man to take responsibility and, at the very least, make a good faith attempt to spare society from supporting the product of his sexual activity. If the woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term, then the onus is on her. (PS--with national welfare to work laws, society's support of the child would be minimal. It would be up to the woman to support the child if she refused to have an abortion.)

Quote:

No court in the land is going to buy your argument.

As I mentioned, courts tend to be unenlightened. This is hardly a valid point in refuting my argument since my argument is based in justice, not law. We are, after all, in the philosophy section, not the law section.

Quote:

It's completely frivolous.

No, fundamentally the question is about whether or not one adult with no legal authority over another adult has the right to affect the life of that adult without that adult's permission. Your arguments would have weight back in the era of unsafe abortions, but not in today's world.

Quote:

If you don't want to bear the responsibility for the consequences of your own conduct, then don't engage in the conduct.

Again with the responsibility comments. Your argument here rests on the fallacious notion that live birth is the necessary consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. It isn't. There is a safe and relatively inexpensive alternative to bringing a pregnancy to term. If a woman gets pregnant by a man who doesn't want children at that time, she has the choice as to whether or not to bring that child into the world. Why should the man be bound by what is solely her decision? You are right that we must be responsible for our choices and actions. It simply isn't logical or just that one would be held responsible for the actions of another independent adult. The man's responsibility, if he chooses not to be a parent, justly extends no further than the cost of an abortion. Otherwise, he is being held responsible for another's decisions and actions.

Quote:

No one is forcing you to engage in sexual activity that may result in an unwanted pregnancy.

And no one is forcing women to bring unwanted children into the world. No matter how tempting it might be to reduce my argument to a simple justification of men shirking their responsibilities, it just doesn't boil down that way. The fundamental question is whether or not the decisions of one competent adult with no special legal authority should be permitted to have virtually limitless impact on another adult.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

If you don't want the "burden" of having children, use extra protection or get yourself "snipped"! Simple as that ;-)

Or we could force women to have abortions. But neither is a just alternative.

0 Replies

Mills
If you are not responsible enough to have protected sex, then you have to take responsibility for your irresponsiblity.

It amazes me to see you have no regard at all about taking the life of a human being.

0 Replies

I'm taking a chance here, because I didn't read all of the posts other than the first page so here goes. When men are able to give birth, then they should be given the right to decide if they want an abortion. Actually I think it's better all the way around if everybody practices safe sex, but I'm not holding my breath.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

Mills
If you are not responsible enough to have protected sex, then you have to take responsibility for your irresponsiblity.

It amazes me to see you have no regard at all about taking the life of a human being.

A collection of undifferentiated cells is not a human being, it's tissue. Many pregnancies end before they're even detected in what appears to be an unusually heavy menstrual flow. When was the last time you held a funeral service or mourned an extra heavy menstrual flow?

And once again, the question isn't really about taking responsibility, it's about how much responsibility the decisions of one competent adult should create for another adult. If contraceptives fail (and they do at least a couple times out of every hundred), or if the consenting adults got lost in the moment, then there is still an option available to the woman, and the woman only, to avert months of pregnancy and years of parenting. What imbues a woman with the power to force fatherhood on man when it is equally in her power forgo that outcome? Partly it's the sexist notion that woman aren't fully responsible for their actions (which was a big part of the justification for denying women civil rights, including the right to vote), and partly it's the cloudiness many politicians and judges experience when it comes to that pesky separation of church and state. They can't enforce abstinence, so they'll settle for the next best thing.

0 Replies

I don't care what you say! When a woman is pregnant, she is carrying a human being or at least something that will become a person if the pregnancy is not terminated!

If you are so concerned about this issue then get yourself snipped to make sure it doesn't happen. It's much less painful for you to do that than it is for a woman to get an abortion and there are no lives lost. You obviously have no idea what a woman goes through when having an abortion and I'm not just talking about the physical pain. An abortion for a woman is an emotional hell that will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
I've never had an abortion, but I know several woman who have and it shocks me to see someone talk about it so casually!

Do yourself and any possible unwanted child you may bring into this world a huge favor and get that snipping taken care of. It's a simple procedure that's done right in the doctors office and you won't even have to miss any work. That way you can have all the unprotected sex you want without worrying about making babies.

I'd talk about STDs, bit that's a whole other threat entirely.

0 Replies

Frivolous

Mills75 wrote:

If the woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term, then the onus is on her. (PS--with national welfare to work laws, society's support of the child would be minimal. It would be up to the woman to support the child if she refused to have an abortion.)

The entire civilized world disagrees with you.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

I don't care what you say! When a woman is pregnant, she is carrying a human being or at least something that will become a person if the pregnancy is not terminated!

If you are so concerned about this issue then get yourself snipped to make sure it doesn't happen. It's much less painful for you to do that than it is for a woman to get an abortion and there are no lives lost. You obviously have no idea what a woman goes through when having an abortion and I'm not just talking about the physical pain. An abortion for a woman is an emotional hell that will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
I've never had an abortion, but I know several woman who have and it shocks me to see someone talk about it so casually!

Do yourself and any possible unwanted child you may bring into this world a huge favor and get that snipping taken care of. It's a simple procedure that's done right in the doctors office and you won't even have to miss any work. That way you can have all the unprotected sex you want without worrying about making babies.

They have eyes, but they do not see. Literacy, but they do not read.

Blocked by preconceived notions you obstinately insist on misunderstanding what I post. I'm arguing for individual freedom, reproductive rights, and limiting dictatorial power on an interpersonal level, not proclaiming some zero population growth or unprotected sex manifesto. The thread, which presumes a pro-choice stance on the part of those who post, is about whether or not women should be the only sex with the choice as to whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. While I would never interfere with a woman's right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy (it's her body, and we should all have the final say over our own bodies), I would extend the right to choose whether or not to become a parent after conception to men. Why should a woman have the right to choose parenthood for a man after conception when she herself has the power to choose otherwise for herself? She shouldn't. If sexual partners don't agree on parenthood before hand, then the woman has no rightful or just expectation that her sexual partner will help support and/or parent their progeny if she alone decides to bring the pregnancy to term. If the man consents to being a parent, which most men would, then he would be bound to help support and parent their progeny. If he does not consent, then he should be bound to no more than to help pay for an abortion regardless of what the woman chooses to do.

You do seem, however, to want to turn this into an abortion debate otherwise my seeming nonchalance over abortion, the women you've known who've had abortions, and your personal views on abortion and the status of the embryo/fetus would all be moot points. This thread isn't about pro-choice vs. anti-abortion, but if that's what you want to debate, start a thread on it. Hell, I'm game.

0 Replies

Re: Frivolous

Debra_Law wrote:

Mills75 wrote:
If the woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term, then the onus is on her. (PS--with national welfare to work laws, society's support of the child would be minimal. It would be up to the woman to support the child if she refused to have an abortion.)

The entire civilized world disagrees with you.

Well if you define "entire civilized world" as just the members of your church, then that's bound to be true.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

So a parent gets to make a decision that will affect the next eighteen years of that child's life and the child has no input. Would you call that unfair?

Yes. I don't like that parents get to name children... I'm not saying that I have a better idea, not yet anyway. It just doesn't quite sit right with me. You know the feeling where you think to yourself "there's got to be a better way"?

Quote:

I offered this hypothetical... <see above>... Now, is that fair?

Very well put Joe. I think that's a good analogy demonstrating well that our law doesn't always allow people choices in how their finances are affected by other peoples decisions, it's also particularly apt to this topic since the driver (like a father) bears some responsibility for the origin of the situation that leads to the choice the pedestrian (like the mother) can make to influence the driver's financial situation.

0 Replies

Mills
You're the one who keeps mentioning abortion, so I'm just going with the flow you started.
If you don't want to be responsible for children, then take all measures to make sure you don't have any. Either use protection, get snipped or keep it in your pants.
When two people have sex, there's a chance that the female may become pregnant and since both parties are aware of this risk, both are equally responsible for the child.
To say that the man should not have to help provide for the child simply because the woman refused to abort it is absurd, not to mention a cop out.
If the law were to work your way, the tax payers would be the ones having to foot the bill for all the dead beats who got caught up in the heat of the moment.

Give me a break!

0 Replies

Is abortion only the womans right to choose?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know