Abortion: Official discussion v.4

That type of absolutism ignores reality.

Fact: Pregnancy confers risks of morbidity and mortality to the woman alone that the male does not share.

Demanding that the man share equal responsibility because of the existence of a double-standard is ludicrous, because there simply is no way for the two of them to become equated.

A man can't get pregnant. Period. This alone is a special situation that causes your entire argument to fall apart. If, at some time in the future, men are somehow able to become pregnant, then your argument would carry a great weight.

But not now. While I agree that child support burdens on American males are unfair at times, they do not justify giving the man veto power over a woman's personal choice.

It's her body, not his.

Peace,

V-03

 

Who said I said anything about inherent risk to the woman, V03?

That is irrelevant to the rights of the man, which would include to choose to not accept responsibility for a pregnancy that he has no rights to determine.

You're trying to tell us here that it's plainly okay for women to dictate to men their rights and responsibilities in childbearing and raising, even though the man has no rights whatsoever. He doesn't even have to be notified if his wife has an abortion.

So, if a person has no rights to a certain thing, where is the rationale that responsibility should be given to someone without any rights?

The man should have a choice to become a parent, just like a mother does. He should not be forced to assume responsibility by the will of a woman who wants to force her will upon him.

...and it's absolutely correct that the unborn - even up to distinguishable human form - are sucked through a vaccum cleaner and thrown in the trash can. What, is the truth repugnant?

Should I sugar coat it in PC fashion?

 

To be fair, men should get vasectomies if they want to be responsible for their actions once and for all.

 

And histerectomies[sic] too, eh ?

Well, DM, I think V3 was referring to me, not you, but your points are the valid ones I would make.

What I find ludicrous, V3, is that you argue that the law should be based on biological differences between men and women--our rights, however, cannot act like that if all of us are to be equal under the law.

Tell me, what other "exceptions" do you propose we commit the law to? Considering your inept logic, I am sure you do not think the fact that only men suffer the possiblity of a Draft in America to be a double-standard nor sexist. After all, men are better suited, physically, for combat situations as well as our inherent tendencies towards aggression. It makes perfect sense, then, that men are expendable because women, who must raise children (men's opinions or very prescence or use for children is not of their decision apparently), and not to mention their bioligical status, indicates it is prefectly reasonable to discriminate in this fashion.

Bravo for your "ethics," you should write a book. You could title it, "The Ethics of a Double-Standard State."


Ciou-See the Sig

 

Who said I said anything about inherent risk to the woman, V03?

That is irrelevant to the rights of the man, which would include to choose to not accept responsibility for a pregnancy that he has no rights to determine.

Oh, I'm not arguing that the man shouldn't be forced into responsibility, but it's very, very hard to take the flip side and apply it equally as well.

Because men have no biological risk, it simply doesn't make any sense to give them the same rights. I fully believe that men should not be forced to take financial responsibility for an unwanted child, and the fact that laws such as this exist are a double-standard, but this still, in my view, does not abrogate the woman's sole right to choose.

Tell me, what's the difference between allowing a man to say "no" to a woman having an abortion and telling her whether or not she can have surgery for breast cancer, or vice versa?

You're trying to tell us here that it's plainly okay for women to dictate to men their rights and responsibilities in childbearing and raising, even though the man has no rights whatsoever. He doesn't even have to be notified if his wife has an abortion.

I don't agree with the legal tenet that the man has to take responsibility after birth, but that still does not justify forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term before birth. It's her body, not his.

So, if a person has no rights to a certain thing, where is the rationale that responsibility should be given to someone without any rights?

Where is it indeed? I have never particularly cared for "deadbeat dad" laws, especially in situations where a woman has attempted to "trap" a man by getting pregnant when he thought it wasn't an option (ie, lying about being on birth control). In those types of scenarios especially, your reasoning is sound. Unfortunately, it becomes almost impossible to prove.

The man should have a choice to become a parent, just like a mother does. He should not be forced to assume responsibility by the will of a woman who wants to force her will upon him.

The easiest solution here would be to legally end the concept of forced child support, and terminate "deadbeat dad" laws. It would certainly go over much better with the american public than "veto-power-to-the-man-over-abortion" laws. From a purely medical standpoint, he cannot take away her autonomous right to consent to a medical or surgical abortion.

...and it's absolutely correct that the unborn - even up to distinguishable human form - are sucked through a vaccum cleaner and thrown in the trash can. What, is the truth repugnant?

Should I sugar coat it in PC fashion?

To further clarify, you are referring to only one type of abortion. Most abortions, as you well know, are performed in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy using medications.

D and E's, to which I believe you referring, are more often performed for medical reasons, although they certainly do occur electively, and not in insignificant numbers.

Excellent debate .

Peace,

V-03

 

Of course, I was referring to responsibility after birth V03.

 

Moriarte-

And histerectomies[sic] too, eh ?

What does that have to do with anything?

What I find ludicrous, V3, is that you argue that the law should be based on biological differences between men and women--our rights, however, cannot act like that if all of us are to be equal under the law.

And I'm asking you, how do we ignore such differences.

As a matter of plain fact, there are many ways in which women are not treated equally under the law because of their gender. The workplace is perhaps the most famous example; career opportunities, salaries in almost every field...do women get equal pay? What about the famed equal rights amendment? Never made it.

Shall I mention federal drug insurance coverage for Viagra and not birth control, even though contraception has health benefits far beyond preventing unwanted pregnancy?

Yes, my argument is certainly ludicrous, how can biology possibly play a role in the equal protection of the law?

Tell me, what other "exceptions" do you propose we commit the law to? Considering your inept logic, I am sure you do not think the fact that only men suffer the possiblity of a Draft in America to be a double-standard nor sexist.

Your example of a draft doesn't really fit, since women serve nowadays in a far greater capacity than the last time a draft existed. Societal mores regarding women in the military have changed significantly in the past 30 years, and I have to wonder whether or not a draft today would truly exclude women.

Thanks though, for providing yet another example where women are treated less equally because of their biology .

After all, men are better suited, physically, for combat situations as well as our inherent tendencies towards aggression. It makes perfect sense, then, that men are expendable because women, who must raise children (men's opinions or very prescence or use for children is not of their decision apparently), and not to mention their bioligical status, indicates it is prefectly reasonable to discriminate in this fashion.

Actually, the laws have changed over the past decade in many ways to point out that it is not okay to discriminate in this fashion.

Bravo for your "ethics," you should write a book. You could title it, "The Ethics of a Double-Standard State."

I hate to break this to you, but if your arguments are going to be based on eliminating all double-standards in american society, you are going to experience a great deal of disappointment.

It simply isn't how the world works, and none of what you posted provides any type of compelling argument for why a man should be able to override a woman's right to consent to and choose to have an abortion.

Child support/deadbeat dad laws are unfortunate, but two wrongs certainly do not make a right.

Peace,

V-03

 

The situation inherently has a double standard simply because men and women are different. Nature has (or God made nature such that) the two genders unequal when it comes to reproducing. The only question now is what to do about it?

We are not all equal, this is not even a case where people can be if they try. Should we acknowledge that fact, or should we pretend that it does not matter?

There is no way (that I can think of) where this situation can even come close to being 'fair' (and I am sure nature gives a rats *** about the fairness of anything). A man may want to help his pregnant other as much as he can, spread the burden(?) of pregnancy, but in the end, he can never do what the woman is doing. In the end, it is impossible to go through the experience equally as the mother to be.

Our laws and social rules are just trying to make the best out of an unequal situation, and I doubt they could ever fully succeed.

 

Moriarte, DM, I am all for equal rights. ANd I think Vader has aptly described the situation.

As far as the child is concerned, both parents have EQUal RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. However, when it is a fetus living inside a person, only person who has the rights and responsibility to determine whether they will carry the child to term is the person who has to carry the child to term.

The are totally different things. You can't compare the man's financial responsibility to the womans because the woman has the same financial responsibility.

 

PPOR that the father has equal rights as the mother does in terms of parenthood choice, OWM.

V03 plainly elaborated on the double-standard:

I fully believe that men should not be forced to take financial responsibility for an unwanted child, and the fact that laws such as this exist are a double-standard, but this still, in my view, does not abrogate the woman's sole right to choose.

The father should have the same choice not to accept parental responsibility that the mother has.

 

But its not the same because it's not like the man can have the baby live in his body.

For the woman, getting pregnant means there is no easy choice. Why should the man get an easy choice?

A woman can't abandon the child once its born, she has a legal responsibility for that child, as does the man. How is unequal?

 

A woman very much can "abandon" the child after it's born; she can give the child up for adoption. Her legal responsibility very well can end through abortion or through adoption. That is why I think that men should also have the chance to walk out. However, in the case of abortion or adoption, the woman would have no further rights to the child; likewise, a man who chooses to relinquish guardianship would not be able to take it back, under the idea that I and others have supported. Allowing him to have nothing to do with the child is fair. It leaves the ultimate decision for abortion, adoption, or keeping the child with the woman, who carries it; it also gives the man the right to choose for himself whether he wants to be a parent or not.

To force him to financially support a child without his consent, when the woman could have chosen to give the child up and thus had the option of not providing this support herself, is unfair. Giving him the opportunity to say "no", AFTER providing 50% of medical costs, evens the situation as much as is reasonably possible. The situation of a pregnancy can never be completely equal because it is biologically unequal, but this is very close.

As far as getting a vasectomy, or for a woman, tubal ligation or a hysterectomy, this is impractical. Future childbearing aside, many medical professionals refuse to perform these surgeries on patients without children and/or below a certain age. That's a rant for another day, but if you're in your, say, mid-20s and have no children, few surgeons will perform a vasectomy and I have yet to find ONE that will perform a hysterectomy for any reason other than to save life, though there probably are a few.

 

"Shall I mention federal drug insurance coverage for Viagra and not birth control, even though contraception has health benefits far beyond preventing unwanted pregnancy?"

Viagra is meant to cure erectile[sic] dysfunction which makes it perfectly qualified to fall under FDI. Sex, on the other hand, is for the most part an act of choice and birth control is meant to prevent a couple from being burdened with the natural consequences of intercourse. A better comparison would be to contrast Viagra with a variant for women...something called Intrinsa or Niagra, I believe. Despite, the "female Viagra" would fall under FDI as well.

"Your example of a draft doesn't really fit, since women serve nowadays in a far greater capacity than the last time a draft existed. Societal mores regarding women in the military have changed significantly in the past 30 years, and I have to wonder whether or not a draft today would truly exclude women."

You missed the point entirely. I used this as an example to show the danger of your "justifiable double-standards" based on gender. I was pointing out how the Draft is sexist against men, partly through societal standards, yes, that is implied, but also because men are physically better suited towards combat situations anyways. So why stop at pregnancy? It should be perfectly acceptable to maintain sexism in this fashion too, according to your system. Even though there are women in the military, they are highly discouraged from being placed in direct-combat roles despite. If a draft were to take place in the future, the Government would be hard pressed to do so with women because women don't have Draft cards (they might be able to get them if they chose, I believe) and not to mention the "moral" outrage at sending our daughters to die, lack of mothers for children, emotional support of the family, etc.

"I hate to break this to you, but if your arguments are going to be based on eliminating all double-standards in american society, you are going to experience a great deal of disappointment."

I hate to break this to you, but if I have to compromise my principles and live a hypocrite then I want no part of the world you want to create. It's your kind of complacency at not finding an adequate solution that keeps this garbage alive.

"It simply isn't how the world works, and none of what you posted provides any type of compelling argument for why a man should be able to override a woman's right to consent to and choose to have an abortion."

I'm sure people used to say the same thing about women and the military-'only men should fight in wars, that's the way the world works, look at history, when have women served in war and proven themselves capable of combat.' .

Furthermore, I never argued for men's rights to override women's, but that women's rights should not override men. Do not put words in my mouth, V3.

"Child support/deadbeat dad laws are unfortunate, but two wrongs certainly do not make a right."

Yet yours do.


Ciou-See the Sig

 

Welcome back, Moriate. You've changed your icon...

E_S

 

Should mothers have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?
Yes.

Should mothers have the right to kick the father out of the child's life?

I would say no. You can't force them to marry the father, but parental rights have as much to do with being a biological parent as with bearing the child.

Should a mother, having denied the father any right to be part of a child's life, still be able to collect child support?

No. Tax-funded child support takes money from our pockets, and why should the father have to shoulder that responsibility when he's been denied his right as a father? If you want to be rid of the father, you lose baby (figuratively speaking) and bathwater.

Then we come to "fetus endangerment" laws. Is the right to an abortion based on whether the fetus is recognized as alive, or on the fact that it's the woman's body? I have to say the former for this to be consistent. If it's the latter, then we can overlook life for the sake of a woman's choice. If it's the former, it's because a certain stage of development predates life as we know it. I read--though in an editorial, not directly--about a man and woman who conspired together to kill the woman's unborn child, whild the man had fathered. He was prosecuted for fetus endangerment, while she could not be, because of her legal right to an abortion. That's a double standard: if a man does it, it's murder, if a woman does it she was excercising a constitutional right. How can I be guilty of murdering a baby that the mother was perfectly within her rights to abort at that same point in time?

 

I don't know, its illegal to practice medicine without a license...

 

Moriarte, I don't want to "create" anything.

I am simply pointing out the situation as it exists. You are the one who wants to eliminate hypocrisy in a way that simply isn't possible.

Yes, the double standard is unfortunate, but it's there, and there is simply no equity between the risk of dying from a pregnancy and/or childbirth and the risk of having to shell out big bucks for the next 18 years. It sucks for the father, but it can't kill.

Yes, this is hypocritical in a purely defined sense of the word. Yes, it is logically unfair. But it can't easily be changed. This is a perfect example of where logic and the real world sometimes just don't jive.

Another perfect example: the anti-abortion lobby equates termination of pregnancy with legal murder, yet no anti-abortion law has ever prosecuted women for seeking one. It's first degree murder, folks, with death for the planner and life without parole for the triggerman.

Or is it? Even the federal late-term ban which the supreme court invalidated recently would have provided a maximum penalty of 2 years in a federal penitentiary for the physician, and nothing for the mother.

I would hardly call that murder, would you? The fact is, prosecuting abortion as a capital crime would so rapidly result in the unelection of whomever supported it their heads would spin.

Your arguments make sense from a purely mathematical standpoint, but they just don't fit the real world. What you propose would never be tolerated.

It's just one of those things.

Peace,

V-03

 

V03, you're making it sound like with getting pregnant there is a good likelihood that the result can be fatal. You're also insinuating that abortion is as it is because pregnancy can kill the mother, yet another falsehood.

Abortion exists as a legal right for convenience and 'privacy right' to the mother to rid herself of an unwanted pregnancy, not because she's afraid she could die for it. The vast majority of abortions are done as a sort of contreceptive method, and you and I both know this to be the case.

So, at least be honest about it. Roe was argued to allow women to choose to terminate an unwanted prengancy, not save them from a dangerous one.

Yes, there is a chance for harm to come to the mother, and abortion (and D&C) procedures also carry inherent risk.

Women are able to duck the responsibilities of parenting if they so choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy: not out of the risk: but because the woman isn't ready to have children.

So, a man should also have the right to 'abort' his responsibility as a father, just as a mother has the same convenience choice.

 

Yes. As long as he does it legally and within writing as early in the pregnancy as possible.

Sounds harsh and 'cruel' to women who choose to carry a pregnacy to term even after they have been legally informed (signed off and everything) but having a child or an abortion shouldn't be something done on a whim.

Note I ALSO believe that a man should go through the same legal counceling ect ect as a woman before he is allowed to 'sign off'.

Will it cause headaches? Yep. Will it give men a 'free pass' to go off and make babies and run out? No - especially as there should be a 'three strikes' limit - three 'strikes' and you get a chemical snip.

Harsh? Hell yes. Impossible to enforce? Most likely.

But I'm of the opinion that people should have parenting licenses anyway

But seriously, I don't think abortion should be used as 'regular birth control' - it sickens me. Condom's break, BC can fail, and other stuff happens (non consensual sex, drunk sex, stupid sex) The 'morning after pill' (which I know is a form of 'abortion' but taken properly, it's well before the fetus is even remotely viable) should remain an alternative -
and much as it horrifies me personally, Abortion itself is still ultimately a woman's choice - but it should never be 'instant gratification' after a few months of deiberation...

*sigh*

 

-That is catagorically false. That's the whole point of Roe, that its not the governments place to be making these kinds of decisions, that this is the kind of decision that a woman should be allowed to make on her own.

 

V03, you're making it sound like with getting pregnant there is a good likelihood that the result can be fatal. You're also insinuating that abortion is as it is because pregnancy can kill the mother, yet another falsehood.

I have to respectfully disagree, DM. Whilst true that complicated pregnancies are the exception in western countries (rather than the rule), I have seen a great deal of morbidity and even mortality in my time as a resident in anesthesiology in dealing with pregnant patients.

I'm not trying to argue the "convenience" of abortion per se, but only to clarify whether or not the existence of risk is justification for granting maternal choice. I believe that it is. I also believe that it is not absolute, which is why I feel that as a pregnancy advances, the right to choose an elective abortion should be subject to regulation and eventually prohibition.

However, even if pregnancy were risk-free, I would still support a woman's right to choose. It's her body, and her decision. I have never pretended that I felt otherwise. Using your argument, a woman would only be allowed to terminate a pregnancy that posed a danger to her life, and I simply find that reasoning unacceptable. There is no moral difference in my mind between forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will and forcibly removing an organ from someone to preserve the life of another.

While I understand your aversion to using risk as the basis for an argument, it has been enough of a concern for most laws regulating abortion, either in practice or in the realm of obtaining consent, to allow health and life exceptions where the mother is concerned. This comes from a baseline understanding that as a patient, the "mother comes first". This is accepted medical practice and attempts to erect standards to the contrary have met considerable resistance from physicians. Laws that do not grant such exceptions have been almost universally struck down (admittedly for various reasons, not the least of which is preserving physician autonomy in patient decision-making).

The take-home message is that while yes, most abortions done early are for elective reasons, one cannot ignore risk, and it remains a solid justification for allowing personal choice even in the face of an as-of-yet uncomplicated pregnancy.

Peace,

V-03

 

The 'morning after pill' (which I know is a form of 'abortion' but taken properly, it's well before the fetus is even remotely viable) should remain an alternative -

Just a note-

The "morning-after pill", or "Plan B", as it is known, is not an abortion pill.

It prevents pregnancy, and therefore is a contraceptive. Although this has sparked religious debate, medical convention remains that a pregnancy begins with implantation, not conception.

The "true" abortion pill, RU-486, works by an entirely different mechanism.

Peace,

V-03

 

that this is the kind of decision that a woman should be allowed to make on her own.

It's just as I said it, OWM, and just as you posted here.

It was based upon a woman's 'right to privacy' to decide to choose to terminate her pregnancy. It wasn't simply a case for medical necessity, but a case for convenience to the mother. It was argued that the woman had the right to the procedure without the government interfering in her 'choice' to carry a pregnancy to term.

So, this inane nonsense about abortion existing because of health reasons (danger to the mother) is dishonest positioning.

It exists because women wanted the right to get rid of a pregnancy they didn't want and 'were not ready for' while also not having to go to the 'back alley'. Instead of the legislative process, they used favorable courts to have the right given to them.

 

No, you are incorrectly framing the decision. It wasn't to ensure convenience, it was to ensure a constitutional right.

The government couldn't make a law in this area, the people have a right to be free from such legislation in certain circumstances.

You are confusing the legal rationale for what you believe to be the practical effect.

It's like saying free speech and free expression rights that prevent certain laws from being enacted are for the "convenience" of the speaker to be able to express himself/herself. The idea is that the government, most usually through the legislature, has no right to trample on rights conferred by the constitution.

You want to argue right to privacy doesn't exist, lets go to the privacy thread.

 

Tell me, what's the difference between allowing a man to say "no" to a woman having an abortion and telling her whether or not she can have surgery for breast cancer, or vice versa?

The conversation seems to have moved past this, but I thought I should point out the two situations are entirely different since men play no part in giving women breast cancer. And surgery for breast cancer isn't like having an abortion because in the case of cancer, you're not removing a life, just some tissue that's turned rotten.

I say men should have a right to know about their partner's desire to have an abortion. It's his kid, too.